Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

whowhatwhy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

#131

Post by malandrew »

smsm42 wrote: post #70
zanny wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorist is todays communist, or yesteryears fascist, eugenicist, jap, negro, etc. Blanket arbitrary term to apply to dissenters you want to control and treat inhumanely, and society doesn't judge you for it because they are the "enemy" or "other". It incites an emotional response in people that let those holding the pen get away with way more than they should.

There's a pretty big gap between dissent and blowing people up on the streets. So let's not engage in false equivalency.

Considering that many people in these services apply the term terrorist to a lot more people and groups than Al Quaida, I really don't think it's a false equivalency.

The "War on Terror" is absurd because it's stateless and doesn't describe any one single group of people. It's a war on a very loose set of behaviors.

The average person thinks "War on Terror" and they support it because they have the people who brought down the Twin Towers in mind. Whereas people in the NSA, CIA, FBI, police stations across the country, etc, are thinking Occupy Wall Street, PETA, etc.

Re: FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

#132

Post by malandrew »

alan_cx wrote: post #88
smsm42 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments can lie. But terrorist is not an arbitrary term to stifle dissent - it is a specific and identifiable tactic used to achieve certain goals. If somebody says black is white, it doesn't mean black and white are arbitrary labels that can be applied to anything. That's the false dichotomy that is offered to us.

Terrorist is an arbitrary term used to stifle dissent and demonide an opposition. One could use the term "freedom fighter" in it place and suddenly it has a whole new moral meaning. We Brits know this well, as we referred to the IRA terrorists, while many Americans and Irish called them freedom fighters, while funding them. Perhaps consider this when Nelson Mandela dies. A man who for years was considered a terrorist…

Exactly. This country was founded by terrorists.

    "The first recorded incident in America occurred in 1766: 
    Captain William Smith was tarred, feathered, and dumped 
    into the harbor of Norfolk, Virginia, by a mob that 
    included the town's Mayor."[0]
Claims of US perpetrated terrorism aren't even limited to the founding of the country. Take the downing of Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 and the Contras in Nicaragua for example[5]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspée_Affair

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviación_Flight_455

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

Re: FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

#133

Post by samscully »

moomin wrote: post #87
samscully wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortion of a foetus with an identifiable disability is considered acceptable today by many people, which is similar in spirit if not in practice to eugenics.

I'm sorry, but no. There's no equivalence in spirit between a crying mother deciding that it's in the best interests of her family to terminate a pregnancy and a bunch of scary-eyed fanatics trying to make humanity "better". I'm assuming you've never known anyone go through that. It's a personal tragedy, not an intellectual issue.

I apologise, my comment was far too cold towards people who have been presented with that very distressing choice, I should have thought more carefully about it before posting.

Re: FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

#135

Post by tptacek »

grey-area wrote: post #96
anigbrowl wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You have a second-hand, uncorroborated report that someone within the FBI and/or DHS referred to the Occupy movement as terrorists, with no context whatsoever. First, without context or a link to the source the report is meaningless. The documents that are cited in this report make no such characterization. Second, these two organizations are huge. It's entirely possible that someon in the FBI wrote a report desc…

It's entirely possible that someon in the FBI wrote a report describing the Occupy folks as potential terrorists - I can easily believe that occurred. That's not the same as the entire organization or even its leadership holding that position. I agree that this is not something to be outraged about, but it is something to be watchful of and to be called out - government agencies should not refer to peaceful or even v…

The US military has a plan to invade Canada:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12...

Somehow, Canada seems to manage not to hyperventilate about it.

Re: FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

#136

Post by tptacek »

jackbravo wrote: post #117
jasonlotito wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> government agencies should not refer to peaceful or even violent protesters as terrorists You mean "potential terrorists." And, I for one am fine with people in government speculating and planning. There is a vast difference in research and study, speculation and planning. After all, all it would take is a few OWS people to go blow up a bank or something to escalate the entire matter. Sure, it's just a few members,…

Wait what? Hope that the government has plans to invade Canada? Maybe you meant defend from Canada, Prevent war with Canada, nullify Canada Army. But invade? I sure hope they don't have plans for that.

