PDA

View Full Version : Domestic political violence (USA)



slapout9
02-18-2010, 07:50 PM
I just watched the news conference where the "Local Authorities" say there is no reason to believe it is terrorism,:confused:

Read the Manifesto/Suicide note left by the pilot. Sounds like Domestic Terrorism to me.:rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html

Red Leg
02-18-2010, 08:51 PM
While I certainly do not agree with his methods, his comments on the US tax code and Congress' conflict of interest vis-a-vis giant corporations (and their supporting lobbyists) are not wholly without merit.

Ken White
02-19-2010, 01:46 AM
If you accept this (LINK) (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism) as a reaonable definition, the act barely qualifies under the third alternative. I think it's more this:

tequila
02-19-2010, 02:19 PM
So, if a Muslim piloted a plane into a Federal building, would anyone question if this was a terrorist incident or not?

J Wolfsberger
02-19-2010, 03:13 PM
So, if a Muslim piloted a plane into a Federal building, would anyone question if this was a terrorist incident or not?

If he left the same parting missive, omitted mention of practicing Islam, and omitted the phrase "Alahu ahkbar," I wouldn't call it terrorism. I agree with Ken, and I think this was a guy with employment and tax problems who decided to go out with a parting shot at the organization he blamed for his problems.

Schmedlap
02-19-2010, 03:29 PM
I guess he didn't get the tax refund he was expecting.

I'm with Ken and Wolf, but I would take it a step further. If this were a Muslim who slammed his plane into a government building because he was angry about our policies in the Mideast, I don't even think that would qualify as terrorism. Terrorism has a purpose of using fear and violence of achieve some political objective. If you're just lashing out at something that you hate, that's not terrorism. It's disenfranchisement, desperation, despair, anger, but not terrorism.

slapout9
02-19-2010, 03:49 PM
Have to go with Zenpundit on this one.

http://zenpundit.com/

tequila
02-19-2010, 04:03 PM
If this were a Muslim who slammed his plane into a government building because he was angry about our policies in the Mideast, I don't even think that would qualify as terrorism. Terrorism has a purpose of using fear and violence of achieve some political objective.

I think that very few people in the public sphere would share your definition IF this guy's name had been Abu Snuffy and he'd left a rant about Israel or Afghanistan on a Facebook page somewhere.

Given what we know, I'd put this guy, Abdulhakim Mohammad, MAJ Hasan, Richard Poplawski, and the Holocaust museum shooter in the same general category. All had major grievances that were based in political/religious ideology, but all also appear to have had significant personal dysfunctions. None appear to have acted as part of an organized group or had a realistic hope that their actions would achieve any kind of political objective, BUT their targets were clearly chosen for political/religious reasons.

I think choice of target + some political/religious motivation = a terrorist act. A different sort of terrorist than, say, KSM, but one nonetheless.

Ken White
02-19-2010, 04:31 PM
I think choice of target + some political/religious motivation = a terrorist act. A different sort of terrorist than, say, KSM, but one nonetheless.but I believe you, slap and Zenpundit are giving nutcases more credit than they deserve. You may certainly call it terrorism but I doubt anyone other than the specific victims at the time were anywhere near terrorized... :wry:

As you say:
...None appear to have acted as part of an organized group or had a realistic hope that their actions would achieve any kind of political objective...Seems to me that is true and thus we're describing abberant actions that do not reach a threshold of inspiring terror. :cool:

I think the only reason to call those acts terroristic is for political purposes... ;)

Stan
02-19-2010, 04:40 PM
I guess he didn't get the tax refund he was expecting.

And the irony is our taxes will only increase as they fix his mess :rolleyes:


I'm with Ken and Wolf, but I would take it a step further. If this were a Muslim who slammed his plane into a government building because he was angry about our policies in the Mideast, I don't even think that would qualify as terrorism. Terrorism has a purpose of using fear and violence of achieve some political objective. If you're just lashing out at something that you hate, that's not terrorism. It's disenfranchisement, desperation, despair, anger, but not terrorism.

Concur. I'm a little worn out with how easily we come to use terms like terrorist and IED lately. Seems to fit and government financing is too easy.


Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well. The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed. Joe Stack (1956-2010) 02/18/2010”

At 53 he just had enough. Should have gone after those rich weenies that manipulate instead of the finance ladies who couldn't change a light bulb.

slapout9
02-19-2010, 04:48 PM
You may certainly call it terrorism but I doubt anyone other than the specific victims at the time were anywhere near terrorized... :wry:



I think the IRS might disagree.

Stan
02-19-2010, 06:05 PM
Hey Slap !


I think the IRS might disagree.

According to the USA Patriot Act (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html), Joe was a Domestic Terrorist (acts of terrorism in the United States carried out by American citizens). Joe apparently kept company with the KKK, Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber to name a few.

Mike, legal aspects albeit post Morten ?

slapout9
02-19-2010, 08:21 PM
Hey Slap !



According to the USA Patriot Act (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html), Joe was a Domestic Terrorist (acts of terrorism in the United States carried out by American citizens). Joe apparently kept company with the KKK, Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber to name a few.

Mike, legal aspects albeit post Morten ?

Stan, you are correctomundo IMO.

tequila
02-19-2010, 09:05 PM
but I believe you, slap and Zenpundit are giving nutcases more credit than they deserve. You may certainly call it terrorism but I doubt anyone other than the specific victims at the time were anywhere near terrorized...

I think we give "terrorists" in general far more credit than they deserve. The cowardly hysteria that surrounds the 9/11 plotters' trial and the idea of moving Gitmo detainees into U.S. prisons is a perfect example.

Schmedlap
02-19-2010, 09:45 PM
I think that very few people in the public sphere would share your definition IF this guy's name had been Abu Snuffy and he'd left a rant about Israel or Afghanistan on a Facebook page somewhere.

Well, that may be true, but I wasn't using the "most people" standard. Most people regard terrorism as some violent crime, committed by someone who doesn't look like me, for reasons rooted in political grievances that don't resonate with me. In other words, it's not a useful term because it is too broad, nebulous, and subjective.


According to the USA Patriot Act (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html), Joe was a Domestic Terrorist (acts of terrorism in the United States carried out by American citizens).

I don't think that is clear.

Section 802(a)(5) says that

the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--


`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;


`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or


`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'. I think a good argument can be made that this act appears to be intended as retribution against an agency that he was angry toward, rather than any of the three "appear to be intended" provisions of the act.

Besides, that's just a legal definition necessary for the operation of provisions in the Patriot Act. That doesn't make it a useful definition for anything not related to the Patriot Act.

Entropy
02-19-2010, 10:04 PM
Well, the issue here is clearly one of definition. Defining "terrorism" and fitting events into defnitions isn't often straightforward. In short, I think terrorism is a bit like beauty - in the eye of the beholder.

Ken White
02-19-2010, 10:56 PM
Slapout9:
I think the IRS might disagree.Those in the building at the time; all others, not so much. :o

Stan:
According to the USA Patriot Act, Joe was a Domestic Terrorist (acts of terrorism in the United States carried out by American citizens).Well, if that poorly thought out Act says he is -- then he ain't! I rest my case... :D

I think Schmedlap sorted that out pretty well. Let the Legal Eagles play with it. :eek:

Tequila:
I think we give "terrorists" in general far more credit than they deserve. The cowardly hysteria that surrounds the 9/11 plotters' trial and the idea of moving Gitmo detainees into U.S. prisons is a perfect example. I agree with your principle point, we do give the acts more attention than they need. However, I also suggest that labeling the acts of certifiable nut jobs, no matter how terrifying to those on the scene at the time as 'acts of terrorism' lend them a cachet that leads people and lawmakers astray. Undeservedly adding to that "cowardly hysteria" thing.

I also believe that while it appears often as cowardly hysteria, it is actually dependency. The old "What is the government going to do about this..." routine. Most are not really terrified. They may say that but the reality is more often that it is simply uncomfortable and the government is supposed to fix it. If it is something the government cannot fix and both terrorism and random criminal acts by psychologically disturbed individuals generally fall in that category then many demand that it be fixed and castigate the government for 'failing.' Lot of politics involved...

It is quite possible that the two examples you cite are less cowardly hysteria in relation to objections and more making much noise for political purposes -- just as announcing the two actions in the first place was politically and not practically motivated. That is not to condemn the action either way, lots of alternatives and both selected will work reasonably well -- though the movement of folks from Gitmo will create as many problems as it solves. Gitmo should never have been used for that. It was.

Entropy:
...In short, I think terrorism is a bit like beauty - in the eye of the beholder. very true, I think -- there's also a very significant political quotient involved in what one wants to call a specific act... :cool:

jmm99
02-19-2010, 11:07 PM
of Title 18 U.S. Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, is concerned, you have to read the whole thing, together with some of its seemingly odd exceptions.

