#anti terrorism act

[ausetkmt]

A former FBI counterterrorism agent, Dave Gomez, told The Washington Post he thought that a fear of being seen as targeting President Donald Trump's base was muting the agency's response to violence by white nationalists."There's some reluctance among agents to bring forth an investigation that targets what the president perceives as his base," Gomez told the publication.The comments followed an attack on Saturday by a gunman at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, that the FBI is treating as a domestic terrorism incident.Investigators have said the gunman left a racist manifesto on the messaging board 8chan ahead of the attack.

FBI agents are hesitant to investigate white nationalist extremists because they don't want to be seen as pursuing investigations against President Donald Trump's base, a former FBI counterterrorism agent told The Washington Post.

The former agent, Dave Gomez, said he believes that FBI Director Christopher Wray "is an honorable man, but I think in many ways the FBI is hamstrung in trying to investigate the white supremacist movement like the old FBI would."

"There's some reluctance among agents to bring forth an investigation that targets what the president perceives as his base," Gomez said. "It's a no-win situation for the FBI agent or supervisor."

He said that Trump's repeated criticism of the FBI and its investigation into Russian election interference and collusion were likely factors as well.

The FBI declined to comment to Business Insider on Gomez's claims. An FBI representative told The Post that the comments were not accurate and that the agency distributes resources according to its assessment of the threat posed by domestic terrorism.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the FBI says about 40% of the domestic terrorism cases it is investigating involve racism.

Gomez's comments followed Saturday's shooting in a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, that killed 20 people. Investigators have told media outlets that shortly before the shooting, the gunman posted a racist and anti-immigrant screed on the messaging board 8chan, known as a hub for white nationalists. Authorities have identified Patrick Crusius as the suspect in the shooting.

That shooting was followed hours later by another mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio, that investigators have not tied to racist ideology. Authorities have not publicly identified a motive in that shooting.

Saturday's shooting was the latest in a long series of deadly attacks by white nationalist extremists in the US and abroad. In March, a gunman killed 51 people in mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and livestreamed the attack on social media.

At a Senate hearing in July, Wray said an increasing number of domestic terrorism incidents were motivated by white supremacist and white nationalist ideologies.

Law-enforcement responses to violence by white nationalists have long been the focus of fierce bipartisan disputes. Republicans in 2009 reacted furiously to a Department of Homeland Security report that described right-wing extremist violence as a rising threat. They accused the agency of a bid to smear conservatives.

Trump's political opponents have accused him of deliberately stoking racist divisions in the US and actively courting the support of white nationalists during his 2016 presidential campaign.

In a March op-ed article for Time, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University linked a rise in white nationalism to "a coarsening of mainstream politics, where debates on national security and immigration have become rabbit holes for the exploitation of fear and bigotry."

The president last week claimed he is "the least racist person anywhere in the world" and on Sunday linked the El Paso attack to a "mental-illness problem." In the wake of the New Zealand attack, he said he didn't see white nationalism as a growing global threat.

Under US law, while it is a crime to provide support for foreign terror groups like ISIS, there is no equivalent for domestic terrorism organizations, The Post said.

The FBI is investigating the El Paso attack as a domestic terrorism incident and possible hate crime. In a statement on Sunday, it warned that Saturday's attack could inspire copycats.

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

Richard Medhurst, a Syrian-British independent journalist who defends Palestinians' right to resist Israeli apartheid, occupation, and other crimes, said this week that he was recently arrested at London's Heathrow Airport.

🔥 Fuel Our Work: https://bit.ly/TFTPSubs 🎙 TFTP Podcast: https://bit.ly/TFTPPodcast

#TheFreeThoughtProject #TFTP

[moonlayl]

Source - The Jerusalem Post

You can’t make this shit up. This is actually insane and disgusting. People can lose their job for pointing this out while a fcking Israeli politician can just literally say this. What the fuck do you mean do to Gaza what was done by the Nazis?

[tenitchyfingers]

You know the people who stand on Israel’s side were also school bullies and are currently domestic abusers. There is no other reason why someone would support the geopolitical analogue of a gang of courtyard bullies with blunt weapons ganging on an unarmed kid who hasn’t been eating for months.

And it’s not surprising the rest of the world’s people are reacting the way we are. Nobody likes seeing a gang of armed bullies beating up a defenseless unarmed kid unless they’re bullies themselves.

