What's your point? Other people will come and yell at you or beat you up? So what? Free speech != freedom from the consequences of that speech. Will the NYC Government stop you from denying the Holocaust? No? Then what's your fucking point?
A lot of brave French men and women died fighting for their homelands while the Yanks made excuses and sat around eating ice cream in Times Square or whatever they were up to and didn't get involved til 1941. Show a bit of respect.
The French men and women were brave. The French Government failed them miserably though. Sitting behind their fortifications and ceding the intuitive to the Germans clearly wasn't the best approach to fighting the war. The collaboration of the Vichy regime also comes to mind as a stain on the history of France.
Regardless, I think you misread me. I made a cheap joke at the expense of the French but my underlying point was to dispute the notion that the British and Americans single-handily won the war. It took the efforts of every single Allied nation to defeat the Axis powers. That fact is beyond dispute for anyone who has bothered to give the subject even a cursory reading.
Guns are not some magical talisman that turns normal/peaceful people into homicidal killing machines incapable of making rational decisions as to the appropriate use of force.
A friend of mine had the observation that liberals treat guns in the same way that conservatives treat sex ed. Conservatives think that a kid who knows how to use condoms is going to lose all self control and jump into bed with anything that moves. Liberals think that owning a gun will make you lose all self control and open fire at the next person who cuts you off in traffic or steals your parking space at the grocery store.
The irony is that the experience of most rational people suggest the opposite in both instances. Having an appreciation for the dangers of STDs makes you less likely to sleep around. Having a holstered gun attached to your waist makes you less likely to pick fights over stupid shit. I know that I stopped flipping moron drivers off after taking a few classes on self-defense and concealed carry. Why escalate a situation like that and run the risk of it spiraling out of control?
Hey, thanks for pointing out the obvious. The occasionally reliable source known as Wikipedia says that Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland all have laws against Holocaust denial on the books. With the exception of Israel and Switzerland those are all EU members.
So yes, it's true that not every EU member state restricts free speech. But it seems folly to claim that you have the same free speech rights in Europe as you do in the United States, given these restrictions. Name me an American state that restricts free speech in such a manner.
Why don't you take your snide 'try reading a history book or two' remark and shove it up your ass? The Soviets and Chinese accounted for 88% (yes, eight-eight percent) of all Allied military casualties. It doesn't matter how important you think the US intervention was. The fact remains that many more Americans and Britons would have died fighting that war if it wasn't for the Soviets and Chinese bleeding the Axis powers.
To discount the importance of the Soviet and Chinese contribution to the war is to suggest to me that you are the idiot who needs to 'try reading a history book or two'
It was the Americans and the British Empire who won the war.
I'm fairly certain that the Soviets and Chinese had something to do with it too. You also neglect to mention the contribution of the French. Someone had to teach the Huns how to surrender;)
I thought about commenting about rebellion but I let it pass because the point that I was trying to make was that the state still has control over when and where you can use force. I've never understood the arguments advanced by the gun control crowd that privately owned guns will erode this monopoly of force, led to vigilantism, shootouts over traffic accidents, etc, etc.
The right of revolution obviously exists above and beyond the state's control of when and where you can use force. Absent such a revolution though, I don't think people can make the claim that the private ownership of weapons gives the owners of said weapons any special right to violate the law. Those who do so should be punished accordingly.
The Right to bear arms should trump the states desire to have complete control over the use of force.
The state still has control over the use of force, even with the 2nd amendment. If you doubt this, open fire at the next person who cuts you off in traffic and see what the consequences are......
Well I think the standard defense against slander would be applicable. It wouldn't be a crime if you can show some solid statistical evidence defending your claim that was published in peer reviewed journals.
So now I need to back up my public statements with peer reviewed evidence or you'll throw me in jail? Do you understand the meaning of the 1st amendment and the importance of free speech?
Otherwise I would be free to proclaim that my experience is that slashdot posters with eastern European and central Asian sounding pseudonyms steal babies for the purposes of child pornography and child molestation. Seems like a catchy troll post to use for the next year or two, no? Or maybe instead that your people tear them apart [partiallyclips.com] at the full moon.
Go for it. Why should I feel the need to legislate against such stupidity or to support such legislation?