E.g., in 18 USC 2331, Definitions (http://vlex.com/vid/sec-definitions-19190088):


(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of - (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

and 18 USC 2332f, Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities (http://vlex.com/vid/bombings-places-systems-infrastructure-19190077):


(d) Exemptions to Jurisdiction. - This section does not apply to - (1) the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under the law of war, which are governed by that law, (2) activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties; ....
.....
(10) "military forces of a state" means the armed forces of a state which are organized, trained, and equipped under its internal law for the primary purpose of national defense or security, and persons acting in support of those armed forces who are under their formal command, control, and responsibility; (11) "armed conflict" does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature; and (12) "state" has the same meaning as that term has under international law, and includes all political subdivisions thereof.

Do those provisions exclude AQ, if that group is considered a military force (waging unconventional warfare vs the US and others?), from prosecution under the Terrorist Act in a civilian court for say 9/11 or its other bombings ?

Of course that does not mean that AQ members cannot be detained (and yes prosecuted for war crimes) under Military Law.

And, yes, you probably could fit the suicide pilot into the domestic terrorist category; but for what purpose ? The guy is dead; and there seems so far no larger conspiracy.

Regards

Mike

zenpundit
02-20-2010, 06:50 AM
This is really an argument regarding parameters. I think Ken is taking a far too narrow view of what constitutes "terrorism", historically speaking.

Certainly, well-organized, highly ideological, methodical and frequently state-sponsored groups that engage in assassinations, hijackings, bombings and murder of civilians to further political objectives should be considered terrorists. The Marxist and Left-revolutionary nationalist groups of the 1960's-1980's from the Baader-Meihoff Gang, FALN, IRA and the PLO factions fit this model but they are not the only kind of org that can engage in terrorism.

While terrorism as a tactic has a very long pedigree - ancient Athens celebrated Harmodius and Aristogeiton as democratic martyrs for assasinating the tyrant Hipparchus - the term's meaning has evolved. The first modern terrorists were Jacobin agents of the Committee of Public Safety like Joseph Fouche enforcing a revolutionary terror against hapless clergy and other "enemies".

Later 19th century terrorists were primarily anarchists, acting in small cells like the Russian People's Will or as solitary assassins and bombmakers. Their ideology was ill-defined, their strategy virtually absent as they advocated "the propaganda of the deed". This tradition continued well into the 20th century with the Left S.R's trying to kill Lenin and itinerant anarchists attempting to kill Mussolini, A. Mitchell Palmer and FDR. Ethnic criminal organizations such as the Sicilian Black Hand and the Irish Molly Maguires also made liberal use of terrorism to buttress their efforts at extortion and influence in their communities.

Using a narrow organizational definition of terrorism pretty much eliminates most of the historical examples on which the concept of terrorism itself is based. More often than not, terrorism reprsents an inarticulate but violent political gesture that is not connected to a methodical, sequential, plan to tople the state.

Rifleman
02-20-2010, 06:58 AM
I believe violent acts should be considered either criminal acts or acts of war regardless of motivation and aims. I don't see "terrorism" as a useful classification for violent acts either foreign or domestic. I see terrorism as a tactic, not a useful legal definition.

I don't think the US or our allies should be engaged in a so called "Global War on Terror." I think we should be engaged in a war on militant Islamic organizations.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on the nation of Japan. We didn't declare war on tactics and techniques like Japanese Naval Aviation or Japanese air raids.

Ken White
02-20-2010, 03:50 PM
Using a narrow organizational definition of terrorism pretty much eliminates most of the historical examples on which the concept of terrorism itself is based. More often than not, terrorism reprsents an inarticulate but violent political gesture that is not connected to a methodical, sequential, plan to tople the state.I agree with the last clause but disagree with the first. 'Whodunnit' isn't the issue, what was done is the determinant.

More precisely, the intended effect of what was done (Terror, like other things can fail to achieve a goal) is the defining factor. If the effort by a single actor or a group, organized or not, is intended to provoke a mass or target group reaction then it's terror. If it is a violent act or series of them intended to make a statement, political or otherwise it may or may not be a terroristic act but if it does not provoke a sense of terror or fear in a target population, then it rarely will really be an act of terror.

If it is an action by a deranged individual or collection of them and achieves no significant effect or fearful reaction by a targeted population other than locally, it's a nut or a few doing something stupid and usually wasteful.

I agree with Rifleman. What you call something is important due to human perception triggering reaction. Overuse of the 'terror' tag has sorta cheapened it. As we can see... :D

Bob's World
02-20-2010, 04:59 PM
Under current definitions, which I believe have been heavily shaped to define the current threat, no, it is not terrorism.

A quick google takes one to ABOUT with several definitions. In 1937 it was terrorism according to the League of Nations:

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public."

And it may meet the current FBI definition:

"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

And certainly it is under the Arab Conventions of 1998; which ironically have about the lowest standard for what qualifies as terrorism. The cynic in me would say it is because it really flies in the face of Arab culture to have to work too hard at anything...:

"Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources."

slapout9
02-20-2010, 05:19 PM
I believe violent acts should be considered either criminal acts or acts of war regardless of motivation and aims. I don't see "terrorism" as a useful classification for violent acts either foreign or domestic. I see terrorism as a tactic, not a useful legal definition.

I don't think the US or our allies should be engaged in a so called "Global War on Terror." I think we should be engaged in a war on militant Islamic organizations.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on the nation of Japan. We didn't declare war on tactics and techniques like Japanese Naval Aviation or Japanese air raids.




Rifleman, your right to a point...........he was a Revolutionary and he was willing to pay any price to make his point. Bob Dylan recently played at the White House singing some of his songs but I bet he didn't play this one. The Tea Party was an act of Revolution.............most people seem to forget that. H. Rap Brown said "Revolution is as American As Apple Pie." The 70's are coming back and most ain't old enough to remember the Revolutionary groups that existed then or they have forgotten them. The New Breed will be a lot tougher and smarter. So much for my weekend analysis have to go do my "honey do list":p

album: Band of the Hand Soundtrack

lyrics

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

Down these streets the fools rule
There's no freedom or self respect,
A knife's point or a trip to the joint
Is about all you can expect.

They kill people here who stand up for their rights, The system's just too damned corrupt
It's always the same, the name of the game
Is who do you know higher up well.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

The blacks and the whites,
The idiotic, the exotic,
Wealth is a filthy rag
So erotic so unpatriotic
So wrapped up in the American flag.

Witchcraft scum exploiting the dumb,
Turning children into punks and slaves
Whose heroes and healers are rich drug dealers Who should be put in their graves.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

Listen to me Mr. Pussyman
This might be your last night in a bed so soft. We're not pimps on the make, politicians on the take, You can't pay us off.

We're gonna blow up your home of Voodoo
And watch it burn without any regret
We got the power we're the new government,
You just don't know it yet.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

For all of my brothers from Vietnam
And my uncles from World War II,
I'd like to say that it's countdown time now
And we're gonna do what the law should do.

And for you pretty baby,
I know you've seen it all.
I know your story is too painful to share.
One day though you'll be talking in your sleep.And when you do, I wanna be there yeaahhh.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man

The Studio Version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JLoO1S3-QE

zenpundit
02-20-2010, 05:42 PM
Ken wrote:


"If it is a violent act or series of them intended to make a statement, political or otherwise it may or may not be a terroristic act but if it does not provoke a sense of terror or fear in a target population, then it rarely will really be an act of terror."

So, if a bomb explodes in the marketplace, and the media of a regime suppresses the information ( and thus, the spread of fear) the bombing isn't an act of terrorism?

Ken White
02-20-2010, 06:07 PM
So, if a bomb explodes in the marketplace, and the media of a regime suppresses the information ( and thus, the spread of fear) the bombing isn't an act of terrorism?Tell me who made and who exploded the bomb and for what purpose, then describe the actual damage done and I might be able to answer that...:wry:

It would also be helpful to know if the news of the bombing, though suppressed, leaked out and instilled a sense of terror resulting in behavior modification of the masses or elements thereof. That will not affect the determination of intent to commit a terroristic act it will merely indicate its success as an action... ;)

zenpundit
02-20-2010, 10:44 PM
Ken wrote:


'Whodunnit' isn't the issue, what was done is the determinant.

Ken also wrote:


Tell me who made and who exploded the bomb and for what purpose, then describe the actual damage done and I might be able to answer that...

and also:


Seems to me that is true and thus we're describing abberant actions that do not reach a threshold of inspiring terror

Now, I do not disagree that these different and conflicting standards of determining whether an act was terrorism could be useful yardsticks. To me, there's more than one kind of terrorism in the world and multiple causation acting as catalyst for that behavior with terrorists aiming for different objectives.

Pre-9/11, few counterterrorism experts would have counseled airline passengers and crew to resist hijackers because the idea that hijackers would suicidally fly the plane into buildings was not considered to be probable behavior, as the experts were working from the Western and Third World Marxist revolutionary group model to which al Qaida does not fit.

I see terrorism as more of a spectrum phenomena than a neat categorical box.

Bob's World
02-20-2010, 11:42 PM
Terrorism is in the intent, not the effect.