[turnedpalefromlackofsun]

one time i drew a picture of my favorite ship beating the shit out of eachother and since violence is sex to me, i tagged it as ship

and then people got confused and then i got confused. to this day, im still confused.

[porschesbabydaddy]

he's soggy kinn :(

Prism count your fucking days

[nando161mando]

[queercherrypie]

I turn my back for a minute to read some Sam/Cas smut and Brazil is like:

[ausetkmt]

The Jacksonville shooter (whose name I shall not write) ultimately killed three innocent Black Americans at a Dollar General Store only after he was first spotted at nearby Edward Waters University (EWU).

As the shooter donned his bulletproof vest, some EWU students eyed what they believed to be a suspicious person.

The students at the Florida historically black institution immediately alerted a nearby security guard who approached the suspect near his car. Upon seeing the officer, the suspect fled in his car toward what would be his next target.

Had the cowardly shooter not turned the weapon on himself after killing three innocent Americans at the discount store, his first encounter at Edward Waters University would have been more than strong trial evidence that his plan was to kill Black Americans.

In plain language, the Jacksonville shooter was engaged in a terrorist plot.

“Terrorist” is defined (rather circularly) by Webster’s dictionary as

“relating to, or characteristic of terrorists or terrorism: practicing or involving violent acts of terror.”

The key to the definition is that terrorism involves acts of violence.

One might imagine one of the definitional requirements of terrorism would be the use of violence to achieve political or cultural objectives, but Webster’s ignores this element.

But, we know from our recent history, terrorism can be simple violence calculated to induce fear and terror in its victims — and its victims are most often those who are identifiable and insular — those who are either vulnerable minorities or protected class members.

This is a pattern that is clear from the racist massacres dating from the era of post-Civil War Reconstruction until last week in Jacksonville.

But had these recent incidents been perpetrated by any identifiable non-American, this nation would have acted swiftly to prevent future atrocities through passage of anti-terrorism legislation and would have appropriated funds for both the FBI and DOJ to investigate and prosecute them “to the full extent of the law.”

Instead, in the wake of the repeated attacks, national and local politicians recite a litany of delay and denial mixed with indifferent thoughts and belated prayers about the deaths of their fellow countrymen and women.

Instead it is past time to act.

They must denominate these clockwork-like acts of violence as real terrorism; and, in doing so must both legislate and appropriate the resources necessary to prevent them.

But to do this they must first confront a hard truth — the truth that the most dangerous terrorists in our midst are other Americans: mainly radicalized young white Americans who seek to kill and terrorize their own neighbors — Americans who are Jewish, Black or Hispanic.

The same fervor to fight terror which once spread across all spheres of politics after 9/11 seems to have evaporated in the last half decade once the incidence of terror evolved to acts against Americans by other Americans.

But that doesn’t change the state of reality.

[immaculatasknight]

Correct scholarship

[wild-at-mind]

Sometimes just from someone's username you know they would reblog a post that's like omg Trump will do genocide and Harris will do genocide but with emojis and memes!!

And then you see that they did in fact reblog the post and you're like ohhh can we stop pretending this is any kind of leftism.

[aiolegalservices]

Streamlining Business Compliance: AIO Legal Services for AML, GDPR, and Intellectual Property Rights

  In today’s fast-paced and ever-changing business landscape, regulatory compliance has become an indispensable aspect for companies operating in the UK. Failure to adhere to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws can lead to severe consequences, including financial penalties, reputational…

[im-totally-not-an-alien-2]

Danny, at 17, did not have the best love life. This is partially because two of his must haves in a partner are " Will protect me with their life" and "Will commit unspeakable acts of violence for me" or at least beat someone up for his honor.

Naturally, this doesn't always result in the most stable of partners.

His first girlfriend, Valerie, became an anti-hero and broke up with him for his safety.

He finally got with Sam in sophomore year only for the feds to come into class one day to arrest her. To his surprise, her crimes had nothing to do with ghosts but rather an incident where she went too far and committed a few acts of economic terrorism. Danny and Tucker never really learned the specifics of the crimes, and her parents hushed up as many news outlets as they could, so there wasn't much info to go around. All they knew was that she saved thousands of lives by doing it.

In the end, she was sentenced to eight years, and she broke up with him so that he wouldn't wait around for her to get out.