Because that's usually only one step in turning "The Holocaust" into a conspiracy by Jews to distract from the fact that they control the world and should be overthrown. It's hard to scapegoat them while they're recognized as victims.
Again, so what? If I want to stand on a street corner and shout that the Jews control the world and should be overthrown who the hell are you to use the power of the state to silence me? If you want to organize a counter-protest be my guest, but you don't have the right to muzzle me just because you find my views to be abhorrent. I can't help but notice how you ignored my point about it eventually being made illegal to point out how stupid Scientology is. If you can legislate against racist statements, why not against those that attack religion? You gonna throw the South Park guys in jail too?
Jews have a culture which respects learning and encourages that pursuit, which means that they will naturally have a competitive advantage in an information economy against your average person/industrial cog who is either ambivalent or outright hostile to book l'arnin'.
Be careful, you are dangerously close to racial stereotyping there. I might have to call the thought police on you:)
The three together make them natural targets for prejudice and antipathy
Yes, the Jews have a history of oppression. You don't have to tell me this -- I have ancestors who got out of Germany in 38. How does this justify the fact that you would infringe upon free speech?
There is a fundamental qualitative difference in acting violently against someone who you perceive to have wronged you personally directly, versus someone who has never harmed you in any way.
It's a comparable difference in risk to the populace and risk of recurrence as there is for someone who will kill someone else in a fit of passion, vs. someone who pre-plans a murder. Assaulting "uppity" well-dressed blacks or guys just for walking down the street holding hands? That shows a deeper and more dangerous sociopathy than your average mugger or punch thrown in a drunken bar brawl.
The law already covers that without getting into "hate" crimes. A punch thrown in a drunken bar brawl that results in a death would typically be considered manslaughter. A pre-meditated assault that leads to a death would typically be considered murder. I have no problem with this concept. If you engage in a pre-meditated assault and/or murder you should be punished more severely than someone who snaps for whatever reason (the classic find the wife in bed with another man scenario comes to mind) and carries out such an act without pre-meditation. There is no reason to add further penalties because of the views of the perpetrator and to do so suggests to me that my life is worth less if I'm murdered for my property than if I'm murdered for my skin color.
2.5 years of *injections* and 1/3 did not complete the term of the trials. Not surprising. Make it in pill form and you may have a higher completion rate...
But on the bright side we've created a form of contraception that heroin addicts can get behind;)
Certainly Madison when he penned them didn't intend that a private citizen raise several dozen regiments of canon and horse, men-of-war and do with them what he saw fit and damn everyone else.
Why do you make the leap from 'several dozen regiments of canon and horse, men-of-war' to 'do with them what he saw fit'? The 2nd amendment has never given you the right to do with your arms 'what you see fit'. The fact that you have the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that you have the right to use them against me when I cut you off in traffic.
We could debate the merits of privately owned men-of-war and the meaning of the 2nd amendment until the cows come home but you are operating under a false assumption if you think those of us who support the 2nd amendment also think that gives us the right to do whatever the hell we want. It gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't give us the right to use them as we see fit. I don't see any way you can read the language of the amendment and draw that conclusion.
Democrats tend to at least give lip service to the idea that security issues should be balanced with concerns about civil liberties
Unless the security issue in question relates to gun violence, in which case the civil liberty of gun ownership is obsolete and only referred to a collective right anyway.....
And yes, I know there are Democrats who are opposed to gun control, but the power center of the party is the urban liberal base and they don't even bother to pay lip service to the 2nd amendment. If you doubt this then go find out what it takes to own a firearm in Chicago (fat chance), New York City (fat chance unless you are rich/well connected) or San Francisco (until recently you forfeited your right to own a gun if you lived in public housing).
whereas Republicans tend to accuse you of being weak, soft, and/or traiterous in response to such suggestions
So what? You are talking about politics. Both sides do it. The Democrats accuse anyone who questions the wisdom of gun control of not caring about the victims of crime. They accuse anyone who talks about entitlement reform of wanting to throw the elderly and/or poor out on the street. They accuse anyone who is against the Detroit bailouts of being anti-union. From where I sit they really aren't any better than the Republicans.
