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

141–150 of 152 posts

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

#141

Post by anigbrowl »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #126
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…

>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. Here is the ~~100 page document obtained from the FBI through FOIA request detailing activities conducted by the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/549516-fbi-spy-files... Most items in the documents indicate that pe…

So here is your context. There is a large group of groups within State and local law enforcement agencies named "Joint Terrorism Task Force" (JTTF), which has money, and other resources; and a broad mandate and expanded authority, which spends its time spying on and policing what are obviously peaceful groups of citizens protesting social and political issues. It stores its reports in a database under a heading named "counterterrorism".

/Facepalm

Most of the documents in here consist of observations that OWS events were peaceful and harmless, or that where there was violence it was the exception and was rejected by most protestors.You're complaining about a JTTF coming to the conclusion that this or that OWS event is a false positive, because the JTTF has 'terrorism' in its name.

This is like arguing that doctors consider everyone to be sick because they are trained to be on the lookout for disease. I can't have a serious conversation with you if you think this way.

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

#142

Post by SilasX »

antiterra wrote: post #116
SilasX wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argument from emotion.

Swooping down to declare a fallacy then immediately swishing your cape and dashing away is highly unlikely to gain much social traction or admiration. Also, when arguing if something is in a particular spirit , it's appropriate to discuss emotions and principles.

It was just a brief way of saying, "All you've communicated is that the equation of the two doesn't feel right, without giving anyone a reason to deem your view more persuasive."

This is basically what happened:

A: That seems dangerously close to eugenics, in that it's weeding out people with bad genes.

B: Oh yeah? If you distorted your view by listening to crying moms who agree with me (and not similar weepers on the other side), you'd agree with me.

Me: Argument from emotion.

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

#143

Post by SilasX »

marianov wrote: post #118
moomin wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"terminate a pregnancy"? Is there a name for the practice of using more convoluted words so as no to make people focus on the real meaning of the sentence? You could have used "terminate the carrying developing offspring within the body, by terminating said offspring's capacity for metabolism, growth or reaction to stimuli". OTOH, you mention "a crying mother", which IMHO should be compared to the other tragedy: "an…

"You ever noticed how there are no abortion doctors, only 'reproductive health physicians'?" -> no comedian's routine

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

#144

Post by anigbrowl »

throwit1979 wrote: post #107
anigbrowl wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most likely candidate to me seems some fringe right-wing types flapping their mouths in an internet forum. I've heard plenty of people at that end of the spectrum averring that the Occupy movement was some sort of Marxist 5th column under orders from Obama, or variants on that theme. Right-wing fringe thinkers like to fantasize about putting their guns to patriotic use in much the same way that leftist fringe thi…

Right-wing fringe thinkers like to fantasize about putting their guns to patriotic use in much the same way that leftist fringe thinkers like to fantasize about general strikes and establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. And yet, the "establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat" in the history of communism's spread, without a single exception, has been accomplished at the barrel of a gun, with extr…

You mistake my meaning. I don't consider the leftist fringe particularly peaceful. There are militant ideologues at both ends of the political spectrum, and I despise them all.

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

#145

Post by grey-area »

anigbrowl wrote: post #141
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #126

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. Here is the ~~100 page document obtained from the FBI through FOIA request detailing activities conducted by the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/549516-fbi-spy-files... Most items in the documents indicate that pe…

So here is your context. There is a large group of groups within State and local law enforcement agencies named "Joint Terrorism Task Force" (JTTF), which has money, and other resources; and a broad mandate and expanded authority, which spends its time spying on and policing what are obviously peaceful groups of citizens protesting social and political issues. It stores its reports in a database under a heading named…

Though I'm not sure I agree that a counter terrorism task force should be in any way connected to investigating Occupy protests without credible and specific threats of real terrorism, here's an even better example of the misuse of powers against terrorists:

When defending the liberty of unsavory characters, I usually write of my native England. Not this week, alas. In the state of Texas, a 19-year-old man named Justin Carter sits in prison, ruthlessly stripped of his freedom for making an offensive joke. After a Facebook friend with whom he played video games described him as “crazy” and “messed up in the head,” Carter replied — sarcastically, one imagines — “Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.” He added “lol” and “jk” for good measure. For this he was arrested by Austin police, charged with making a “terroristic threat,” and thrown into prison. He may languish there until the start of the next decade. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352432/free-justin-car...

I imagine half the male population of the US could be jailed for making similar remarks at some stage in their life.

If you give police special powers against terrorists, gradually all suspects will be considered a terrorist, because it's just easier that way. Recently a 19 year old boy has been jailed for years for one sarcastic comment, in the name of fighting terror.

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

#146

Post by smsm42 »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #122
smsm42 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no actual preparations were made to execute the plan, it would be clear violation of the 1st amendment. What is the case of being locked up for fantasizing?

What is the case of being locked up for fantasizing? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5990666

Looks like some judge in Texas needs a lesson in First Amendment... And some guy needs a good lawyer that would destroy this crappy indictment.

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

#147

Post by smsm42 »

jcromartie wrote: post #105
smsm42 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One does not preclude the other. People who planned to shoot Occupy leaders might be terrorists - or not, depending on what they wanted to achieve by this shooting - terrorism is a tactic, relying on fear and intimidation for a political goal, so depending on if they wanted to intimidate Occupy protestors for a political goal or not they may or may not be terrorists. Some Occupy people could be potential terrorists t…

I see two potential explanations for why they didn't intervene: 1. The FBI does not see public assassination of Occupy participants itself as terrorism 2. The FBI does not see public assassination of Occupy participants by whoever was planning it as terrorism

3. The FBI did not consider these plans to be serious enough to lead to any actual action.

4. The FBI was watching whoever made these plans but since he did nothing it came to nothing.

etc. etc.

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

#148

Post by jcromartie »

smsm42 wrote: post #147
jcromartie wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see two potential explanations for why they didn't intervene: 1. The FBI does not see public assassination of Occupy participants itself as terrorism 2. The FBI does not see public assassination of Occupy participants by whoever was planning it as terrorism

3. The FBI did not consider these plans to be serious enough to lead to any actual action. 4. The FBI was watching whoever made these plans but since he did nothing it came to nothing. etc. etc.

But the FBI busts people for (Islamic, left-wing, etc.) terrorism when the plans aren't serious, or the FBI themselves will help the would-be terrorists come up with plans, money, supplies, etc..

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

#149

Post by smsm42 »

jcromartie wrote: post #148
smsm42 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3. The FBI did not consider these plans to be serious enough to lead to any actual action. 4. The FBI was watching whoever made these plans but since he did nothing it came to nothing. etc. etc.

But the FBI busts people for (Islamic, left-wing, etc.) terrorism when the plans aren't serious, or the FBI themselves will help the would-be terrorists come up with plans, money, supplies, etc..

I can't remember anybody busted for "left-wing terrorism" lately... As for Islamic, there's some reason to take them more seriously, given the recent history.

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

#150

Post by moomin »

SilasX wrote: post #142
antiterra wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swooping down to declare a fallacy then immediately swishing your cape and dashing away is highly unlikely to gain much social traction or admiration. Also, when arguing if something is in a particular spirit , it's appropriate to discuss emotions and principles.

It was just a brief way of saying, "All you've communicated is that the equation of the two doesn't feel right, without giving anyone a reason to deem your view more persuasive." This is basically what happened: A: That seems dangerously close to eugenics, in that it's weeding out people with bad genes. B: Oh yeah? If you distorted your view by listening to crying moms who agree with me (and not similar weepers on th…

Let's try something a little more intellectual: there's also the aspect that eugenics is an idea directed to the improvement of humanity (an idea I'm... suspicious of) and abortions are decision by individuals reflecting individual circumstance. I don't believe these decisions are made on the eugenics basis: that disabled people are somehow worse than other people.

Eugenics is relatively easy to judge: you can get all the facts. Individual decisions are always harder: you don't know the full circumstance. I'm not saying that their aren't abortions made for obscene reasons (terminating girls is an obvious example), but not all are.

Post reply on HN