Terrorist attack thwarted - Not ethnic Muslim immigrant

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The FBI has taken into custody a Minnesota man who was believed to be plotting a terrorist attack.
Buford Rogers, 24, of Montevideo, was arrested Friday after authorities searched his home and found guns and explosive devices, according to an FBI news release. The Associated Press reports Molotov cocktails, suspected pipe bombs and a Romanian AKM assault rifle were among the weapons found. An affidavit said Rogers admitted firing the weapon at a gun range in Granite Falls.
The FBI said in the release that the lives of numerous Montevideo residents were potentially saved.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/06/fb ... z2SXvKwN5g

Buford Rogers, 24, was arrested Friday after a search of his Montevideo home. Authorities believe he was planning an attack against a target in western Minnesota and that he is a linked to an unidentified militia group.

Dustin Rathbun, who lives next door to Rogers' home, said he saw Friday's raid and arrest. He said he didn't know the family well because he didn't see them outside much.

Rathbun said the only thing that stood out was he and other neighbors noticed a few months ago the family was flying an upside-down flag from the side of their mobile home. He said the owners of the park asked them to take it down.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/0 ... 23246.html

Don't you think the term "terrorist" is overused?

I think the term "terrorist" has a specific definition, and if the particular individual meets that definition, then it is not an overuse. Or do you believe that "terrorist" should only apply to non-white foreign individuals, judging from your previous threads?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: What if the guy went though with the "terrorist attack" but only caused property damage and did not kill anyone? Would it just be an "attack" then? I'm thinking back to Dog's apparent position in the Bill Ayers discussion. If so, calling it a planned "terrorist attack" seems premature on Dog's part... lol

I did not call it a terrorist attack, the FBI did. I also have not compared this with any other terrorist attack, merely posted what has been reported from the FBI.

Oh, OK. Then your quoted article seems premature based on your apparent definition of a terrorist. I'm surprised you didn't clarify it in your OP.

So if a guy only does 4 bombings or so, and people could of gotten blown to bits if nearby but nobody got killed, it's just an attack and not a terrorist attack, right? Just asking your opinion...

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/cinnamon-s ... ontPage%29


.............Accordingly, after brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were identified as the perpetrators, scholars resorted to apologetics and obfuscation to explain away Islam’s role: the Tsarnaevs aren’t “real” Muslims; Islam and terrorism are incompatible; Islamic terrorism is no more significant than any other societal ill; “Islamophobia” and a wave of anti-Muslim hate crimes (that has yet to arrive) will ensue; and the attack was an example not of ideologically-rooted violence, but of logical “blowback” against American foreign policy.

What follows is a sampling of such inanity.".....................

And now the AP is changing the terminology, no longer are they called "radical Islamists". the new term is Conservative Muslims.

So now they can blame the conservatives for terrorism!!!

FredHayek wrote: And now the AP is changing the terminology, no longer are they called "radical Islamists". the new term is Conservative Muslims.

So now they can blame the conservatives for terrorism!!!

You got it, and they can go back to using the word terrorist as long as conservative is in the same sentence.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: What if the guy went though with the "terrorist attack" but only caused property damage and did not kill anyone? Would it just be an "attack" then? I'm thinking back to Dog's apparent position in the Bill Ayers discussion. If so, calling it a planned "terrorist attack" seems premature on Dog's part... lol

I did not call it a terrorist attack, the FBI did. I also have not compared this with any other terrorist attack, merely posted what has been reported from the FBI.

Oh, OK. Then your quoted article seems premature based on your apparent definition of a terrorist. I'm surprised you didn't clarify it in your OP.

So if a guy only does 4 bombings or so, and people could of gotten blown to bits if nearby but nobody got killed, it's just an attack and not a terrorist attack, right? Just asking your opinion...

In my opinion, if the intent of the attack was to kill and maim innocent individuals for a political/religious statement, then it is a terrorist attack. Since you appear to keep wanting to regurgitate another thread without bothering to go back to the other thread, the difference with Ayers and the Boston bomber, is that Ayers did not kill or maim anyone or take substantive steps to do so. I did not condone Ayers actions in his earlier years, he may have well been a terrorist, but to put him on the same level as the Boston bombers as Printsmith, yourself and others are trying to do, is to cheapen the horrific nature of their action that did kill and maim innocents.

Blazer Bob wrote: frontpagemag.com/2013/cinnamon-stillwell...+%C2%BB+FrontPage%29


.............Accordingly, after brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were identified as the perpetrators, scholars resorted to apologetics and obfuscation to explain away Islam’s role: the Tsarnaevs aren’t “real” Muslims; Islam and terrorism are incompatible; Islamic terrorism is no more significant than any other societal ill; “Islamophobia” and a wave of anti-Muslim hate crimes (that has yet to arrive) will ensue; and the attack was an example not of ideologically-rooted violence, but of logical “blowback” against American foreign policy.

What follows is a sampling of such inanity.".....................

So to follow your logic, then Christian terrorism is prevalent based on the actions of Eric Rudolph in the name of Christianity?

The fellow arrested also was not ethnic Eskimo. So who introduced "Muslim" into the equation?
"An affidavit said Rogers admitted firing the weapon at a gun range in Granite Falls". That sews it up for me!

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: What if the guy went though with the "terrorist attack" but only caused property damage and did not kill anyone? Would it just be an "attack" then? I'm thinking back to Dog's apparent position in the Bill Ayers discussion. If so, calling it a planned "terrorist attack" seems premature on Dog's part... lol

I did not call it a terrorist attack, the FBI did. I also have not compared this with any other terrorist attack, merely posted what has been reported from the FBI.

Oh, OK. Then your quoted article seems premature based on your apparent definition of a terrorist. I'm surprised you didn't clarify it in your OP.

So if a guy only does 4 bombings or so, and people could of gotten blown to bits if nearby but nobody got killed, it's just an attack and not a terrorist attack, right? Just asking your opinion...

In my opinion, if the intent of the attack was to kill and maim innocent individuals for a political/religious statement, then it is a terrorist attack. Since you appear to keep wanting to regurgitate another thread without bothering to go back to the other thread, the difference with Ayers and the Boston bomber, is that Ayers did not kill or maim anyone or take substantive steps to do so. I did not condone Ayers actions in his earlier years, he may have well been a terrorist, but to put him on the same level as the Boston bombers as Printsmith, yourself and others are trying to do, is to cheapen the horrific nature of their action that did kill and maim innocents.

That's total BS. I never compared the Boston bombers to Ayers. But you seem to love making stuff up and lumping people together.

But if you set off four bombs at very public places, you have to know that you might kill someone. Isn't that pretty obvious?

You do member that Ayers girlfriend and a couple of cohorts were killed putting together some of his bombs that were intended to kill others?

Ayers had previously been a roommate of Terry Robbins, a fellow militant who was killed in 1970 along with Ayers' girlfriend Oughton and one other member in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, while constructing anti-personnel bombs intended for a non-commissioned officer dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers