Members of Christian Militia Arrested

Pages

Links: here and here.

Here are the charges:
- Plotting to kill a Michigan law enforcement officer and then attack other police at the funeral.
- Seditious conspiracy.
- Attempted use of weapons of mass destruction.
- Teaching the use of explosive materials.
- Possessing a firearm during a crime of violence.

The group isn't preaching much new. The usual fundamentalist Christian, end-of-days, anti-government stuff. Also not new, they aren't being labeled as terrorists in the media. I'm not going to rail on the glib, "it's because they're Christian" angle. I don't think it's that simple. I don't think it could be that simple. Which isn't to say that their religion - or more specifically, their lack of the "right" religion - isn't part of it.

We can't tie these guys to Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or Hamas, or Hezbollah, or any of the other Islamic villains du jour. We can't use them to justify our war "over there" so that we do not need to fight them "over here." They get to be a militia rather than terrorists not because Christians are too good to be terrorists, but because a non-Muslim terrorist organization undermines the war.

This isn't to cry racism, or if you don't consider a religion to be a race then whatever word you might use to express the hatred of a religion. It does pull back the curtain from the "Global War on Terror" a little, though. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight the terrorists, so it goes to reason that if someone has no ties to the people we're fighting, they must not be a terrorist, right? Even though we're technically fighting against an insurgency. At least, so it goes in the wonderful world of wartime propaganda.

How do we reconcile this stubborn ignorance of the homegrown threat with this expensive, endless war against the foreign one? Is the "War on Terror" just our blanket excuse while we maintain a holding pattern and try to figure out what to do next? Is the war itself more important than its goal?

Or am I overthinking this? Is my faith misplaced? Is it really the case that the only difference between a fundamentalist militia and a terrorist organization is that the militia accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and personal savior?

Violent extremists have gone mainstream. They're called the Tea Party Movement. And it looks like more than a few elected officials are pandering to them.

Look, this is why I need to be a gun owner. Untile we outlaw stupid and crazy, I have legitimate fears.

On a serious side, though that was not much of a joke. Michigan is familiar with sepratist terrorists. And once in awhile they stop talking crazy and start acting.

Tim McVeigh "trained" with a Michigan militia group. And these groups are an unfortunate price we pay for America's frontier spirit. Personally, I think the price is worth it.

Paleocon wrote:

Violent extremists have gone mainstream. They're called the Tea Party Movement. And it looks like more than a few elected officials are pandering to them.

it's a rare day when I defend Tea Partiers, but this is a brush a little too broad even for me. There are extremist elements in the Tea Party, but I don't think comparing their group as a whole to a terrorist cell intent on killing law enforcement agents because they represent the New World Order is any more fair than calling me a PETA member because I donate to the SPCA.

I had this conversation with Robear over the weekend. My own take on the whole militia/Teabagger movement is that they are a bunch of limpdicked cowards who are pissed that they didn't get to enjoy the getting when the getting was good (pre-Civil Rights Movement). They talk a big, nasty, violent game and might throw a brick every once in a while, but stand up to them and they crumble like the cowards that they are. Trust me. If they get a visit from the FPS or FBI, they piss their pants.

Paleocon wrote:

I had this conversation with Robear over the weekend. My own take on the whole militia/Teabagger movement is that they are a bunch of limpdicked cowards who are pissed that they didn't get to enjoy the getting when the getting was good (pre-Civil Rights Movement). They talk a big, nasty, violent game and might throw a brick every once in a while, but stand up to them and they crumble like the cowards that they are. Trust me. If they get a visit from the FPS or FBI, they piss their pants.

Hopefully true. In fact, let's see that tested.

Paleocon wrote:

Violent extremists have gone mainstream. They're called the Tea Party Movement.

Somebody needs to draw Paleo a Venn diagram. Good Lord.

Paleocon wrote:

I had this conversation with Robear over the weekend. My own take on the whole militia/Teabagger movement is that they are a bunch of limpdicked cowards who are pissed that they didn't get to enjoy the getting when the getting was good (pre-Civil Rights Movement). They talk a big, nasty, violent game and might throw a brick every once in a while, but stand up to them and they crumble like the cowards that they are. Trust me. If they get a visit from the FPS or FBI, they piss their pants.

I agree, and pretty wholeheartedly.

What worries me is that while the Tea Partiers may be mostly just bluster, they DO serve as encouragement for actual terrorists like Hutaree.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Or am I overthinking this? Is my faith misplaced? Is it really the case that the only difference between a fundamentalist militia and a terrorist organization is that the militia accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and personal savior?