It's funny, I read the first part of Jason's comment, thought to myself "not only does the government plan, but they plan so much that they even have a plan to invade Canada", found the link, and posted it upthread". I didn't even notice him considering later on in the comment whether we did.

We do indeed have a plan to invade Canada. We've had it since the 1920s.

Re: FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

#137

Post by anigbrowl »

calibraxis wrote: post #99
anigbrowl wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Governments are neither homogenous nor monolithic. Saying 'Governments do X' is like saying 'corporations are at the root of all our problems.' Reason along those lines, and pretty soon the only rational choice is to become a hermit and avoid society entirely. After all, society is made up of people, and people are well-known to engage in murder, rape, robbery, etc. etc. Therefore, people are the problem.

It's clearly useful to describe a structure independently from its consitutent atoms. Anyone who doesn't do so is virtually unable to communicate. Social structures do things, and are amenable to institutional analysis. This allows us to act without omniscience. Institutional analysis allows one to analyze institutions independently of individuals; replace all the people, and you may nevertheless expect similar outco…

I wholly agree, but surely you've noticed that many people take the observation that 'some governments sometimes do things' to mean that 'all governments inevitably do those things,' which is plainly untrue.

Re: FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

#138

Post by anigbrowl »

grwkmewrlemw wrote: post #84
anigbrowl wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Governments are neither homogenous nor monolithic. Saying 'Governments do X' is like saying 'corporations are at the root of all our problems.' Reason along those lines, and pretty soon the only rational choice is to become a hermit and avoid society entirely. After all, society is made up of people, and people are well-known to engage in murder, rape, robbery, etc. etc. Therefore, people are the problem.

If someone is engaging in murder, rape or robbery, it would make sense to call attention to this fact, and then perhaps do something about it, wouldn't it? Parts of the US government are CURRENTLY misusing the word "terrorist" as a very broad label. This is very dangerous for the reasons discussed above. It's important to call attention to this problem if we have any hope of halting it.

Yes - you call attention to the specific person engaging in those acts. When you overlook that requirement of specificity, you end up accusing people based on their membership in a class, eg 'all gypsies are thieves, X is a gypsy, therefore X is a thief.'

So saying 'the US government is doing X, and I think it's acting illegally because Y' - fine. But 'the US government is doing X and this will end badly because governments always oppress citizens' (an argument that has appeared here a lot lately) isn't fine, because it rests on a false premise.

Re: FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

#139

Post by jasonlotito »

jackbravo wrote: post #117
jasonlotito wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> government agencies should not refer to peaceful or even violent protesters as terrorists You mean "potential terrorists." And, I for one am fine with people in government speculating and planning. There is a vast difference in research and study, speculation and planning. After all, all it would take is a few OWS people to go blow up a bank or something to escalate the entire matter. Sure, it's just a few members,…

Wait what? Hope that the government has plans to invade Canada? Maybe you meant defend from Canada, Prevent war with Canada, nullify Canada Army. But invade? I sure hope they don't have plans for that.

> Hope that the government has plans to invade Canada?

My wife is Canadian. My children are Canadian. I live there for 10 years. I'm not hoping that the government is planning to invade Canada. However, I hope they've planned it out, just in case.

Maybe that "in case" is a part of defending ourselves, or nullifying an aggressive act.

No, I don't hope they have active plans to invade Canada. However, if we needed to enter Canada to stop something bad from happening, I hope they wouldn't be making things up on the spot.

Re: FBI Document: [DELETED] had "plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire"

#140

Post by jasonlotito »

tptacek wrote: post #136
jackbravo wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait what? Hope that the government has plans to invade Canada? Maybe you meant defend from Canada, Prevent war with Canada, nullify Canada Army. But invade? I sure hope they don't have plans for that.

It's funny, I read the first part of Jason's comment, thought to myself "not only does the government plan, but they plan so much that they even have a plan to invade Canada", found the link, and posted it upthread". I didn't even notice him considering later on in the comment whether we did. We do indeed have a plan to invade Canada. We've had it since the 1920s.

I know we have plans for Canada (It's one of those humorous things you hear about as an American living in Canada). Canada isn't even the point. It's that we have plans just in case we need them. Planning doesn't mean you expect things to happen.

So yes. The Government should plan, and I'd be disturbed if they didn't.

Post reply on HN