I am not a jelly donut.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

為甚麼你們一定要講白人的話?

中文比你們的好!

Xie Xie!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Alas, let us hope the end result is not -

Das eargeschplittenloundenboomerundlargenholeingrundun dalleskaput!

I know a bit of Swedish and use it sparingly. The tangent to German goes to "Forstor icke" ("I don't understand"). Yes, let's go back to English please.
NB. I'm "Pennsylvania Dutch" (German) on dad's side , but I don't know the lingo...

¿Qué monstruo he lanzado?

Diese ist verrückt und geisteskrank!

Okay, now can we talk in English again?

And yes, Chinese deserves a nod as well. Since we're speaking of languages, apparently Ireland is determined to revive Gaelic and is teaching it in the schools as the official language of Ireland.

(Chas glares & growls at the person who'll respond to this post in Gaelic)

~Chas'88

It is wonderful that a topic entitled "The Spiral of Violence" has ended up in multiple languages.

AnnH

Originally Posted by annla899

It is wonderful that a topic entitled "The Spiral of Violence" has ended up in multiple languages.

AnnH

Certamente.

Hablo un poco Español.

Halig eostremonath, alle!

Yes, this IS English!

Ich kann deutsch, franzosisch und Spanisch gelesen, aber

Je ne sais pas faire les accents en html.

Gracias para esta cambia en nuestras conversaciones.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Je ne sais pas faire les accents en html.

The best way is to implement the international keyboard. If you don't want to go that far, you can find keystroke version at this site:

http://www.starr.net/is/type/altnum.htm

Oh, by the way: it's "Je ne sais pas comment faire les accents en html."

Now if Justin '77 were only here to grace us with some Cyrillic script.

From WaPo today: "FBI sees little chance of copycat militia plots"

"There's more fizzle than fight among self-styled militias and other groups right now, they say, and little chance of a return to the organized violence that proved so deadly in the 1990s. "

More here: http://bit.ly/bUKRhw

James50

Originally Posted by annla899

It is wonderful that a topic entitled "The Spiral of Violence" has ended up in multiple languages.

AnnH

On account of all of the violence that is being exported, it only makes sense that we'd be importing other languages.

Originally Posted by James50

From WaPo today: "FBI sees little chance of copycat militia plots"

"There's more fizzle than fight among self-styled militias and other groups right now, they say, and little chance of a return to the organized violence that proved so deadly in the 1990s. "

More here: http://bit.ly/bUKRhw

James50

Well, they should know:
FBI Agent Discovered at Center of Alleged Hutaree Conspiracy


Kurt Nimmo
March 30, 2010
Editor’s note: incorrectly identified the alleged FBI informant within the Hutaree militia. Mr. Piatek is not identified as the informant. “The real informant has been identified by insiders as the man in the back row, 2nd from the right — the one wearing the sunglasses,” an email sent today indicates. The photos is below. We apologize for the error.

The FBI had an informant inside the Hutaree group, according to The Wall Street Journal today.
“A spokesperson at the FBI’s Detroit office declined to comment on the undercover agent and any role such an agent may have had in the investigation. A spokesman at the Justice Department in Washington also declined to discuss specifics of the investigation,” the Journal reports.
It is not surprising that the FBI had penetrated the Hutaree group and an agent was apparently at the center of the alleged conspiracy. In fact, it is part of a well established pattern.
On March 20, Infowars.com reported on allegations that a federal agent acted as a provocateur in the New York synagogue bombing conspiracy case. Defense attorneys in the case argued in court that the plot was hatched and directed by a federal informant.
“They said the informant badgered the defendants until they got involved in the plot,” NBC New York reported. “They said the informant chose the targets, supplied fake bombs for the synagogues and a fake missile to shoot down planes. The motion said he also offered to pay the defendants, who attorneys alleged weren’t inclined toward any crime until the informant began recruiting them.”
“This whole operation was a foolish waste of time and money,” Terence Kindlon, a defense lawyer who represented a client in the New York synagogue case, told the Times Online. “It is almost as if the FBI cooked up the plot and found four idiots to install as defendants.”

Defendants in the New Jersey Fort Dix Army terror case painted a similar picture. “The only terrorist conspiracy was one planted and nurtured by the informant,” declared defense attorney Rocco Cip during the trial. The FBI’s role in the case was admitted by a provocateur. “The FBI informant paid to infiltrate a band of suspected terrorists in South Jersey said yesterday that he offered to organize their attack on U.S. soldiers, but only because he wanted to build trust and find out more about the group,” the Star-Ledger reported on November 11, 2008.
In Miami, the FBI case against the so-called Miami Seven came apart at the seams when it was discovered a government provocateur provided money, video cameras for conducting surveillance, cellphones, and suggested that the patsies target the Miami FBI office.
In 2009, it was discovered that supposed white supremacist and radio talk show host Hal Turner was a National Security Intelligence asset, a fact admitted by the third highest ranking FBI official in New York City. During a second trial held this year, Turner described how he was recruited in 2003 by the FBI’s Newark-based Joint Terrorism Task Force. He said he was paid “in excess of $100,000” by the FBI during his almost five years as an informant.
According to research conducted by Alexandra Natapoff of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the FBI maintains an army of at least 15,000 “confidential informants,” while the DEA admits to having 4,000 snitches. “But the number of informants working directly for the Feds is probably only a tiny fraction of the entire stukachi [a Russian epithet used to describe a secret police informant] population, given the uncounted masses of snitches working for state and local police agencies,” writes William Norman Grigg of the Pro Libertate blog.