You're over thinking this. These militia guys are "us". The bad part of "us" to be sure, the part we wish we could pretend wasn't around, but "us" nonetheless. Terrorists are "them".

When Teabaggers are spitting on lawmakers, calling them "n*gger" and "f*ggot" and friendly lawmakers are encouraging them to "beat them to a pulp", you have something qualitatively different from a legitimate political party. When they start throwing bricks through political office buildings, they've gone well past the level of legitimate political protest. When they carry loaded rifles into peaceful demonstrations in attempts to intimidate folks from expressing their political opinions, they aren't a force in American politics we should tolerate.

These are limpdicked cowards.

KingGorilla wrote:

And these groups are an unfortunate price we pay for America's frontier spirit. Personally, I think the price is worth it.

The 'frontier' closed about 120 years ago and it wasn't exactly filled with events to be proud of (Indians, anyone?). It's certainly not an idea that's worth having Americans kill Americans.

Teneman wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Or am I overthinking this? Is my faith misplaced? Is it really the case that the only difference between a fundamentalist militia and a terrorist organization is that the militia accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and personal savior?

You're over thinking this. These militia guys are "us". The bad part of "us" to be sure, the part we wish we could pretend wasn't around, but "us" nonetheless. Terrorists are "them".

No. Lobster's right. They get a pass on the terrorist train because they are white and Christian even though their plans were to call 911, ambush and kill the police that responded, and then use IEDs at their funerals.

OG_slinger wrote:

No. Lobster's right. They get a pass on the terrorist train because they are white and Christian even though their plans were to call 911, ambush and kill the police that responded, and then use IEDs at their funerals.

I just read that through. CRAZY! How did they catch them, I wonder?

Heavily-armed Christian crazies are nothing new. David Koresh, anyone? Ruby Ridge? There's nothing particular different or shocking about this particular brand of nutbags; they're just bubbling up to the surface at the moment.

Dirt wrote:

Well, hell. A group of white Christians plot to kill a police officer and it makes national news. But when a Latino gang tries to kill police officers here in SoCal, it only makes the local news.

I think that is largely for the same reason that they don't report it when a white meth dealer tries to kill a cop. It is one thing to be a criminal enterprise trying to kill a cop. It's an entirely different thing when it is a political movement that wishes to destroy the government and install a theocracy.

Well, hell. A group of white Christians plot to kill a police officer and it makes national news. But when a motorcycle gang tries to kill police officers here in SoCal, nobody pays attention.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...

My mistake. It's not a Latino only gang. It's a motorcycle gang.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Also not new, they aren't being labeled as terrorists in the media. I'm not going to rail on the glib, "it's because they're Christian" angle. I don't think it's that simple. I don't think it could be that simple. Which isn't to say that their religion - or more specifically, their lack of the "right" religion - isn't part of it.

We can't tie these guys to Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or Hamas, or Hezbollah, or any of the other Islamic villains du jour. We can't use them to justify our war "over there" so that we do not need to fight them "over here." They get to be a militia rather than terrorists not because Christians are too good to be terrorists, but because a non-Muslim terrorist organization undermines the war.

Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground weren't connected to the Islamic villians du jour, but that didn't stop Sarah Palin from saying that Obama goes "palling around with terrorists" so I do think it's that their identity makes them 'too good to be terrorists.'

OG_slinger wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

And these groups are an unfortunate price we pay for America's frontier spirit. Personally, I think the price is worth it.

The 'frontier' closed about 120 years ago and it wasn't exactly filled with events to be proud of (Indians, anyone?). It's certainly not an idea that's worth having Americans kill Americans.

I do wonder how much we confuse our 'frontier spirit' with our 'Enlightenment spirit' as far as explaining the good things about America.

Dirt wrote:

Well, hell. A group of white Christians plot to kill a police officer and it makes national news. But when a motorcycle gang tries to kill police officers here in SoCal, nobody pays attention.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...

Paleocon wrote:
Dirt wrote:

Well, hell. A group of white Christians plot to kill a police officer and it makes national news. But when a Latino gang tries to kill police officers here in SoCal, it only makes the local news.

I think that is largely for the same reason that they don't report it when a white meth dealer tries to kill a cop. It is one thing to be a criminal enterprise trying to kill a cop. It's an entirely different thing when it is a political movement that wishes to destroy the government and install a theocracy.

That and the fact that Hemet is in the heart of darkest Riverside County, officially making it closer to Bumf*ck, Egypt than a city anyone cares about.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground weren't connected to the Islamic villians du jour, but that didn't stop Sarah Palin from saying that Obama goes "palling around with terrorists" so I do think it's that their identity makes them 'too good to be terrorists.'

