M-13 - A forgotten war on terror

[Wab]

"Authorities, obsessed with Islamic terrorists, have ignored the deadly assortment of domestic extremists. America's right-wing groups, though diminished in numbers since 1995, have become bent on acquiring weapons capable of mass slaughter."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1174459,00.html

[Sherlock Holmes]

While this is probably a good topic for discussion, can you please flesh it out with some commentary and/or questions for discussion? Otherwise there isn't much to say and it'll probably get closed. Thanks. :)

[Wab]

Okey dokey.

Should the US be concentrating more on the danger within or that from outside?

Should the US strike at communities that support or harbour terrorists in the way it struck Afghanistan?

Various political bodies (including Chicago city council) have at times voiced support for the aims of terrorists (IRA hunger-striker Bobby Sands) what, if anything, should be done about this?

Should domestic terrorists face a court or just be locked away in Guantanamo Bay? Why? Why not?

[Animagi rock!]

Should the US be concentrating more on the danger within or that from outside?
The US has to fight both forms of terrorsts. In the end it doesn't matter to the people who die whether the person who launched the attack is an american or a foreigner.

Should the US strike at communities that support or harbour terrorists in the way it struck Afghanistan?
I think it should try and get the terrorists without having to destroy half a country, though I do't know how that would have been achieved in afghanistan where the government was supporting the terrorists and had to be removed too. If possible I favor a more subtle approach like infiltrating the groups to find out what they're planning.

Various political bodies (including Chicago city council) have at times voiced support for the aims of terrorists (IRA hunger-striker Bobby Sands) what, if anything, should be done about this?
You can't do anything about them voicing support (freedom of speech), but you should make it clear that if anyone becomes a terrorist themselves they will be punished.

Should domestic terrorists face a court or just be locked away in Guantanamo Bay? Why? Why not?
I don't think anyone should be locked away in Guantanamo. Even though they're idiots that doesn't mean we have to sink to their level. Give them a fair trial and then lock them up for life if they're found guilty.

[DsX Phoenix]

Various political bodies (including Chicago city council) have at times voiced support for the aims of terrorists (IRA hunger-striker Bobby Sands) what, if anything, should be done about this?
You can't do anything about them voicing support (freedom of speech), but you should make it clear that if anyone becomes a terrorist themselves they will be punished.

But, the government is the group who classifies people and groups as terrorists. So, couldn't open support of a terrorist group be considered a terrorist action?

[Confessor]

I never knew you could make a cyanide bomb.

Should the US be concentrating more on the danger within or that from outside?

Definately within.

Should the US strike at communities that support or harbour terrorists in the way it struck Afghanistan?

Well, it should, but then again you'd be bombing Americans in houses, not smelly Afghans in caves.

Various political bodies (including Chicago city council) have at times voiced support for the aims of terrorists (IRA hunger-striker Bobby Sands) what, if anything, should be done about this?

Liquidation of the offending authorities.

Should domestic terrorists face a court or just be locked away in Guantanamo Bay? Why? Why not?

Screw court. They're your own bunch of sociopaths. They should be held even more accountable than a foreign sociopath.