His third partner was a guy named David who was really sweet. Unfortunately, Danny got kidnapped one day by David's arch nemesis, who was some villain with a corny edge lord name. Yeah. David had become a a super hero after they started dating.

And if you guessed that he freaked out and dumped Danny for his own protection, you'd deserve a cookie.

Danny was noticing a pattern here. One that continued with everyone he dated. They always became some kind of hero before dumping him for his own protection, and it was infuriating. Sure, danny could defend himself, but he was never deep enough into the relationship to reveal his phantom half, and frankly, his hero career was something he left behind when he left Amity and destroyed the portals.

He met Tim at a skatepark after Tim fell off his board cause of some jerk speeding out in front of him on his own board, forcing Tim to stop or else hit the guy. The guy was unrepentant and Tim calmed him down (this did not stop him from melting the guys wheels with an ectoblast when no one was looking).

Tim then asked him to coffee. Danny, noticing how cute Tim was, agreed.

Danny was up front with his parents being mad scientists in Illinois. He always was with all the people he dated. It was better not to hide these kinds of things or worse, wait until you're already attached and afraid of losing them. So he always told potential partners as early as possible. Tim seemed a bit put off by this but was calmer about it than most, and they continued chatting.

Tim didn't seem like the type to turn to heroism or anti heroism so he felt safe on their later dates. It was only after he had known Tim for a while that he put the pieces together.

Tim was always covered in bruises that he hid with his clothes and make up, he had complained about batman over the phone when he thought danny couldn't hear, he was rich, he knew how to fight as revealed by his stances and footwork dispite trying to pretend he didn't, and lastly he held a lot of political power and influence being Bruce Wayne's son. Power he had no reservations using when it suited him or he was just feeling petty (that pettiness was part of why danny was falling for him harder than he thought he could)

No wonder Tim was so okay with his parents being rouges.

Tim was a villain!

At least Tim wouldn't leave him like all his exes. Danny doesn't think he could handle it if he did. Another good thing about this is now he can talk more freely about the more villainous and morally gray ideas and inventions when he was alone with Tim.

Tim didn't see anything wrong with Danny's idea to use something similar to cloning pods to make synthetic meats like rump roasts and steaks as a way to end world hunger and was eager to add to the conversation.

[psychotrenny]

I think one of Imperialism's most evil strategies is the national scale torture you'll see inflicted on countries that dare to dream of freedom. Like it's not just about overthrowing the anti-imperialist regime itself, but utterly breaking the very social, economic and in turn psychological foundations it's built upon. Prolonged periods of destruction that are as systematic as they are sadistic with the aim of making life unlivable until the government either collapses or gives in, accepting whatever concessions are forced upon them as the nation is remoulded into an dependent and obedient little neocolony.

Sometimes an imperialist power will act directly to achieve this (just take the gratuitous and deliberate destruction of civil infrastructure during the bombings of Yugoslavia and Iraq), but the preferred strategy is to employ local proxies. Groups like RENAMO in Mozambique or the Contras of Nicaragua. Bands of reactionaries, traitors and general desperadoes are gathered up, trained, armed and transported over the border at the expense of the Imperialists and their local collaborators. These armed groups have no interest in build mass support, of representing an alternative way of life. Their only purpose is destruction; killing, torturing, looting, burning whatever they can in order to bring their country to its knees. Frequently targeting important nodes in the networks that sustain the nation and the people's faith in it (bridges, rail depots, factories, hospitals and schools) but ultimately happy to attack whatever they can; every house burned or person tortured contributes to the climate of terror and corrosion of government credibility. Because when they kill these groups don't like to do it cleanly; their attacks generate countless reports immolation, disembowelment, victims hacked to pieces and left to bleed. But when possible they prefer to leave their victims alive and capable of further spreading their terror, inflicting the most vicious sorts of rape and mutilation on a mass scale

It's not just just evil for the sake of evil mind you. The cruelty has a point; human destruction to accompany the physical. Every person killed is someone who can no longer contribute to the development of the nation, while even living yet physically and psychologically broken victim places further strain on their country's increasingly fragile support systems. Meanwhile the terror of these actions spreads the impact beyond their immediate victims. The murder and torture of peasants makes the survivors too scared to go back into their fields, slowly starving the nation as the rural economy grind to a halt. The gruesome deaths of traders and travelers leaves the survivors too terrified to continue their business, shutting down the distributive networks that make national development and often life itself possible. The terror unleashed on foreign professionals can prompt the survivors to flee and discourage newcomers from arriving, depriving the underdeveloped economic and education systems of the skilled workers they need to improve or even function. And every broken body, ever broken mind, is proof of the government's weakness and ineptitude; a humiliating failure to protect their own people that demoralises supporters and empowers dissenters. The motivated sadism of these terrorist attacks is a microcosm of the motivated sadism displayed by their Imperialist backers

