Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lots of things that could be easily taken out of context, sure, and a fair number of things that are just plain inappropriate - but you could say the same for any community. What kind of ridiculous copium is this? i'm sure the quilting community says all sorts of terrible things that could be taken out of context. the difference is they don't have a long history of gun violence. ain't no one showed up and killed 20…
>the government, and arguably global economy, is under threat and you're doing what exactly with these guns? What do you suggest is done with the guns about that? You want us to kill over disagreement on economic policy?
Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
151–160 of 205 posts
Re: Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
The characterization of "informants" as being literal on the payroll feds is usually incorrect. They're usually genuine group members who are being manipulated by literal on the payroll feds. And you're missing a key feedback loop. The feds typically "create" an informant by digging up dirt on someone and blackmailing them into ratting on their buddies in exchange for non-prosecution. This informant then has a huge f…
hence my confusion at the sudden "left" outcry over the attacks on the FBI and CIA, two organizations they have been bemoaning for my entire life, and with good reason! Those organizations are responsible for some of the absolute worst behavior associated with American history, the most shameful of shameful episodes throughout the Americas were started by the CIA and FBI. I think the outcry is actually mostly media-o…
It seems entirely consistent that the people most alarmed about law enforcement and intelligence being handed over figures who are indicating they don’t intend to use it in a principled manner are critics who’ve seen how even less extreme more accountable people have used these roles poorly. The new team seems headed in a direction that might make poor past iterations look principled.
“Burn it all down” is good cover for people who want to selectively burn things down for their benefit (but not their things).
Re: Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quite a long answer overall that boils down to "No, it doesn't exist" :) It's not that simple. Leftists will discount what these groups did in 2020 but you're talking about a few dozen deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage. These groups are not "militias" in the way anyone would understand the term (namely, as an organized group training with firearms), but they are capable of terrorism at a…
> It's not that simple I know you seemingly don't want it to appear that simple, but it really is. Original question was regarding organized and armed anti-fascist/far-left movements and if there was any investigation into those. Since we aren't organized, hierarchical (by design) nor armed/militarized, like the far-right, investigations into those are harder and AFAIK, haven't happened as of today. If you have some…
And my reply was that the issue is not as simple as you are making it out to be. For example, since you have referred to these groups as "we," I could infer that you endorse the acts of terrorism linked to these groups. You would then probably say: "Wait, my it's not that simple, my position is more nuanced than that, despite agreeing with these people in principle I don't support all of their methods." If I replied: "I know you seemingly don't want it to appear to be that simple, but it really is. You support terrorism," you would rightly judge that I was being disingenuous.
> If you have some concrete evidence for those investigations existing and being published on the open internet, feel free to link those.
It's unlikely that there have been any such investigations since (like I said in my original post) these groups do not generally operate as militias. This does not indicate that these groups are not dangerous. You are trying to evade that issue by restricting the discussion to your original claim that "from the outside it seems like mostly people on the right are the ones running the militias over there" - which I never contested. When I said "It's not that simple," I was arguing that the idea that militias are an exclusively right-wing phenomenon (which is nearly true) would lead one to the erroneous conclusion that politically-motivated violence is also an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. This isn't the case; to which end:
1) On May 28, 2020, Oscar Lee Stewart Jr. is trapped and burns to death in a pawn shop set on fire in Minneapolis during the George Floyd riots. This was one of approximately two hundred such fires set during the course of these riots.
2) On May 29, 2020, Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis (both lawyers) used a molotov cocktail to set fire to a police car in New York. [0]
3) On June 29, 2020, 16-year-old Antonio Mays Jr. was shot to death by a member of Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) security. 14-year-old Robert West was left in critical condition. The boys had allegedly carjacked an SUV somewhere outside of the zone and had driven it into the area in an attempt to avoid attracting the attention of law enforcement. [1] Some have speculated that Mays was shot by a member of the John Brown Gun Club (an antifascist armed leftist group) [2], but so far as I know, his killer has never been arrested, nor identified.
4) On July 28, 2020, Gabriel Agard-Berryhill set fire to the Mark O. Hatfield courthouse in Portland, Oregon using "an incendiary device." [3]
5) On December 17, 2021, Ellen Brennan Reiche was convicted of placing shunts on railroad tracks in Washington state "in protest of a natural gas pipeline through Indigenous land in British Columbia." [4]
As I was reading about Antonio Mays again, I also came across a Kansas-area group with ties to the John Brown Gun Club, which I had not been aware of: "Redneck Revolt" [5]. Of particular interest from its core principles: "We believe in the right of militant resistance. We believe in the need for revolution."