A man places a charge in a fuel truck, drives it to Dodger stadium to blow up a World Series crowd to make a statement for his cause, but accidentally self-detonates on a remote road and no one is aware of his true intent nor is impacted by the blast.

Another man is merely driving his fuel truck through LA to make is scheduled deliveries, and a freak electrical shortage initiates a blast killing him, and 30 bystanders, causing millions of dollars in damage and impacting the populace of S. California for months.

Which one is a terrorist? The one who terrorized or the one who intended to terrorize?

I think our current definitions are overly politicized.

President Bush left office on the one proud metric that post-9/11 "we have not been attacked." This is a record that Politicians want to keep intact; if not in fact, then by simply defining what are clearly terrorist acts, like the last two Texas events, out of that realm.

To imply that one is only a terrorist if they are linked to AQ or some similar foreign organization that regularly employs terrorist tactics to seek its political goals is as obscene as it is absurd.

Ken White
02-21-2010, 12:24 AM
Pre-9/11, few counterterrorism experts would have counseled airline passengers and crew to resist hijackers because the idea that hijackers would suicidally fly the plane into buildings was not considered to be probable behavior, as the experts were working from the Western and Third World Marxist revolutionary group model to which al Qaida does not fit.You have neatly encapsulated why I'm deeply suspicious of experts. An ex is a has-been, etc. :D
I see terrorism as more of a spectrum phenomena than a neat categorical box.Totally agree, thus my agreement with Entropy that it's an eye of the beholder thing and with Bob's World that our current definitions are overly politicized. I also agree with Bob on this:
To imply that one is only a terrorist if they are linked to AQ or some similar foreign organization that regularly employs terrorist tactics to seek its political goals is as obscene as it is absurd.therefor I'm glad I implied no such thing... :D

Nor do I think anyone here did that though I acknowledge others on all facets of the political spectrum have. That's why I believe the term to be over used and urge caution in its application.

Ken White
02-21-2010, 12:28 AM
Terrorism is in the intent, not the effect.Well, yes -- however one man's terror is another's 'so what...'
This is a record that Politicians want to keep intact; if not in fact, then by simply defining what are clearly terrorist acts, like the last two Texas events, out of that realm.Mmm, not IMO. Hasan, yes and I agree; the Austin IRS Fly-In not so much. As you say, it's the intent. Who do you think he was trying to terrorize?

Bob's World
02-21-2010, 01:18 AM
Well, yes -- however one man's terror is another's 'so what...'Mmm, not IMO. Hasan, yes and I agree; the Austin IRS Fly-In not so much. As you say, it's the intent. Who do you think he was trying to terrorize?

Which I don't see in many of the definitions. Not saying there isn't something to that. I think the SWJ community is a fairly sensible lot on these things, but also recognize that it is not a respresentative slice of America either (lest one feel either too good or too bad about some of the responses they receive to their thoughts posted here)

Valid points on a subjective topic.

But I am biased. I think "counterterrorism" is a mission set that does far more damage than good. In name alone it shifts the focuse to attacking the symptoms of problems; and away from the problems themselves. It also shifts the focus and funding to those organizations that engage those symptoms and away from those who are mandated with addressing the problems, thereby accentuating their previous failures that facilitated the rise of terrorism to beging with. A viscious circle.

Now we have a State Department that does Counterterrorism and Nation Building as what appears to be its new primary purpose in support to the Defense Department. Sad.

What we really need is a State Department that looks beyond states, but is focused on the diplomacy and policies needed to mitigate the need for such symptomatic approaches.

I guess I'm just irritated with our nation's approach to everything related to terrorism these days and it makes me grouchy. Sorry.

As to Ken's question though, of "who did he terrorize." Probably a few thousand bureaucrats.

More important question: Who did he inspire?

Rifleman
02-21-2010, 01:37 AM
I can see terrorism as a tactic. I can also see it as an effect - did someone get real scared because someone else was threatened or killed? Well, then they were terrorized, weren't they?

I still don't think it's a useful legal definition, regardless of the perpetrators motive or intent. We have crimes. We have acts of war. We even have war crimes. What else is needed?

What useful purpose does debating whether or not an act of violence or intimidation should be called domestic terrorism serve? Is it not enough to call it murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, arson, property destruction, stalking, etc.?

I see the term "terrorism" as Wilf seems to see terms like manuever warfare, 4GW, OOTW, etc. It's a hip term for an ancient tactic/effect that serves no useful purpose and diverts attention away from the essence of what's really going on.

Ken White
02-21-2010, 02:39 AM
I guess I'm just irritated with our nation's approach to everything related to terrorism these days and it makes me grouchy. Sorry.Not a problem, as Bill would say, I feel your pain. Now you know why I'm grumpy and have been for forty plus years... :D
As to Ken's question though, of "who did he terrorize." Probably a few thousand bureaucrats.That's the acceptable outcome. Desirable even. :cool:

Just don't terrorize Congress or they'll pass some REALLY dumb laws. :rolleyes:
More important question: Who did he inspire?Most likely no more than a few copycats who may or may not be successful, more or less. As I believe Slap will agree, that factors into a lot of criminal acts.

Bob's World
02-21-2010, 03:01 AM
I too don't think his inspiration will do much. Why? No Causation.

In America many complain about the government, but we recognize it's legitimacy and we believe in our ability to control it, vice the other way around. This is what immunizes a populace from Insurgent motivation, be it ideology, leadership, or acts like this.

Most populaces don't have anything even close to what we enjoy in America in this regard; but I assess downward trends on both of these critical metrics over the past 20 years; and that is a trend we would be wise to address sooner than later. Good COIN is done years before the acutal insurgent is ever even born.

zenpundit
02-21-2010, 03:26 AM
You have neatly encapsulated why I'm deeply suspicious of experts. An ex is a has-been, etc.

"An expert is someone who has made all of the mistakes that can be made in a narrow field" - Niels Bohr:D

Schmedlap
02-21-2010, 03:42 AM
Nobody else has asked, so I will.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is a terrorist. Let us also assume that he was acting alone - a lone wolf, a loner, a loser, whichever you like. Now, for the question: so what?

If he is a terrorist, should this make his crime more troubling than if he were not a terrorist?

Ken White
02-21-2010, 03:45 AM
may be changing: LINK (http://hamptonroads.com/2010/02/poll-75-angry-federal-government-policies). I saw another poll but cannot find it wherein IIRC, about 60+ % of the people thought that they were not in control of the government while about 60+ % of the Political class (whatever that is...) thought the people were in control. That is not a good transposition because it giver the pols carte blanche to keep doing what they're doing -- which generally is not good. :(

So your point about a downward trend is valid and, as you say, good COIN is done BEFORE there is a problem...

slapout9
02-21-2010, 03:57 AM
I can see terrorism as a tactic. I can also see it as an effect - did someone get real scared because someone else was threatened or killed? Well, then they were terrorized, weren't they?

I still don't think it's a useful legal definition, regardless of the perpetrators motive or intent. We have crimes. We have acts of war. We even have war crimes. What else is needed?

What useful purpose does debating whether or not an act of violence or intimidation should be called domestic terrorism serve? Is it not enough to call it murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, arson, property destruction, stalking, etc.?

I see the term "terrorism" as Wilf seems to see terms like manuever warfare, 4GW, OOTW, etc. It's a hip term for an ancient tactic/effect that serves no useful purpose and diverts attention away from the essence of what's really going on.


That is why I think all the analysis of terrorism/terrorist is really missing the larger point (motive) he was a Revolutionary. He used violence to impact a specific Government Policy or Policies....that is what Revolutionaries do as in "My only regret is that I have one life to give for my country" type stuff.

slapout9
02-21-2010, 04:18 AM
Man bulldozes his own home because of IRS and Mortgage problems.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqb6ZIXoX2w&feature=player_embedded#

zenpundit
02-21-2010, 05:01 AM
Nobody else has asked, so I will.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is a terrorist. Let us also assume that he was acting alone - a lone wolf, a loner, a loser, whichever you like. Now, for the question: so what?

If he is a terrorist, should this make his crime more troubling than if he were not a terrorist?

Excellent question!

Yes.

A guy going postal because of personal issues doesn't have the attractive or inspirational potential of politically motivated terrorism. In other words, terrorism can have an effect on the psychological/moral level in a way that a guy slicing up his neighbors in his apartment and eating them with fava beans and a nice chianti does not. The former is a cause, the latter, a curiousity.

Schmedlap
02-21-2010, 05:37 AM
In other words, terrorism can have an effect on the psychological/moral level in a way that a guy slicing up his neighbors in his apartment and eating them with fava beans and a nice chianti does not. The former is a cause, the latter, a curiousity.

Now I need to ask a follow up, since you mention psych thing and the causal thing.

Is this any more troubling than some high-profile school shooting that is likely to cause copycat shootings?

zenpundit
02-21-2010, 05:49 AM
"Is this any more troubling than some high-profile school shooting that is likely to cause copycat shootings?"