But why go to all this trouble? Why not just send in the paratroopers or organise a coup to end those troublesome regimes quickly? Sometimes it's a matter of possibility. As great as they are, the powers of Imperialist nations are not unlimited. All manner of constraints (domestic unrest, international condemnation which advantages dangerous rivals, the simple financial and human costs of such operations) limit what actions are viable or desirable. This is especially significant when the targets are motivated and disciplined anti-imperialists with a base of deep-rooted popular support, the sort of regime that won't go down to a simple commando raid or bribe to the right general. But sometimes, it's not enough to merely cut down a dissenting government; you have to salt the earth and make sure nothing similar ever grows back. I'll finish with the words of an anonymous Jesuit priest, talking about Nicaragua yet in terms widely relevant enough to be published in John Saul's conclusion to A Difficult Road: The Transition to Socialism in Mozambique (1985):

In Chile the Americans made a mistake. They cut off the revolution too abruptly. They killed the revolution but, as we can see from recent developments there, they didn't kill the dream. In Nicaragua, they're trying to kill the dream

[bimboficationblues]

hi. how will you describe an organization like hamas after banning the word terror? i am asking for a more longform version of that post.

have a nice day.

sitting in my nefarious chamber banning words and concepts

even within the already murky waters of political analysis and its reliance on “thick concepts” - ideas that are both descriptive and normatively charged - the word “terrorist” has very little analytical utility or explanatory power. this is because it is a political, juridical term first - a term with which to tar the enemies of particular states - and an analytical concept second.

as a legal term it does not even do an okay job of capturing some kind of bad phenomena like “murder” or “assault,” because it’s just “committing a regular crime but in a scary and/or political way” - a means for prosecutors to throw their weight around and for states to bludgeon certain enemies with. I mean this seems pretty intuitive based on what gets designated as terrorism and by who (Hamas or the Afghan Taliban being good examples, or compare the treatment of anti-Cop City or BLM protestors with the pro-Trump Capitol protestors).

as an analytical term (in political science, theory, everyday discourse, etc), it sets out already burdened with the above limitations. everybody wants to advance their pet definition of terrorism (“states can do terrorism” vs. “terrorism is only done by non-state actors” being the dispute of the moment) so as to encompass their political enemies and exclude their political allies.

this sort of nonsense is what Israel runs on (“when Hamas kills a bunch of our civilians and fighters in a heavily militarized area, it’s terrorism, but when we do it back on a massively increased scale against civilians, it’s a legitimate act of war”). in other words, terrorism is revealed as a term of moral rhetoric.

nothing is lost from shaking the word “terrorism” from our political language. in fact there’s a gain because instead of letting a term do all the work by acting as a shortcut to moral clarity, we have to actually engage with the specifics: the strategy, the goals, the underlying values, and the relationship between the three - the politics.

[elder-millennial-of-zion]

There was never going to be any form of Jewish self defense that the world would deem acceptable, and there was never going to be any act of anti-Jewish terrorism that the world would deem unacceptable.

There is nothing Israel could ever do to defend itself that wouldn’t be accused of going too far, of being “way beyond self defense.” There is no method of Israeli self defense that wouldn’t be maligned as “genocide.”

Inversely, there is no atrocity that could ever be committed against Jews that wouldn’t be denied/excused/justified. There is no level of violence against Jews, however gruesome, however blatant in its goal of genocide and targeting innocents, however many children and babies are burned alive and kidnapped, that wouldn’t be justified as “resistance,” as something that the Jews must have provoked, as the very least that Jews deserve, as something that the terrorists were driven to and couldn’t possibly be expected not to do.

No act of violence against Jews was ever not going to be called “resistance,” and no response from Israel was ever not going to be called a “genocide.”

The only Jewish country in the world was never not going to be maligned as the worst country in the world.

For fuck’s sake, use some critical thinking skills.