Republicans led the recent and concrete charge to scale back civil liberties post 9/11
And Democrats led the charge in the 90s to scale back civil liberties related to gun ownership (Clinton gun ban) and free speech (Communications Decency Act). The Democrats are the ones who allowed the FISA reform to get through Congress. Please tell me why they don't deserve my scorn.
Personally, I think that the larger problem is that congress is largely made of lawyers
Well, at least you said one thing I can agree with:)
Well, I think that there's already well-accepted laws (libel and slander laws) on the books to rein in certain types of speech which (deliberately or maliciously) attack individuals with lies. That's an accepted legal principle that few people would argue with. Well thought out and drafted "hate speech" laws just generalize those same concepts to identifiable groups, as opposed to just individuals. I think if it was made clear in the "hate" laws that the same existing underlying judicial principle was being applied to groups, and that previous existing libel and slander case law should be used as guidelines for determining culpability in "hate speech" cases, then it would be a lot harder to argue against those laws as an attack on free speech.
I would still argue against such laws. I do not feel that the regulation of speech is a proper role for Government. Slander and libel laws are tort actions provided as a means for the aggrieved party to seek redress. I think it's a very dangerous slope for the Government to get into the business of deciding what kind of speech is criminal. Today it's criminal to deny the holocaust or rant against black people. Tomorrow will it be criminal to point out the sheer stupidity of Scientology? I would draw the line where it is currently drawn in the US -- incitement to riot and/or violence is a crime. Merely stating that some racial subgroup is prone to some stereotype is not and should not be a crime.
In the first case, a proper evaluation of damages against a Holocaust denier or a similar hate speech proponent would render them destitute
Why? How does denying the Holocaust harm anyone? Why should someone be rendered destitute because they choose to believe that the Holocaust never happened in spite of all evidence to the contrary?
On the other hand, I'm starting to think that defining certain types of assaults and violent attacks as "hate crimes" isn't the appropriate way of dealing with that situation. I think the way to deal with it is to declare people who perform "hate crimes" as criminally insane, an ongoing danger to the public, and keep them locked up until they are "cured".
No, the way to deal with it is to punish people who commit hate crimes in the same manner as you would punish people who commit a regular murder or assault. Murder and assault are already illegal. Pre-meditated murder or assault are already treated as more serious offenses. Why does it need to go any further than that? Being murdered because your gay is not worse than being murdered because your ex-lover couldn't stand to see you with someone else. In either scenario the murderer deserves to be punished severely.
I sure as hell don't want to have to worry about some corporation or NGO pointing such things at me because they label me a 'nuisance', so where do you draw the line?
Pointing any weapon (be it a.22LR or a 5" artillery piece) at you without justification would be considered a crime in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
While I agree with the intent of your post I have to point out one glaring inaccuracy. NOBODY has a RIGHT to not be offended. That is the simple, logical mistake of every person who introduces, or defends, things like this proposed bill.
Fair enough, I probably should have worded that differently. "My right to free speech overrides your desire not to be offended"
As much as I hated the KKK, I reluctantly agreed that they should get their free speech rights. Unfortunately, it looks like this Democratic government is going to overturn this under the guise of legislating political correctness.
Are you surprised? Most European countries (which are regarded as further to the left than the United States in most instances) already criminalize "hate" speech. I'm no fan of "hate speech" myself but my right to free speech overrides your right not to be offended by what I say. Besides, the danger of the Government getting to say what is and what is not "hate speech" should be apparent to anyone.
Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it"? Why does it seem like Democrats are at least as effective at infringing on civil liberties as Republicans are, but never seem to get called on their BS to the same degree?
I don't think you understand the ability of a political partisan to make excuses for the failings of the home team while condemning the opposition for doing the exact same thing......
Slashdot Mirror
What's your point? Other people will come and yell at you or beat you up? So what? Free speech != freedom from the consequences of that speech. Will the NYC Government stop you from denying the Holocaust? No? Then what's your fucking point?
Name me an American state that experienced Nazi invasion. Laws like this are a reaction to precedence, ignorant yank.
Blow it out your ass you arrogant Eurotard. Prior bad experiences do not provide sufficient justification to infringe upon freedom of speech, IMHO.
A lot of brave French men and women died fighting for their homelands while the Yanks made excuses and sat around eating ice cream in Times Square or whatever they were up to and didn't get involved til 1941. Show a bit of respect.