Of course the FBI had an agent planted in the group. Good for them. That's their job. To read more into it than that, e.g. to suppose that the infiltrator instigated the violent plot rather than simply observing it and reporting it, is -- well, it's what I would expect from someone who has proven himself an apologist for terrorists.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

from someone who has proven himself an apologist for terrorists.

Well, name calling does have its advantages.

Originally Posted by SaintStephen74

Well, name calling does have its advantages.

What, "terrorist"? That's not name calling, that's an observation. These guys, this particular militia, is a terrorist organization. The FBI is supposed to infiltrate terrorist organizations. In doing so, they were doing their jobs.

Look, there are only two possibilities here. Either the Hutaree came up with this plot themselves, and the FBI plant observed them doing it and reported it, resulting in the raids and arrests. OR -- and I say this without believing that it's true -- the plant was the one who talked them into the idea, they went along with it, and he reported it, resulting in the raids and arrests. Either way we have a terrorist group here. If the plant suggested something criminal, they could always have nixed it.

So the idea that a provocateur came up with the plot is a) speculation and b) irrelevant anyway. The Hutaree Militia is a terrorist group. And anyone who apologizes for them is an apologist for terrorists.

That goes as well for anyone who condones other political violence, of course, for example by saying that the politicians who are the target are the real culprits.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What, "terrorist"? That's not name calling, that's an observation. These guys, this particular militia, is a terrorist organization. The FBI is supposed to infiltrate terrorist organizations. In doing so, they were doing their jobs.

Look, there are only two possibilities here. Either the Hutaree came up with this plot themselves, and the FBI plant observed them doing it and reported it, resulting in the raids and arrests. OR -- and I say this without believing that it's true -- the plant was the one who talked them into the idea, they went along with it, and he reported it, resulting in the raids and arrests. Either way we have a terrorist group here. If the plant suggested something criminal, they could always have nixed it.

So the idea that a provocateur came up with the plot is a) speculation and b) irrelevant anyway. The Hutaree Militia is a terrorist group. And anyone who apologizes for them is an apologist for terrorists.

That goes as well for anyone who condones other political violence, of course, for example by saying that the politicians who are the target are the real culprits.

Justifying the name calling also has its place. What do you mean by 'apologist'?
You seem more interested in passing judgements than in investigation.



I don't really know the case, but I would hardly guess that the target of the group was completely innocent. I'd guess that there was some kind of history between some of the members of the group and their target. I don't really know, but if so, today, unlike 10 years ago, that wouldn't be part of the MSM 'story' -which has changed drastically in its characterization of stories of this kind.

The latter of two possibilities that you mention are brought up in the article that I posted and the author is citing a precident for agents acting as provocateurs. But on that topic you choose to point out that they are 'terrorists' either way. You conviently ignored the fact that (if the latter of the two possibilities WAS true) we'd then have FBI agents talking fringe groups into making attacks. You really don't see any relevance in that?.... I find that difficult to believe but I'll explain how it is a set up & the dangers: Government agents encouraging people to attack their own government is problematic because 1) it leads to a justification for more security than would otherwise be necessary. 2)it could lead to unnecessary violence (on either side) I could go on and on here, but let me just say-just for kicks -why not use agents to deter agression? (duh!) Honestly, what is the benifit of provocation?

...You then went further by bridging the article/author to 'condones'.... Your willingness to painting things a certain light surely must be incidental.

Surely, you've heard of the milgram experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
The suggestion here is that adherance to authority is a far greater problem than opposition to it.

I am curious about the motivation of these militia groups and of the tea partiers and other fringe groups. What are they trying to tell us about the culture? What are their criticisms? I think there is real value in hearing out these groups. Painting them as wackos and or calling them names isn't really helpful.

I have been helping a friend working on his dissertation on violence in Psychology. He has worked with violent offenders in and out of the prison system. When I asked him about his thoughts on the causes of violence, he said that he thinks people resort to violence when they perceive that they are being excluded socially. Will you help us get the word out?

St. Stephen, I see no purpose in continuing any discussion with you. There are some ideas, such as racism, which I won't discuss because it would be a complete waste of my time. The attempt to justify acts of political violence is another such idea.

