A mid-eastern attack would hit more symbols of our western culture - the things they hate. I don't specifically know where those attacks would be directed but attacks on Microsoft? Why would terrorists go after them? The AMI I can understand. Just do not understand Brokaw and not Fox, Daschle and not a conservative representative.
Sorry you get upset that someone has any suspicion against militia types - however they themselves create the atmosphere for suspicion. They support each other in hatred for their own government, they feed each other hate and it engenders hate.
There are no-doubt many great militia people. Why not - the militia starts out as true patriots seeking others to prepare for a government that turns against its own people. However, it also attracts any that love to hate, love to play war games, and would be a prime target of those seeking to undermine the government of a country.
A true patriot should be aware of this fact even more than me - a woman poster on FR. Of course, terrorists types would gravitate to a group they find that has people arming, that furthers anti-government rhetoric and provides a source of potential recruits for their future deeds.
How hard is it to understand that militia groups can easily be corrupted into hate-filled groups of war hungry individuals antsy to go after their own government? Possibly infiltrated with undercover terrorists or anti-American individuals.
Why do individuals leave these groups - that should be the question to investigate. What is it that makes people leave a militia. I would think they come to see the group has evolved into something they do not want to be part of. Why? What caused the change in the group, who caused the change?
I know you "just" stated your opinion. And then, I stated mine. After all, fair's fair, right?
The problem is that this opinion of yours is nothing more than an autobiographical statement on your part. What you are saying can be summed up as "I, ClancyJ, can't think of a reason why middle east terrorists would want to attack these targets."
This is a fact about yourself, not about the targets.
Just because you can't think of a reason for these to be targets of terrorists doesn't mean that no such reason exists, you see. I have thought of several possible reasons, and explained them to you. If you insist on not seeing those as valid reasons then there is little I can do to stop you, I suppose. But, the reasons are there.
A mid-eastern attack would hit more symbols of our western culture - the things they hate.
You mean like a powerful, prominent member of the government of the Great Satan (i.e. Daschle)? And the Israeli-controlled US media (i.e. Brokaw, etc.)? You know something, I agree with you, they would attack this type of target.
And, most likely, they did.
I don't specifically know where those attacks would be directed but attacks on Microsoft? Why would terrorists go after them?
Well, for starters, Microsoft is a gigantic and visible and wealthy company which is a symbol of American software dominance and knowhow. You think?
Just do not understand Brokaw and not Fox,
I thought Fox was attacked, it was all over FR last nite.
Daschle and not a conservative representative.
This is getting silly. Are the attacks supposed to come in matching pairs?
Say you are a terrorist. You want to attack a highly visible government official. So you pick, say, Senate Majority Leader Daschle. Maybe you chose him at random. Or because you just happened to see him on TV recently. Whatever. You pick him, you only have one anthrax dose left, so you send him a letter.
Does the fact that you as a terrorist didn't "balance things out" by also sending such a letter to Senator Lott prove some kind of "bias" on your part, or that you chose Daschle BECAUSE he's a Democrat?
Like I said, that is silly. That is the type of post hoc reasoning on which astrology and numerology is based, in fact.
Sorry you get upset that someone has any suspicion against militia types - however they themselves create the atmosphere for suspicion.
How exactly did they "create the atmosphere for suspicion" when there is no evidence whatsoever linking this to militia types in the first place? This is just plain wrong. You are blaming them for "creating" suspicions that you have in your own head for no reason and with no evidence whatsoever.
They support each other in hatred for their own government, they feed each other hate and it engenders hate. There are no-doubt many great militia people. Why not - the militia starts out [bla...]
Look, obviously "militias" are a big important subject to you. Personally I haven't thought much about the subject since the glory days of 1995-96. But whatever, you're afriad of "militias", you're obsessed with them, and now with these attacks you're trying to make them fit into the mold of that which you fear - "militias".
I understand all this I guess, it's just that none of it is rational, or anything close. Isn't there some other, more productive way you can work through your obsession with militias?
How hard is it to understand that militia groups can easily be corrupted into hate-filled groups of war hungry individuals antsy to go after their own government? Possibly infiltrated with undercover terrorists or anti-American individuals.
I "understand" this perfectly, and don't even disagree with it, as a possibility. It's just that there's no evidence and therefore no reason whatsoever to link this to "militia types" in the first place. Sure, it could be domestic "hate-filled groups" and "undercover terrorists or anti-American individuals" doing these things.
They could be LEFT-WING domestic terrorists, in fact. There is no reason to suspect right-wing extremists any more than there is reason to suspect left-wing extremists. There's just not.
The (D) besides Daschle's name notwithstanding.