> Your language is also starting to become emotional and colorful enough for me (and others) to recognize that we're spilling into sharing anecdotal and personal experiences/beliefs, rather than talking hard concrete data and events.
If you don't want people to respond this way to you, you shouldn't ask disingenuous questions and respond to good faith comments with adolescent tripe like: Quite a long answer overall that boils down to "No, it doesn't exist" :). This kind of low-effort quipping isn't acceptable here.
[0] - https://nypost.com/2022/11/18/molotov-cocktail-tossing-urooj...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest#...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_John_Brown_Gun_Clu...
[3] - https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/portland-man-charged-july...
[4] - https://apnews.com/article/business-environment-and-nature-b...
Re: Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
The characterization of "informants" as being literal on the payroll feds is usually incorrect. They're usually genuine group members who are being manipulated by literal on the payroll feds. And you're missing a key feedback loop. The feds typically "create" an informant by digging up dirt on someone and blackmailing them into ratting on their buddies in exchange for non-prosecution. This informant then has a huge f…
I feel like it's worth noting that this is not a universal dynamic. Tim McVeigh didn't need a fed to turn into the kind of person who kills 168 people. I'm sure we're all aware of the way this occasional dynamic gets turned into an excuse for any radicial behavior: "must have been a false flag, must have been talked into it." Which, to be clear, you did not say -- but we see it often.
Re: Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The characterization of "informants" as being literal on the payroll feds is usually incorrect. They're usually genuine group members who are being manipulated by literal on the payroll feds. I never implied that they were. > a federal agency [...] influences them into becoming informants. It's quite common for the FBI to frame this as "helping to keep people safe"; leaders in groups like this are frequently easy t…
Turning leadership of an already radicalized organization is not what he means. New converts to a group who are actually informants will provoke an organization to radicalism. [0] https://www.npr.org/2011/08/21/139836377/the-surge-in-fbi-in...
Re: Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
>ain't no one showed up and killed 20 elementary kids with knitting needles. Plainly false. Though people who advocate gun control never pay attention, there have been many high-profile mass murders/attacks where people did attack with knives/swords/machetes, and these have comparable body counts. The UK is way ahead of you too, by the way. They've started to implement knife control, including orders for people to br…
> orders for people to bring in kitchen knives to have the tips blunted Can you link me to one of these? I googled and couldn't find anything, but am genuinely curious.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180528202625/https://www.indep...
Re: Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
The characterization of "informants" as being literal on the payroll feds is usually incorrect. They're usually genuine group members who are being manipulated by literal on the payroll feds. And you're missing a key feedback loop. The feds typically "create" an informant by digging up dirt on someone and blackmailing them into ratting on their buddies in exchange for non-prosecution. This informant then has a huge f…
I feel like it's worth noting that this is not a universal dynamic. Tim McVeigh didn't need a fed to turn into the kind of person who kills 168 people. I'm sure we're all aware of the way this occasional dynamic gets turned into an excuse for any radicial behavior: "must have been a false flag, must have been talked into it." Which, to be clear, you did not say -- but we see it often.
Re: Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like it's worth noting that this is not a universal dynamic. Tim McVeigh didn't need a fed to turn into the kind of person who kills 168 people. I'm sure we're all aware of the way this occasional dynamic gets turned into an excuse for any radicial behavior: "must have been a false flag, must have been talked into it." Which, to be clear, you did not say -- but we see it often.
Speaking of McVeigh, did they ever catch the second guy in the truck?
Re: Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I seem to remember a story of a mafia don who turned out to be an informant, which seems wild to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger
he was informant to cover his ass, and run to attempts to play all sides. slip the feds a little juice tidbit here or there and he gets to run his empire a few months longer. repeat over and over until the feds get smart.
I mean, it's not as though other mafiosi turn informant because they yearn for justice...
Re: Exploring the Paramilitary Leaks
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like it's worth noting that this is not a universal dynamic. Tim McVeigh didn't need a fed to turn into the kind of person who kills 168 people. I'm sure we're all aware of the way this occasional dynamic gets turned into an excuse for any radicial behavior: "must have been a false flag, must have been talked into it." Which, to be clear, you did not say -- but we see it often.
I think he did need a fed. Watching children burned alive at Waco (he was there), after which the seiging feds proudly posed for photos on their charred ruble, really got the ball rolling on his motivation. I'm not saying the feds told him to do it, but Ruby Ridge, Waco, and feds like Lon Horiuchi getting off scott free after sniping an innocent woman holding a child really radicalized him.