While the age of the victims in a school shooting evokes sympathy, terrorism is more troubling because it is directed at the legitimacy of the state or society. If either unravels problems are significant and scale up.

To use school shootings as a test case, Columbine is a less threatening example of violence than was Beslan, because Beslan demonstrates how motivated terrorists could systemically strike at soft targets.

jmm99
02-21-2010, 03:23 PM
I start with a mindset that considers "terror", "terrorism", "terrorist", etc., to be subjective terms. My mindset corresponds closely with this discussion of those terms in SORO, Human Factors: Undergrounds in Insurgencies (1966; linked here, Two more 1960s freebies ... (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=58657&postcount=57)), p.169 note:


Terror may be described as state of mind. Its effect upon individuals cannot always be determined from an objective description of the terrorist act. That which threatens or terrorizes one individual may not affect another in the same way.

Essentially, however, the process of terrorism can be viewed in the following manner: The stimulus is the threatening or terroristic act, and the response is the course of action, or inaction, pursued by the individual upon perceiving and interpreting the threat. If the perception of the threat leads to disorganized behavior such as hysteria or panic or the inability to take appropriate action, the individual is said to be in a state of terror.

Terror is not a static phenomenon: As threatening acts accumulate or escalate, the degree of terror heightens. A stimulus can be anything from an act of social sanction to threats of physical violence or actual physical attack. The corresponding interpretation of these threatening sets is a heightening state of terror.

The response may vary from coerced compliance to acquiescence, from physical flight to psychological immobilization and breakdown.

Given my mindset, it should not surprise anyone that I agree with Rifleman, I don't like the "terrorism" category (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=93626&postcount=20):


I believe violent acts should be considered either criminal acts or acts of war regardless of motivation and aims. I don't see "terrorism" as a useful classification for violent acts either foreign or domestic. I see terrorism as a tactic, not a useful legal definition.

and here, I understand the argument and I still disagree... (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=93683&postcount=31):


I can see terrorism as a tactic. I can also see it as an effect - did someone get real scared because someone else was threatened or killed? Well, then they were terrorized, weren't they?

I still don't think it's a useful legal definition, regardless of the perpetrators motive or intent. We have crimes. We have acts of war. We even have war crimes. What else is needed?

What useful purpose does debating whether or not an act of violence or intimidation should be called domestic terrorism serve? Is it not enough to call it murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, arson, property destruction, stalking, etc.?

Rifleman's point (and mine) is exemplified by 18 USC 2332f, Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities (link below), which has to be one of the most confusing pieces of legislation in effect.

But, of course, that portion of the "Patriot Act" goes beyond criminalizing "terrorist acts" (which were criminalized well before its enactment). So far as Title 18 U.S. Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 113b - Terrorism, is concerned, you have to read the whole thing. Here is the table of contents (http://vlex.com/source/us-code-crimes-criminal-procedure-1017/toc/01.82):


Chapter 113b - Terrorism - 18 USC ...

Sec. 2333. Civil remedies
Sec. 2334. Jurisdiction and venue
Sec. 2335. Limitation of actions
Sec. 2336. Other limitations
Sec. 2337. Suits against Government officials
Sec. 2338. Exclusive Federal jurisdiction
Sec. 2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists
Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists
Sec. 2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
Sec. 2339C. Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism

Sec. 2331. Definitions
Sec. 2332. Criminal penalties
Sec. 2332a. Use of certain weapons of mass destruction
Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
[Sec. 2332c. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-277, div. I, title II, Sec. 201(c)(1), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-871]
Sec. 2332d. Financial transactions
Sec. 2332e. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies
Sec. 2332f. Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities

The "direct criminal acts" prohibitions are encompassed in Secs. 2331-2332f.

The Secs. 2333-2338 provisions primarily deal with the rights and limitations of victims of terror in bringing civil actions because of "terrorism". Those provisions require a definition of "terrorism", etc.

The Secs. 2339 provisions are really the key to the need to define "terrorists" in this statutory complex:


18 USC 2339, Harboring or concealing terrorists
18 USC 2339A, Providing material support to terrorists
18 USC 2339B, Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
18 USC 2339C, Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism

Most AQ prosecutions have involved the "material support" provisions, in one way or another. Of course, the Secs. 2339 provisions are similar to the various "Communist Control" measures of the early Cold War era. - Are you now or ever have been a member of the Communist Party or of any other subversive organization ?

To provide a flavor, here is 18 USC 2339A, Providing material support to terrorists:


(a) Offense. - Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or (i), 930(c), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 1993, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, or 2340A of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law. (b) Definition. - In this section, the term "material support or resources" means currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.

A related section (2339B) is currently before SCOTUS - Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project ), with oral arguments this Tuesday, 23 Feb.

At what point does a "terrorist supporter" become prosecutable, or more narrowly re: "high value targets", killable ?

How does "terrorism" differ from insurgency, insurrection, rebellion and revolution in regard to its impact on the "legitimacy of the state or society" ?

What is the reasoning (other than the legal uses to provide a not very useful civil action for terrorist victims, and a more useful prosecution tool against material supporters of "terrorists") for defining "terrorism" ? In short, are there non-legal reasons for using the term ?

Regards

Mike

Stan
02-21-2010, 04:40 PM
What is the reasoning (other than the legal uses to provide a not very useful civil action for terrorist victims, and a more useful prosecution tool against material supporters of "terrorists") for defining "terrorism" ? In short, are there non-legal reasons for using the term ?

Regards

Mike

Hey Mike,
This makes the most sense to me. So, how to get tough on domestic's gone postal without a stronger set of rules?

Way back when, being a traitor or committing treason was worse than any other criminal act known in the USA.

Terrorism (and lately IED, IEDD and CIED) seems to be a catch all phrase for the USG and the Beltway Bandits. Include any combination of the two and you have instant funding and recognition.

In my current field, you merely state "all personnel have combat experience" and their are automatically "instructors" in spite of the fact "they" were never instructors.

Regards, Stan

Schmedlap
02-21-2010, 07:04 PM
While the age of the victims in a school shooting evokes sympathy, terrorism is more troubling because it is directed at the legitimacy of the state or society. If either unravels problems are significant and scale up.

That's surprising. I would have thought the school shootings are more problematic because one can make a case that there is a causal "copycat" effect. In other words, one school shooting can lead to more. Is there any fear that someone is going to copy this guy?

zenpundit
02-22-2010, 01:18 AM
"Is there any fear that someone is going to copy this guy? "

Stack is a copycatter. Austin is the third incident of using a plane to crash a building ( not including other plots that were disrupted prior to going operational).

William F. Owen
02-22-2010, 07:18 AM
I see the term "terrorism" as Wilf seems to see terms like manuever warfare, 4GW, OOTW, etc. It's a hip term for an ancient tactic/effect that serves no useful purpose and diverts attention away from the essence of what's really going on.

That's the rabbit! As an aside, I recently I had some guy advertised to me as being a "Counter-Terrorism Expert". I fed back that I was a "Warfare Expert." - not that I am in anyway, but I am thinking of claiming to be a "COIN Expert" since it seems there is no minimum standard in that field!

When folks call themselves "Student of Warfare" I think we'll be getting somewhere.

slapout9
02-22-2010, 02:46 PM
That's surprising. I would have thought the school shootings are more problematic because one can make a case that there is a causal "copycat" effect. In other words, one school shooting can lead to more. Is there any fear that someone is going to copy this guy?

1-It all goes to motive. Anyone with a similar motive may attack. The whole copycat theory is questionable IMO.

2-School shootings are usually the result of bullying. The Austin incident was the result of Government policies. The Method.....Terrorism was used in both cases.

3-The video I posted of the guy who bulldozed his house because of Bank and IRS problems has the same motive as Joe Stack, his method is exactly the same, but his target (opportunity) was slightly different.

4-That is why motive is so impoertant. Just like War if you want to prevent it or end it, sooner or later you must address the motvie.

slapout9
02-22-2010, 02:53 PM
Link to article where Plane Driver's Daughter calls him a hero.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/22/national/main6231193.shtml

Armed Liberal
02-22-2010, 10:56 PM
Joining the debate late, but led here from Zenpundit's link. I'll apologetically take a moment to disagree with much of what ZP says; the Committee on Public Safety was an organization of the State - chartered by the National Assembly. If their actions were terrorism, then so are the actions of every brutal dictatorship in the world - so, in fact, are the actions of every state that uses deadly force to enforce state policy.

I'll suggest that there are two phenomena here - one is what I've been calling the phenomenon of "muckers" (after John Brunner) - people who because of some anomic defect simply decide that killing people - sometimes lots of people - is the only way to scratch some psychic itch. We're rich in them in the West, for philosophical reasons that are interesting to explore, but a sidebar.

One is the growing acceptance, in the face of new standards of behavior in warfare that explicitly attempt to restrain military behavior, of non-state violence.

Some of the non-state actors are political participants within a state (Sri Lanka, the Taliban) some are transnational movements (currently the one that is active and attention getting is based on a modern interpretation of fundamentalist Islam - Islam crossbred with modern European philosophy).