The French men and women were brave. The French Government failed them miserably though. Sitting behind their fortifications and ceding the intuitive to the Germans clearly wasn't the best approach to fighting the war. The collaboration of the Vichy regime also comes to mind as a stain on the history of France.
Regardless, I think you misread me. I made a cheap joke at the expense of the French but my underlying point was to dispute the notion that the British and Americans single-handily won the war. It took the efforts of every single Allied nation to defeat the Axis powers. That fact is beyond dispute for anyone who has bothered to give the subject even a cursory reading.
Guns are not some magical talisman that turns normal/peaceful people into homicidal killing machines incapable of making rational decisions as to the appropriate use of force.
A friend of mine had the observation that liberals treat guns in the same way that conservatives treat sex ed. Conservatives think that a kid who knows how to use condoms is going to lose all self control and jump into bed with anything that moves. Liberals think that owning a gun will make you lose all self control and open fire at the next person who cuts you off in traffic or steals your parking space at the grocery store.
The irony is that the experience of most rational people suggest the opposite in both instances. Having an appreciation for the dangers of STDs makes you less likely to sleep around. Having a holstered gun attached to your waist makes you less likely to pick fights over stupid shit. I know that I stopped flipping moron drivers off after taking a few classes on self-defense and concealed carry. Why escalate a situation like that and run the risk of it spiraling out of control?
Hey, thanks for pointing out the obvious. The occasionally reliable source known as Wikipedia says that Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland all have laws against Holocaust denial on the books. With the exception of Israel and Switzerland those are all EU members.
So yes, it's true that not every EU member state restricts free speech. But it seems folly to claim that you have the same free speech rights in Europe as you do in the United States, given these restrictions. Name me an American state that restricts free speech in such a manner.
Why don't you take your snide 'try reading a history book or two' remark and shove it up your ass? The Soviets and Chinese accounted for 88% (yes, eight-eight percent) of all Allied military casualties. It doesn't matter how important you think the US intervention was. The fact remains that many more Americans and Britons would have died fighting that war if it wasn't for the Soviets and Chinese bleeding the Axis powers.
To discount the importance of the Soviet and Chinese contribution to the war is to suggest to me that you are the idiot who needs to 'try reading a history book or two'
Try to stand on a street corner in France and deny that the Holocaust happened.
It was the Americans and the British Empire who won the war.
I'm fairly certain that the Soviets and Chinese had something to do with it too. You also neglect to mention the contribution of the French. Someone had to teach the Huns how to surrender ;)
I thought about commenting about rebellion but I let it pass because the point that I was trying to make was that the state still has control over when and where you can use force. I've never understood the arguments advanced by the gun control crowd that privately owned guns will erode this monopoly of force, led to vigilantism, shootouts over traffic accidents, etc, etc.
The right of revolution obviously exists above and beyond the state's control of when and where you can use force. Absent such a revolution though, I don't think people can make the claim that the private ownership of weapons gives the owners of said weapons any special right to violate the law. Those who do so should be punished accordingly.
The Right to bear arms should trump the states desire to have complete control over the use of force.
The state still has control over the use of force, even with the 2nd amendment. If you doubt this, open fire at the next person who cuts you off in traffic and see what the consequences are......
Well I think the standard defense against slander would be applicable. It wouldn't be a crime if you can show some solid statistical evidence defending your claim that was published in peer reviewed journals.
So now I need to back up my public statements with peer reviewed evidence or you'll throw me in jail? Do you understand the meaning of the 1st amendment and the importance of free speech?
Otherwise I would be free to proclaim that my experience is that slashdot posters with eastern European and central Asian sounding pseudonyms steal babies for the purposes of child pornography and child molestation. Seems like a catchy troll post to use for the next year or two, no? Or maybe instead that your people tear them apart [partiallyclips.com] at the full moon.
Go for it. Why should I feel the need to legislate against such stupidity or to support such legislation?
Because that's usually only one step in turning "The Holocaust" into a conspiracy by Jews to distract from the fact that they control the world and should be overthrown. It's hard to scapegoat them while they're recognized as victims.