Let's not confuse that for anything more than it was. If Palin had proof that Obama had the sniffles when he shook hands with a foreign leader she'd accuse him of a pre-emptive biological warfare strike at the leader of a sovereign nation. The fact that she refers to Bill Ayers in the plural should illustrate that.

Could it be that most people view terrorism as inextricably linked with attacks on civilians?

OG_slinger wrote:
Dirt wrote:

Well, hell. A group of white Christians plot to kill a police officer and it makes national news. But when a motorcycle gang tries to kill police officers here in SoCal, nobody pays attention.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...

Paleocon wrote:
Dirt wrote:

Well, hell. A group of white Christians plot to kill a police officer and it makes national news. But when a Latino gang tries to kill police officers here in SoCal, it only makes the local news.

I think that is largely for the same reason that they don't report it when a white meth dealer tries to kill a cop. It is one thing to be a criminal enterprise trying to kill a cop. It's an entirely different thing when it is a political movement that wishes to destroy the government and install a theocracy.

That and the fact that Hemet is in the heart of darkest Riverside County, officially making it closer to Bumf*ck, Egypt than a city anyone cares about.

A buddy of mine has a house out in rural East Tennessee and says that the meth gangs out that way pretty much rule. The local sheriff of his town tried to take care of business, but they shot the hell out of the front of his house with machineguns while he and his wife were asleep. The next day, the TBI took him and his wife into protective custody.

The meth gangs still rule there.

They're probably being propped up by the San Fernando Valley.

"I am over whelmed with gratitude at the power of who you are and what you are willing to do... If I was going to start a new country, I'd do it with you folks right here who have been with us the last few days. Lets hope we don't have to do that. Let's beat the other side to a pulp. Lets take them out, lets chase them down. There's going to be a reckoning!"

So, the gist I get is to encourage them to keep acting recklessly to even further extreme lengths. Then we should encourage separatist sentiment by leaving the option of starting a new country on the table. Then we should express hope that we may not have to do that because the alternative is to engage in a violent witch hunt, yay! We will be able to justify any of our contemptible, out of control actions because we are the righteous!

This guy is not talking in metaphors...

fangblackbone wrote:

"I am over whelmed with gratitude at the power of who you are and what you are willing to do... If I was going to start a new country, I'd do it with you folks right here who have been with us the last few days. Lets hope we don't have to do that. Let's beat the other side to a pulp. Lets take them out, lets chase them down. There's going to be a reckoning!"

So, the gist I get is to encourage them to keep acting recklessly to even further extreme lengths. Then we should encourage separatist sentiment by leaving the option of starting a new country on the table. Then we should express hope that we may not have to do that because the alternative is to engage in a violent witch hunt, yay! We will be able to justify any of our contemptible, out of control actions because we are the righteous!

This guy is not talking in metaphors...

Yup. It is hard to come up with proper historical parallels for the Teabaggers without going to the late 1930's and places like Germany, Spain, or Italy.

IMAGE(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4458926125_355ac52973_o.jpg)

You mean Palin wasn't talking about hitting F5?

OG_slinger wrote:

You mean Palin wasn't talking about hitting F5?

McCain explained that using military parlance is par for the course when referring to political objectives while Palin has said using shooting analogies is perfectly fine for talking about sports but that the Democrats thinks it's not "politically correct" to do so when talking about their party. Interesting.

Kehama wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

You mean Palin wasn't talking about hitting F5?

McCain explained that using military parlance is par for the course when referring to political objectives while Palin has said using shooting analogies is perfectly fine for talking about sports but that the Democrats thinks it's not "politically correct" to do so when talking about their party. Interesting.

Hmm. So it is okay to talk metaphorically about committing political murder, but not about "retards". Got it.

Irresponsible use of language is so retarded.

Time to lock and load and 'round up Palin.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Could it be that most people view terrorism as inextricably linked with attacks on civilians?

Not judging from US reactions to the USS Cole bombing. That was declared a terrorist attack. Oh, right... those were muslims though.

Farscry wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Could it be that most people view terrorism as inextricably linked with attacks on civilians?

Not judging from US reactions to the USS Cole bombing. That was declared a terrorist attack. Oh, right... those were muslims though.

I would say a broader definition of "terrorism" would be "attacks on civilians" or "attacks BY civilians".

Farscry wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Could it be that most people view terrorism as inextricably linked with attacks on civilians?

Not judging from US reactions to the USS Cole bombing. That was declared a terrorist attack. Oh, right... those were muslims though.

Not to mention that, at least when it comes to the definition of combatants, police ARE civilians.

Pages