I'll suggest a kind of "occam's razor" in distinguishing muckers from terrorists; if there are policy issues at stake - even irrational ones, we are probably talking about terrorists, even if they are lone wolf or self-initiated terrorists.

Muckers have no addressable complaints - as the Austin pilot didn't, the Washington state trooper murderer didn't. And they had no social network supporting and encouraging this kind of violence.

The Aryan Nation bank robbers in the 1980's? terrorists. Random cranks who go off and spout inchoate rage against the government and the system? Not so much, I'll argue.

So it seems dangerous to define terrorism down to the level of someone like this...


Marc

zenpundit
02-23-2010, 05:36 AM
"Joining the debate late, but led here from Zenpundit's link. I'll apologetically take a moment to disagree with much of what ZP says; the Committee on Public Safety was an organization of the State - chartered by the National Assembly. If their actions were terrorism, then so are the actions of every brutal dictatorship in the world - so, in fact, are the actions of every state that uses deadly force to enforce state policy"

Yes, that however was the point of origin for the concept of terrorism and "Terrorists", as a state agency, propagators of "the Terror" during the French Revolution, though the tactic is ancient (see LaQueur, Voices of Terror). The Jacobins and the Paris Commune were the heavy historical influence on Lenin's ideas of revolutionary violence ( along with the theories of Sergei Nechaev). Terrorism later became associated with groups and individuals which is how we use it today but "state terrorism" has never disappeared, we just call it something else.

Ken White
03-06-2010, 04:24 AM
I'm sure some will think so. Seems like not a terrorist, simply yet another nutter... :D

slapout9
03-06-2010, 07:04 AM
SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009:eek:


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/rage-on-the-right

Schmedlap
03-06-2010, 07:36 AM
SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009:eek:


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/rage-on-the-right

I heard an equally credible report from an equally credible group (though on the other side of the political spectrum) claiming that left-wing politicians want to destroy our way of life.:eek: Panic! If someone reports it, it must be objectively true!

slapout9
03-06-2010, 03:40 PM
I heard an equally credible report from an equally credible group (though on the other side of the political spectrum) claiming that left-wing politicians want to destroy our way of life.:eek: Panic! If someone reports it, it must be objectively true!

I never really understood the differance between left wing and right ring:confused: hate groups.

Ken White
03-06-2010, 04:16 PM
SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009:eek:Only way to keep those grants and donations coming in... ;)

Schmedlap
03-06-2010, 05:29 PM
I never really understood the differance between left wing and right ring:confused: hate groups.

"Right-wing" groups are those that hate people of a certain ethnicity or appearance. Generally racism.

"Left-wing" groups are those that hate people of certain vocations or beliefs. Generally bigotry.

But, yeah, the left and right labels don't make much sense.

bourbon
03-06-2010, 06:28 PM
Only way to keep those grants and donations coming in... ;)
Exactly, the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center is notoriously (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001573)sleazy. I am very skeptical about the information put out by the SPLC.

davidbfpo
04-08-2010, 07:27 PM
Hat Tip to Leah Farrell.


Threats of right wing violence have doubled in the past year. What is behind the latest upsurge in the movement to create a Christian theocratic state?

Link:http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/2432/the_return_of_christian_terrorism________?page=1

Note the only comment on the SPLC.

davidbfpo
04-08-2010, 09:23 PM
This thread was originally a reaction to the plane flown into an IRS building and entitled 'Plane Strikes IRS Building In Austin, Texas'. Having read the entries, which have dealt with definitions and more I have re-titled it: Domestic political violence (USA).

slapout9
04-08-2010, 11:37 PM
This thread was originally a reaction to the plane flown into an IRS building and entitled 'Plane Strikes IRS Building In Austin, Texas'. Having read the entries, which have dealt with definitions and more I have re-titled it: Domestic political violence (USA).

1-Hi David,and we have had a few more incidents of that nature since then too, sad and disturbing state of affairs IMO.

2-Can not remember which TV Network is going to air the program but on 19 APR 10 The Timothy MacVeigh Tapes are going to be aired. These are tapes of some type of LE or Legal interview and are supposed to be very detailed. Will post the Network when I can find it, unless somebody here already knows?

bourbon
04-11-2010, 05:14 PM
2-Can not remember which TV Network is going to air the program but on 19 APR 10 The Timothy MacVeigh Tapes are going to be aired. These are tapes of some type of LE or Legal interview and are supposed to be very detailed. Will post the Network when I can find it, unless somebody here already knows?
MSNBC. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36135258%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20/) Looks like an interesting program; McVeigh established a three year correspondence with the liberal author and activist Gore Vidal, which Vidal wrote about in a revealing essay (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2001/09/mcveigh200109?printable=true&currentPage=all) in 2001.


Oklahoma: the day homegrown terror hit America (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/oklahoma-bombing-15-years-on), by Ed Vulliamy. The Observer (UK), Sunday 11 April 2010.

When war veteran Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, the US was stunned. Why did Americans like him hate their country? And, as the rightwing militias rise again, what lessons does that fateful day hold?

slapout9
04-11-2010, 05:46 PM
MSNBC. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36135258%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20/) Looks like an interesting program; McVeigh established a three year correspondence with the liberal author and activist Gore Vidal, which Vidal wrote about in a revealing essay (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2001/09/mcveigh200109?printable=true&currentPage=all) in 2001.


Oklahoma: the day homegrown terror hit America (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/oklahoma-bombing-15-years-on), by Ed Vulliamy. The Observer (UK), Sunday 11 April 2010.

bourbon, thats the one:)

jmm99
04-19-2010, 12:32 AM
Two contemporaneous subject-matter related events do not necessarily a conspiracy make - they can be explained by parallelism.

For MSNBC (exemplified by the Keith and Rachel commentary shows if you watch them - I do; also regularly listened to Radio Moscow back in the day), this year is the year of the Domestic Terrorist (non-Muslim species), with SME commentary by Mark Potok (http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are/staff/mark-potok) (Director, Intelligence Project (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report)) of the Southern Poverty Law Center(Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center) and official site (http://www.splcenter.org/); first menu item is "Fifteen Years Later: A Grim Anniversary in Oklahoma (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/14/fifteen-years-later-a-grim-anniversary-in-oklahoma/)" by Potok with a plug for MSNBC). So, MSNBC's production of a Timothy McVeigh documentary (to view Monday) is not surprising since McVeigh is the "go to guy" for proponents of an all pervasive, right-wing Domestic Terrorist threat.

Nor is the testimony of Robert Mueller that surprising since he is in the process of trying to enhance the FBI's budget. Still the tack he has chosen to take is rather surprising to this armchair observer: Fox, Mueller: Home-Grown Extremists as Threatening as Al Qaeda (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/17/mueller-home-grown-extremists-threatening-al-qaeda/); UK Times, Domestic terrorists as big a threat as al-Qaeda, says FBI head Robert Mueller (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7100318.ece).

From the Times (same at Fox):


Fifteen years after the Oklahoma City bombing, the spectre of domestic terrorism has returned to haunt the Obama Administration, with a warning from the FBI that “home-grown and lone-wolf extremists” now represent as serious a threat as al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

The warning, from the FBI Director, Robert Mueller, came as the former President Clinton drew parallels between the Oklahoma City tragedy and a recent upsurge in anti-government rhetoric, while American television audiences heard Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, describe the “absolute rage” that drove him to plan an attack that killed 168 men, women and children.

An FBI spokesman told The Times yesterday that Mr Mueller was referring to right-wing extremist groups and anti-government militias, as well as American Islamists, in his testimony to the Senate committee that must approve the FBI’s $8.3 billion (£5.4 billion) budget.

Last month federal agents arrested nine members of a Christian militia based in Michigan, calling itself the Hutaree. They have been charged with plotting to murder local police with a stash of guns, knives and grenades.

I'm used to exaggeration by elected and appointed politicians (especially when it comes to filling their favorite rice bowl). However, this piece by Mueller seems a bit too much if taken literally (yup, don't take him literally). If these DVNSAs (Domestic Violent Non-State Actors) are as much of a threat of AQ, can we then expect drone attacks (and other direct actions) on their leadership and on their "affiliated groups" ?

From my armchair, all of this appears to be part of an effort (not necessarily orchestrated) to shift some dirt from very extreme right-wing groups to less right-wing groups (e.g., the Tea Party folks who to me seem more libertarian), and eventually to center-right groups and folks (NRA and JMM, for example). I don't like the tone of all this rhetoric, which has aspects of a PsyOp (of the grey kind).

Perhaps, the MSNBC documentary will shed some light on that aspect of the subject. However, the fates of pool scheduling have intervened; and tomorrow nite, we (Monte Carlo I) face off with them (Monte Carlo II) for the league championship. So, I'll have to pick up the MSNBC program on its rerun.