Again, so what? If I want to stand on a street corner and shout that the Jews control the world and should be overthrown who the hell are you to use the power of the state to silence me? If you want to organize a counter-protest be my guest, but you don't have the right to muzzle me just because you find my views to be abhorrent. I can't help but notice how you ignored my point about it eventually being made illegal to point out how stupid Scientology is. If you can legislate against racist statements, why not against those that attack religion? You gonna throw the South Park guys in jail too?
Jews have a culture which respects learning and encourages that pursuit, which means that they will naturally have a competitive advantage in an information economy against your average person/industrial cog who is either ambivalent or outright hostile to book l'arnin'.
Be careful, you are dangerously close to racial stereotyping there. I might have to call the thought police on you :)
The three together make them natural targets for prejudice and antipathy
Yes, the Jews have a history of oppression. You don't have to tell me this -- I have ancestors who got out of Germany in 38. How does this justify the fact that you would infringe upon free speech?
There is a fundamental qualitative difference in acting violently against someone who you perceive to have wronged you personally directly, versus someone who has never harmed you in any way.
It's a comparable difference in risk to the populace and risk of recurrence as there is for someone who will kill someone else in a fit of passion, vs. someone who pre-plans a murder. Assaulting "uppity" well-dressed blacks or guys just for walking down the street holding hands? That shows a deeper and more dangerous sociopathy than your average mugger or punch thrown in a drunken bar brawl.
The law already covers that without getting into "hate" crimes. A punch thrown in a drunken bar brawl that results in a death would typically be considered manslaughter. A pre-meditated assault that leads to a death would typically be considered murder. I have no problem with this concept. If you engage in a pre-meditated assault and/or murder you should be punished more severely than someone who snaps for whatever reason (the classic find the wife in bed with another man scenario comes to mind) and carries out such an act without pre-meditation. There is no reason to add further penalties because of the views of the perpetrator and to do so suggests to me that my life is worth less if I'm murdered for my property than if I'm murdered for my skin color.
But where is the male morning after pill?
It's called the over-the-counter female morning after pill and breakfast in bed ;) "Here honey, I love you so much that I made you breakfast!"
Yeah, I'm going straight to hell.....
2.5 years of *injections* and 1/3 did not complete the term of the trials. Not surprising. Make it in pill form and you may have a higher completion rate...
But on the bright side we've created a form of contraception that heroin addicts can get behind ;)
Certainly Madison when he penned them didn't intend that a private citizen raise several dozen regiments of canon and horse, men-of-war and do with them what he saw fit and damn everyone else.
Why do you make the leap from 'several dozen regiments of canon and horse, men-of-war' to 'do with them what he saw fit'? The 2nd amendment has never given you the right to do with your arms 'what you see fit'. The fact that you have the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that you have the right to use them against me when I cut you off in traffic.
We could debate the merits of privately owned men-of-war and the meaning of the 2nd amendment until the cows come home but you are operating under a false assumption if you think those of us who support the 2nd amendment also think that gives us the right to do whatever the hell we want. It gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't give us the right to use them as we see fit. I don't see any way you can read the language of the amendment and draw that conclusion.
Democrats tend to at least give lip service to the idea that security issues should be balanced with concerns about civil liberties
Unless the security issue in question relates to gun violence, in which case the civil liberty of gun ownership is obsolete and only referred to a collective right anyway.....
And yes, I know there are Democrats who are opposed to gun control, but the power center of the party is the urban liberal base and they don't even bother to pay lip service to the 2nd amendment. If you doubt this then go find out what it takes to own a firearm in Chicago (fat chance), New York City (fat chance unless you are rich/well connected) or San Francisco (until recently you forfeited your right to own a gun if you lived in public housing).
whereas Republicans tend to accuse you of being weak, soft, and/or traiterous in response to such suggestions
So what? You are talking about politics. Both sides do it. The Democrats accuse anyone who questions the wisdom of gun control of not caring about the victims of crime. They accuse anyone who talks about entitlement reform of wanting to throw the elderly and/or poor out on the street. They accuse anyone who is against the Detroit bailouts of being anti-union. From where I sit they really aren't any better than the Republicans.