I will say that at least you have been relatively polite. But I have better things to do than engage you any further. We're done here.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

St. Stephen, I see no purpose in continuing any discussion with you. There are some ideas, such as racism, which I won't discuss because it would be a complete waste of my time. The attempt to justify acts of political violence is another such idea.

I will say that at least you have been relatively polite. But I have better things to do than engage you any further. We're done here.

Thank you for you comment about my politeness. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I attempted to justify political violence...

Hmmmm, I have (do) advocated considering the point of view of the 'other' and attempting to include them in dialogue so as to learn what could be learned about how the individuals in the fringe group perceive that they have been harmed from the Government/status quo, etc. Surely this would be a reasonable way to curtail/undermine future violence. I think we can learn from this without it being a justification. -and yes, I think these people should be held accountable for their actions. But ignoring the conditions that led to the violence in the first place won't help stop it in the future.

I would draw a clear distinction between what I have posted and justifying violence. Accepting, understanding, making space and including another person (or group of people) as human and worthy of dignity is quite different than endorsing (some of) their (ill advised) behaviors.

Originally Posted by SaintStephen74

I don't really know the case, but I would hardly guess that the target of the group was completely innocent. I'd guess that there was some kind of history between some of the members of the group and their target.

Can you tell me what the target of the plot could have done in order to justify his murder in cold blood?

I don't really know, but if so, today, unlike 10 years ago, that wouldn't be part of the MSM 'story' -which has changed drastically in its characterization of stories of this kind.

The MSM has a pronounced tendency to be an establishment tool -- no matter what the establishment happens to be at the moment. More's the pity -- but that's a whole 'nuther issue.

The latter of two possibilities that you mention are brought up in the article that I posted and the author is citing a precident for agents acting as provocateurs. But on that topic you choose to point out that they are 'terrorists' either way. You conviently ignored the fact that (if the latter of the two possibilities WAS true) we'd then have FBI agents talking fringe groups into making attacks. You really don't see any relevance in that?.... I find that difficult to believe but I'll explain how it is a set up & the dangers: Government agents encouraging people to attack their own government is problematic because 1) it leads to a justification for more security than would otherwise be necessary. 2)it could lead to unnecessary violence (on either side) I could go on and on here, but let me just say-just for kicks -why not use agents to deter agression? (duh!) Honestly, what is the benifit of provocation?

It appears to me that these were defense attorney arguments, not absolutely proven facts. Defense attorneys are, of course, going to do anything possible to keep their clients from getting convicted.

Now, I'll grant that planted provocation is not beyond the realm of possibility. Still, the group could have said no. Why didn't they? Don't they share any responsibility?

Weren't Charles Manson and his followers all convicted of multiple homicides, even though he didn't actually do much of the dirty work himself?

Surely, you've heard of the milgram experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
The suggestion here is that adherance to authority is a far greater problem than opposition to it.

Indeed, so why did the militia adhere to the "authority" of the agent provocateur, assuming that's what indeed happened?

I am curious about the motivation of these militia groups and of the tea partiers and other fringe groups. What are they trying to tell us about the culture? What are their criticisms? I think there is real value in hearing out these groups. Painting them as wackos and or calling them names isn't really helpful.

I don't have a problem with talking about the issues of limited government or fiscal discipline. I do have a problem with the birthers, the people who insist that Obama is a communist, a socialist, and/or a Muslim, and the racists. Trying to sort all those out among the tea partiers is a challenge.

I have been helping a friend working on his dissertation on violence in Psychology. He has worked with violent offenders in and out of the prison system. When I asked him about his thoughts on the causes of violence, he said that he thinks people resort to violence when they perceive that they are being excluded socially. Will you help us get the word out?

While I believe that some element of that may be true, there are plenty of socially excluded people who don't resort to violence, and there are plenty of powerful people who do.

There is only one way to properly respond to a threat of violence, and it is neither with misguided sympathy nor with a respectful argument.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There is only one way to properly respond to a threat of violence, and it is neither with misguided sympathy nor with a respectful argument.

Having been threatened with, and been on the receiving end of, violence, I agree.

But right now I'm just trying to get a point across to SaintStephen.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The best way is to implement the international keyboard. If you don't want to go that far, you can find keystroke version at this site:

http://www.starr.net/is/type/altnum.htm

Oh, by the way: it's "Je ne sais pas comment faire les accents en html."

Either is correct, mine was more idiomatic.

Some of my friends may be shocked, but I think St. Stephen may have a point. I don't know the facts of this case, but it does happen that informers become provocateurs. In fact we eventually learned that Gary Thomas Rowe (I think that was his name), the FBI's main witness against the Klansmen who shot Viola Liuzzo in 1965, I believe, was at least as responsible for the murder as anyone. Juries, moreover, have been reluctant to convict when it seems that the crime would never have been planned without the informant. I am not saying he is right, I am saying, he could be.