Regards

Mike

Ken White
04-19-2010, 01:24 AM
I'm used to exaggeration by elected and appointed politicians (especially when it comes to filling their favorite rice bowl)...all of this appears to be part of an effort (not necessarily orchestrated) to shift some dirt from very extreme right-wing groups to less right-wing groups (e.g., the Tea Party folks who to me seem more libertarian), and eventually to center-right groups and folks (NRA and JMM, for example). I don't like the tone of all this rhetoric, which has aspects of a PsyOp (of the grey kind).I think you're correct. Dumb, unnecessary and likely to backfire -- and shows how out of touch the 'political class' and the media generally are...

AmericanPride
11-28-2015, 03:13 PM
With the recent shooting in Colorado Springs targeting Planned Parenthood (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/27/us/colorado-shooting-probe/), I am interested in discussing small war(s) in the U.S., or even if that concept is applicable to low-intensity conflict in the country. This issue was broached in 2012 with a Small Wars article that led to some national attention (it is humorous to me that it was widely condemned though armed gunmen have since challenged the federal government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff)).

Statistics are difficult to include since it would have to be drawn from multiple databases. Starting with the Global Terrorism Database would be good, and it lists 256 attacks in the U.S. between 2001 and 2014, of which 250 were by domestic groups. We probably could include a number of attacks against police officers and law enforcement. Other incidents, such as the Bundy Ranch standoff, can be read as a part of this topic.

In looking over the distance of American history, there seems to be an on-going ebb and flow of a number of small war(s) that mix and match with each other, sometimes spilling over into violence, and sometimes fought overtly.

- What makes the U.S. particularly successful at home in suppressing violent organizations (i.e. the Ku Klux Klan)? Or, similarly, what makes violent groups in the U.S. particularly ineffective?

When I last looked at the statistics, the number of attacks has declined significantly since the 1970s, although the number of groups (particularly right-wing groups) appears to have proliferated. Notably absent are domestic Islamist groups.

- What are some of the ideological dimensions of small war(s) in the U.S.?

- What are some of the economic, social, and political causes?

I am always drawn to the example of the Russian Revolution - particularly, the years leading up to it from about 1895 when the failure(s) of local Russian governance became explicit and profound. A combination of social and economic forces led to ideological revolution, industrialization, famine, and repression, producing whirlwind campaigns of terrorism against the state and state retaliation.

There had been some discourse regarding the application of counterinsurgency tactics to street gangs. But I think that conversation is misplaced for the following reason: street gangs by and large do not have a political program nor desire to construct a counter-state, notwithstanding the revolutionary heritage of some gangs.

slapout9
11-28-2015, 07:20 PM
The Black Panthers and The Weather Underground /The Weathermen were the only true modern examples that I can think of that actually wanted to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.

Bill Moore
11-28-2015, 07:48 PM
The Black Panthers and The Weather Underground /The Weathermen were the only true modern examples that I can think of that actually wanted to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.

Perhaps, but other groups have more limited objectives. The objectives of war do not have to be unlimited. Some war objectives may be focused on establishing a separate state. Some may be focused on a specific ethic group. Others may conduct attacks in hope of shaping U.S. foreign policy. The concept of war is not limited to state actors or massive military employment. There is a wide spectrum of war that we often fail to appreciate.

slapout9
11-28-2015, 07:55 PM
Perhaps, but other groups have more limited objectives. The objectives of war do not have to be unlimited. Some war objectives may be focused on establishing a separate state. Some may be focused on a specific ethic group. Others may conduct attacks in hope of shaping U.S. foreign policy. The concept of war is not limited to state actors or massive military employment. There is a wide spectrum of war that we often fail to appreciate.

Which is why I listed the groups that I did. You should read up on them some time some of you thoughts are straight out of the revolutionary literature they provided to new recruits.

Bill Moore
11-28-2015, 10:42 PM
I have some of their material in a foot locker somewhere. If I can't find it online I'll dig it up. I think I still have a copy of the anarchist cookbook also, along with assorted manifestos. A lot of it is still relevant of course.

slapout9
11-28-2015, 11:15 PM
I have some of their material in a foot locker somewhere. If I can't find it online I'll dig it up. I think I still have a copy of the anarchist cookbook also, along with assorted manifestos. A lot of it is still relevant of course.

I am watching the Iron bowl.......Roll Tide!!!!! So I am to busy to do it now but Google black panthers 10 point plan and see what you come up with. If you can't find it I will post it after the game.

davidbfpo
11-29-2015, 11:40 AM
Previous threads which have touched upon this issue are:

1. Starting in 2009 DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism, with 36 posts and 13k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7094

2. From 2007 Terrorism in the USA:threat & response, with 442 posts and 118k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8828

3. From 2010-2013 is this possibly relevant, closed thread In The USA: the Next Revolution, with 515 post and 70k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=11147

AmericanPride
11-29-2015, 03:43 PM
Slap,

What do you mean by "true modern examples"? I would classify right-wing separatists (Christian Identity, sovereign citizens, et al) as groups that would like to overthrow the United States government. Most of the left-wing groups, except radical environmentalists, are now defunct.

Given the size and diversity of the U.S., America has weathered crisis fairly well. Although there have been a number of violent attacks every year against soft targets, I think the most concerning recent episode was the Bundy Ranch standoff which was a direct challenge to federal authority. The combination of discontent and widespread availability of arms would seem to suggest more incidents like this would take place. Why not? What makes the U.S. successful in suppressing these kinds of movements?

slapout9
11-29-2015, 07:31 PM
Slap,

What do you mean by "true modern examples"? I would classify right-wing separatists (Christian Identity, sovereign citizens, et al) as groups that would like to overthrow the United States government. Most of the left-wing groups, except radical environmentalists, are now defunct.

Given the size and diversity of the U.S., America has weathered crisis fairly well. Although there have been a number of violent attacks every year against soft targets, I think the most concerning recent episode was the Bundy Ranch standoff which was a direct challenge to federal authority. The combination of discontent and widespread availability of arms would seem to suggest more incidents like this would take place. Why not? What makes the U.S. successful in suppressing these kinds of movements?

1-Modern means in my lifetime... that I have either experienced directly or indirectly.

2- I don't agree with your examples because nobody remembers the difference between a Rebellion and a Revolution! One wants to change a policy or law, the other wants to change an entire form of Government. Thats why GWOT is such nonsense.

3-I do agree that there are many who would LIKE to overthrow the government but few who actually TRY to overthrow the Government which the Panthers and Weatherman did. Google armed takeover of the California Legislature by Black Panthers....that is a Revolutionary act!!! Goggle Weathermen blowing up Police Stations, also went after National Guard Armories to obtain Military weapons....another Revolutionary act.

4-The reason most fail is the same reason Martin Luther King believed. Most white people are not racist and are not inherently unfair, in the end we are pretty sane and reasonably so these temporary flair ups die out, just as MLK believed and wrote about. However certain groups such as the KKK were the only ones to truly worry about. Same for the Panthers....the Weathermen now that is a differant story.

davidbfpo
11-29-2015, 09:57 PM
This passage struck me as applying here, although the theme is not small war(s) in the USA:
First, the American mass media, and as a result, the American public, simply does not have the attention span (http://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/) to grant a fringe ideology the time it needs to have a significant, long-term effect on the national conversation after only a single event. This is not ideal for a lone-wolf shooter whose goal is to draw attention to his political or social cause. As solo-actors, they lack a support structure for follow on attacks or media releases, which are essential to a coherent political terrorism strategy.
Link:https://www.lawfareblog.com/routinization-terror-why-mass-shootings-dont-make-effective-terrorism-america

davidbfpo
12-11-2015, 10:20 PM
After two surveys in 2010 the author writes today:
Although most people opposed violence, a significant minority (ranging from 5-14 percent) agreed with each violent option, and 10-18 percent expressed indifference about violence in politics. This implies that millions of ordinary Americans endorse the general idea of violence in politics.

(Later) Although politics will always be contentious, my research suggests that combative and even violent political rhetoric can make some Americans see violence as an appropriate means to an end.
Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/11/a-surprising-number-of-americans-endorse-violence-against-the-government-heres-why/

omarali50
12-11-2015, 11:10 PM
This is likely true of all societies (and the rates are likely higher in societies without a liberal democratic tradition, maybe a little lower in those with less of the American "cowboy" ethos, but certainly not zero).
The crucial point is this: all our noble lies notwithstanding, the maintenance of liberal democratic values is an elite conspiracy (and a good one). If the elite cannot police its members effectively (for example, if the elite is not very coherent/lacks asabiya, or loses coherence amidst the temptations of populism) then demagogues can mobilize a lot of violence even in previously healthy societies.
It may be that this elite coherence is falling apart in Western societies.Maybe?
Why? most likely due to deeper structural reasons (everything decays, eventually). Maybe partly because a significant section of the intellectual elite has lost faith in classical liberalism (and is unable to articulate a workable superior alternative); this would be the section of the intelligentsia that has fully absorbed postmodernism, postmarxism and other fashionable ideologies that reject classical liberalism as an imperialist plot or a farce, etc etc. Partly because the leading right-of-center party has meanwhile endorsed or encouraged a lot of populist nonsense and then lost control of the narrative (the current Republican party?). Who knows.
People with better academic grounding in these matters can surely come up with better theories and descriptions, but something dangerous may well be going on.
On the other hand, I may just be running around saying "the sky is falling" well before the blessed firmament actually begins to crack. :)
I don't really think it IS falling, yet. But I do have my doubts at times.
https://storify.com/omarali50/trump-smashes-the-overton-window-part-2

AmericanPride
06-05-2016, 01:41 AM
I'm currently reading Days of Rage, which is about the Weather Underground. Two points stick out to me:

1) First, the racial component. According to interviews of WU leaders, their main object was violent revolution against white supremacy. The author traces their ideological history through black militants, finally ending in an uneasy alliance with the Black Panthers. In looking back across American history, virtually all (excepting, probably, the anarchist wave of violence) militant organizations (right and left) had race at or very near the center of their program. The KKK was arguably the most successful, having wrested back political control in the South after a campaign of violence and terrorism.