Republicans led the recent and concrete charge to scale back civil liberties post 9/11
And Democrats led the charge in the 90s to scale back civil liberties related to gun ownership (Clinton gun ban) and free speech (Communications Decency Act). The Democrats are the ones who allowed the FISA reform to get through Congress. Please tell me why they don't deserve my scorn.
Personally, I think that the larger problem is that congress is largely made of lawyers
Well, at least you said one thing I can agree with :)
Well, I think that there's already well-accepted laws (libel and slander laws) on the books to rein in certain types of speech which (deliberately or maliciously) attack individuals with lies. That's an accepted legal principle that few people would argue with. Well thought out and drafted "hate speech" laws just generalize those same concepts to identifiable groups, as opposed to just individuals. I think if it was made clear in the "hate" laws that the same existing underlying judicial principle was being applied to groups, and that previous existing libel and slander case law should be used as guidelines for determining culpability in "hate speech" cases, then it would be a lot harder to argue against those laws as an attack on free speech.
I would still argue against such laws. I do not feel that the regulation of speech is a proper role for Government. Slander and libel laws are tort actions provided as a means for the aggrieved party to seek redress. I think it's a very dangerous slope for the Government to get into the business of deciding what kind of speech is criminal. Today it's criminal to deny the holocaust or rant against black people. Tomorrow will it be criminal to point out the sheer stupidity of Scientology? I would draw the line where it is currently drawn in the US -- incitement to riot and/or violence is a crime. Merely stating that some racial subgroup is prone to some stereotype is not and should not be a crime.
In the first case, a proper evaluation of damages against a Holocaust denier or a similar hate speech proponent would render them destitute
Why? How does denying the Holocaust harm anyone? Why should someone be rendered destitute because they choose to believe that the Holocaust never happened in spite of all evidence to the contrary?
On the other hand, I'm starting to think that defining certain types of assaults and violent attacks as "hate crimes" isn't the appropriate way of dealing with that situation. I think the way to deal with it is to declare people who perform "hate crimes" as criminally insane, an ongoing danger to the public, and keep them locked up until they are "cured".
No, the way to deal with it is to punish people who commit hate crimes in the same manner as you would punish people who commit a regular murder or assault. Murder and assault are already illegal. Pre-meditated murder or assault are already treated as more serious offenses. Why does it need to go any further than that? Being murdered because your gay is not worse than being murdered because your ex-lover couldn't stand to see you with someone else. In either scenario the murderer deserves to be punished severely.
I sure as hell don't want to have to worry about some corporation or NGO pointing such things at me because they label me a 'nuisance', so where do you draw the line?
Pointing any weapon (be it a .22LR or a 5" artillery piece) at you without justification would be considered a crime in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
While I agree with the intent of your post I have to point out one glaring inaccuracy. NOBODY has a RIGHT to not be offended. That is the simple, logical mistake of every person who introduces, or defends, things like this proposed bill.
Fair enough, I probably should have worded that differently. "My right to free speech overrides your desire not to be offended"
As much as I hated the KKK, I reluctantly agreed that they should get their free speech rights. Unfortunately, it looks like this Democratic government is going to overturn this under the guise of legislating political correctness.
Are you surprised? Most European countries (which are regarded as further to the left than the United States in most instances) already criminalize "hate" speech. I'm no fan of "hate speech" myself but my right to free speech overrides your right not to be offended by what I say. Besides, the danger of the Government getting to say what is and what is not "hate speech" should be apparent to anyone.
Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it"? Why does it seem like Democrats are at least as effective at infringing on civil liberties as Republicans are, but never seem to get called on their BS to the same degree?
Also, get off my lawn. Damn kids. And if you ball lands in my yard again, you're not getting it back.
Real men use a M1 Garand to keep the kids off their lawn ;)
perhaps Indian guys working for the state of Virginia...
Well, at least that means that Macaca has discovered the real world of Virginia ;)
I don't think you understand the ability of a political partisan to make excuses for the failings of the home team while condemning the opposition for doing the exact same thing......
So what your saying is that he should hire the CEOs of all of these companies? ;)
But when you penetrate inside another body
There aren't too many slashdotters that can relate to your analogy. May I suggest a car one instead? ;)
What other kind of terrorists do we have?
Eco-terrorists. Domestic terrorists who aren't motivated by religion (OKC bombing).