2) The WU were amateurs who had an intellectual affinity for violence and terrorism, but had a bourgeois rejection against it in practice and were incredibly unsophisticated about their operations. It seemed almost as a privileged interest in terrorism rather than revolutionary commitment. In a society as large and materially wealthy as the U.S. it's probably difficult to make any serious pitches to commit oneself to revolutionary violence.

slapout9
06-06-2016, 05:41 AM
I'm currently reading Days of Rage, which is about the Weather Underground. Two points stick out to me:

1) First, the racial component. According to interviews of WU leaders, their main object was violent revolution against white supremacy. The author traces their ideological history through black militants, finally ending in an uneasy alliance with the Black Panthers. In looking back across American history, virtually all (excepting, probably, the anarchist wave of violence) militant organizations (right and left) had race at or very near the center of their program. The KKK was arguably the most successful, having wrested back political control in the South after a campaign of violence and terrorism.

2) The WU were amateurs who had an intellectual affinity for violence and terrorism, but had a bourgeois rejection against it in practice and were incredibly unsophisticated about their operations. It seemed almost as a privileged interest in terrorism rather than revolutionary commitment. In a society as large and materially wealthy as the U.S. it's probably difficult to make any serious pitches to commit oneself to revolutionary violence.

Number 2 I agree with. Number 1 I am not so sure thats accuerate.

AmericanPride
06-06-2016, 01:32 PM
Slap,

Which part about number one do you think is inaccurate?

slapout9
06-06-2016, 08:33 PM
Slap,

Which part about number one do you think is inaccurate?

The part about white supremacy. The Panthers were actively recruiting and forming alliances with white people. Panther Bobby Lee in pafticular was having great success in thd Chicago area.

IMO the Weatherman were and still are closer to a Charles Manson style murder cult than a revolutionary movement, largely financed with rich kid's daddy's money!

AmericanPride
06-07-2016, 12:30 AM
I think part of the problem is that many infant and self-proclaimed revolutionary groups have their own internal dissensions about what their program is about. The difference between SDS and UW, and Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army, for example.

slapout9
06-07-2016, 04:01 AM
I think part of the problem is that many infant and self-proclaimed revolutionary groups have their own internal dissensions about what their program is about. The difference between SDS and UW, and Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army, for example.

Yes! In Warden's Rings he always talks a ring 3(Infrastructure) having both visible and invisible components! There has to be some type of cause or belief that will bind the team, a kind of mental steel of sorts.

davidbfpo
05-23-2017, 10:44 AM
An odd report via Twitter, from an untested source that relies on a local Miami paper and it starts with:
According to the Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/florida-keys/article151953257.html), Brandon Russell, Arthurs’ roommate, was in possession of multiple materials meant to build explosives, including a lethal bomb-making chemical named hexamethane triperoxide diamine. FBI and Tampa Police Department officers found the materials in Russell’s garage.
While in his bedroom, devices used by police bomb technicians alerted to the presence of radiation sources — thorium and americium. Link:http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/fbi-busts-atomwaffen-neo-nazi-in-florida-for-making-explosives-and-finds-radioactive-materials/

The local paper's report:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/florida-keys/article151953257.html

Leaving aside that Russell was serving in the National Guard; he lived with an extremist who was building IEDs possibly with radioactive components.

AdamG
05-23-2017, 02:18 PM
An odd report via Twitter, from an untested source that relies on a local Miami paper and it starts with:Link:http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/fbi-busts-atomwaffen-neo-nazi-in-florida-for-making-explosives-and-finds-radioactive-materials/

The local paper's report:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/florida-keys/article151953257.html

Leaving aside that Russell was serving in the National Guard; he lived with an extremist who was building IEDs possibly with radioactive components.

You left out a key piece of the story, Dave. From the Miami Herald link above:


Officers placed him in handcuffs, and as they walked him to a patrol car, he made several references to “Allah Mohammed,” and said, “I had to do it. This wouldn’t have to happen if your country didn’t bomb my country.”
Arthurs explained that he shared the same neo-Nazi beliefs as Himmelman and Oneschuk until his recent conversion to Islam. His friends often made disparaging comments about the religion, he said, to which he began to take great offense.
“Since then, Arthurs states, he has become angered by the world’s anti-Muslim sentiment and had wanted to bring attention to his cause,” according to the arrest report.



‘But they aren’t hurt, they’re dead’
Arthurs told police he killed his two friends — identified by police as Jeremy Himmelman and Andrew Oneschuk — because they disrespected his new-found Muslim faith. Police found the bodies Friday hours after Arthurs barged into a nearby smoke shop and pulled a handgun on an employee and several customers.

Note that RAW STORY massaged this event to exclude all mention of the "Derka Derka Mohammed Jihad" aspect.

Now, however will the SPLA classified this? Islamic terrorism or Right-Wing terrorism? Place your bets now, kids.

davidbfpo
08-06-2017, 08:47 PM
I have re-opened this closed thread prompted by the next post. I have copied two posts from the current Terrorism in the USA thread, on the Florida case as they appear relevant.

There are a small number of closed, historical threads that touch upon this theme; notably this:DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism)

davidbfpo
08-06-2017, 08:55 PM
An article from 'The Atlantic', the full title and sub-title are: The Rise of the Violent Left; Antifa’s activists say they’re battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?
Link:https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/-the-rise-of-the-violent-left/f-33e4a4decc%2Ftheatlantic.com

I was aware of some the violent incidents @ Portland, Oregon; though without understanding why that city features so much. That Antifa have a strong Anarchist element I had missed - anarchism's roots go back a long way.

davidbfpo
08-14-2017, 08:26 AM
An academic study by three US academics, they explain their project inpart in:
A recent study by criminologists examined the situational risk factors associated with far-right terrorist attack success. Their findings suggest that target vulnerability, lone actors, and unsophisticated weaponry are common correlates of far-right terrorism, information that may aid in the investigation and prevention of future domestic terror attacks.Link:http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/08/11/vulnerable-targets-lone-actors-and-unsophisticated-weaponry-are-increasingly-common-trends-of-u-s-far-right-domestic-terror-attacks/

Azor
08-14-2017, 07:59 PM
Since September 11, 2001, some 190 people have been killed in acts of terror in the United States, inclusive of the recent killing at Charleston:


117 (62%) were killed by Muslim supremacists


50 (26%) were killed by terrorists whose ethnic background was white, including white supremacist, anti-government, anti-abortion and misc. terrorists


23 (12%) were killed by terrorists whose ethnic background was black, including black supremacist, anti-government and misc. terrorists


For demographic context:


62% of the population is non-Hispanic white


13% of the population is black


1% of the population is Muslim

davidbfpo
08-28-2017, 07:59 PM
A WaPo article and the series of photos helps to explain what happened. The third is devastating IMHO from "across the water", it defies being copied here. So the text after the image:

Most dangerously, law enforcement experts say, officers initially deployed without adequate protective gear to break up fighting and were not well positioned to keep the peace. As fights erupted, police stayed back. They stood not between the two opposing groups but behind them and off to the sides. And when they cleared the park where rallygoers had gathered near a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, police flushed many of them directly onto the same street where counterprotesters were gathered, according to witnesses and video.Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-charlottesville-lost-control-amid-deadly-protest/2017/08/26/288ffd4a-88f7-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-charlottesville-lost-control-amid-deadly-protest/2017/08/26/288ffd4a-88f7-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?tid=ss_tw-amp&utm_term=.99e98afa5e76)

It will be interesting to read - one day - how Berkeley PD's performance today is reported.

davidbfpo
08-31-2017, 11:43 AM
The full title and sub-title of this article is:
Virginia received DHS warning before Charlottesville rally; Homeland Security alerted officials to potential for 'most violent' clash between white supremacists and anarchists.Link:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/29/charlottesville-violence-homeland-security-242140

It opens with:
The Department of Homeland Security issued a confidential warning to law enforcement authorities three days before the deadly Aug. 12 Charlottesville protest rally, saying that an escalating series of clashes had created a powder keg that would likely make the event “among the most violent to date” between white supremacists and anarchists. The “law enforcement sensitive” assessment, obtained by POLITICO and reported for the first time, raises questions about whether Charlottesville city and Virginia state authorities dropped the ball before, and during, a public event that was widely expected to draw huge crowds of armed, emotional and antagonistic participants from around the country.

This article was id'd in this one by John Schindler, who looks at the not so "hidden hand" of Russia:http://observer.com/2017/08/russia-america-charlottesville-far-left/

I note the Virginia Fusion Center was involved; a topic that appeared in a thread awhile ago now and IIRC was critical of their lack of focus. See:State & Local Intel in the GWOT (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/State & Local Intel in the GWOT)

For background this closed thread will help:DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism)

davidbfpo
10-17-2017, 12:03 PM
A What if" article by Daniel Byman and this passage explains:
...what if the U.S. government went beyond rhetoric and truly treated these groups as it treats Americans suspected of being involved with jihadist organizations like ISIS? The differences would be profound. Not only would the resources that law enforcement devotes to nonjihadist groups soar, but so too would the means of countering those groups....

Ouch, a lesson from Charlottesville:
For example, Virginia allows its residents to openly carry a firearm. However, the law stipulates that a non-Virginian from a state where open carry is illegal cannot carry a firearm— a seemingly obscure technicality. Police, however, did not check to make sure all the marchers in Charlottesville—many of which were from other states—met this criterion.
Link:https://www.brookings.edu/articles/should-we-treat-domestic-terrorists-the-way-we-treat-isis-what-works-and-what-doesnt/

AdamG
12-19-2017, 01:20 PM
From the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness

Anarchist Extremists: Antifa
June 12, 2017
Counterterrorism, Domestic

Anti-fascist groups, or “Antifa,” are a subset of the anarchist movement and focus on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices.

https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa?rq=antifa

davidbfpo
12-19-2017, 02:31 PM
A WaPo report:
Charlottesville Police Chief Alfred Thomas resigned abruptly Monday, just 17 days after the release of a report that was highly critical of the police department’s handling of a white-supremacist rally in August that turned deadly in the Virginia city. The 207-page report prepared by Timothy Heaphy, a former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia, concluded that the department was ill-prepared, lacked proper training and had a flawed plan for managing the Unite the Right rally that drew hundreds of neo-Nazis and white nationalists to Charlottesville on Aug. 12 and resulted in violent clashes with counterprotesters. The lack of adequate preparation led to “disastrous results,” Heaphy wrote.
Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/charlottesville-police-chief-resigns-in-wake-of-report-on-white-supremacist-rally/2017/12/18/536ac8a2-e42c-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/charlottesville-police-chief-resigns-in-wake-of-report-on-white-supremacist-rally/2017/12/18/536ac8a2-e42c-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tidr=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.7ad2bd5309e0&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1)


WaPo did report the Heaphy report before, which has a link to the report. Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/charlottesville-response-to-white-supremacist-rally-sharply-criticized-in-new-report/2017/12/01/9c59fe98-d6a3-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/charlottesville-response-to-white-supremacist-rally-sharply-criticized-in-new-report/2017/12/01/9c59fe98-d6a3-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.9786211f71bf)

davidbfpo
01-14-2018, 03:42 PM
The rationale for not labeling domestic acts of violence as terrorism has now been explained by a DoJ lawyer:
Thomas Brzozowski is well aware of the criticism. The former judge advocate general officer and FBI lawyer is now the Justice Department’s counsel for domestic terrorism matters, a counterterrorism position created within the DOJ’s National Security Division in 2015.
Link:https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/-theres-a-good-reason-feds-dont-call-whi/f-2dd8ca263b%2Fhuffingtonpost.com

davidbfpo
08-24-2018, 07:24 PM
A short article that sums up the threat within and suggests Italian success against its enemies, now awhile ago offers a way ahead. A key passage:
The Italian experience raises another warning. After voters rejected the parties of the extreme left in 1977, some of their activists gave up on democracy, joining terrorist groups and stoking greater violence. US voters in 2018 seem ready to reject white nationalist candidates, which may motivate some to consider violent tactics instead.
Link:http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/400218-defeating-home-grown-american-terrorism-an-italian-lesson

Bill Moore
08-24-2018, 08:30 PM
David,

This is opinion piece is deeply flawed. White supremacist commit on average less than 30 "murders" a year, which is certainly a security concern that I believe is being addressed by our law enforcement entities. Making it a mainstream topic of discuss in my view would risk making the problem worse. The government cracked down hard on these groups after the Oklahoma Federal Bombing, the most significant terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland prior to 9/11. It is still the most significant attack conducted by a U.S. citizen.

Shifting to left wing wing terrorist groups, in the U.S. much like Europe, they killed scores of people throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Today, we see a re-emergence of left wing violence. Most notably they are killing police officers in large numbers in recent years. ANTIFA and other left wing mobs have committed consider damage, and their activities seem to be increasing. Sadly, some U.S. politicians seem to back them with their rhetoric, such as our former President.

The greater threat posed to our nation isn't white supremacists and left wing extremists violence, it is the dumbing down of American society that they represent. Mainstream media, social media, and unqualified university professors promote these views by failing to encourage critical thinking. A democracy only works with an educated electorate willing to intellectually debate issues and seek comprise solutions. Extremists by definition reject compromise. Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate how to do this, but in fact have become part of the problem (both sides of the aisle).

The author believes voters will reject white supremacist candidates??? America has largely rejected these idiots over the last 50 years, so this is an attempt to paint all conservatives as supremacists to shape voter perceptions. It is dishonest and only further divides our people. The media did a poor job assessing how Americans would vote during the last election, and I see no indication their assessment, or more accurately their bias, has improved. However, there is good news. I'm pleasantly surprised that irresponsible social media and main stream media has not prompted more left and right wing extremist attacks in the U.S. Perhaps behind all the hyped noise most of us are relatively content? There isn't anything at this time worth killing or physically harming other Americans over, and the system can still work if we hold it accountable.

AdamG
08-26-2018, 01:40 PM
America has largely rejected these idiots over the last 50 years, so this is an attempt to paint all conservatives as supremacists to shape voter perceptions. It is dishonest and only further divides our people.

Exactly so.

For anyone unclear on the motives behind these shennanigans, they need only to read the writings of Saul Alinsky.

Anyone paying attention can see the following in play, each and every day across the media spectrum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

The Rules
"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
"Never go outside the expertise of your people."
"Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
"Keep the pressure on."
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside"
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

davidbfpo
11-03-2018, 08:43 PM
There is a relevant, closed thread 'DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism', which refers to a controversial 2009 report and the ensuing controversy. It has relevance here I think.
Link:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?7094-DHS-Report-Rightwing-Extremism

davidbfpo
11-03-2018, 08:47 PM
The actual, full title of a NYT article is 'U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It.' It is added here as this DHS report gets a lot of coverage.
Link:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/m...ar-right.html? (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html?)

It is a 'long read' blending the historical and contemporary, in particular with one extremist being interviewed, alongside his personal history.

Bill Moore
03-03-2019, 02:28 AM
This article follows the recent arrest of Lt Chris Hasson, a serving U.S. Coast Guard officer. He allegedly was planning a mass-casualty attack in the U.S. and threatening to kill several politicans in the Democratic Party and left leaning journalists in main stream media (which frankly is most of them). He's a Lt, so probably young, but still an officer with some education and hopefully ability to think about the consequences of his planned actions. So what did he and these other whackos think would happen after their actual or planned attacks? Do they really believe their hoped for civil war and destruction it will cause better than the current situation? Manifestos existed long before the internet and social media, but I can't help that the disinformation on Facebook and Twitter is resulting in those with perhaps lesser capacity to think rationally to simply feed upon each others' anger to the point it results in extremism. This radicalization process amplified by Russia using bots and trolls to spread disinformation. Once you understand the outcome, the term weaponized information has more meaning. It nothing less than a form of warfare, if not an undeclared act of war.

The Dangerous Spread of Extremist Manifestos

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/02/dangerous-spread-extremist-manifestos/155168/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

It starts with,


Allegations against a Coast Guard lieutenant are a reminder that, by sharing the writings of terrorists, media outlets can amplify their impact.

Nearly eight years ago, the Norwegian extremist Anders Behring Breivik set the bar for what an individual terrorist could accomplish—detonating a truck bomb in Oslo that killed eight, then murdering 69 more, mostly teenagers, with semiautomatic weapons in another nearby location. All this was done in the name of a twisted ideology he had compiled largely from the internet, cobbled together into a sprawling, 1,518-page tract titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence,” in which he raged against multiculturalism, liberalism, and Muslims, while describing his attack preparations in considerable detail.

And ends with,


All the journalistic restraint in the world will not stop killers from memorializing their actions, and it will not stop extremists from fixating on those memoirs. But the success of terrorism is measured largely by its reach. The horrific act of Anders Breivik propelled his intended meaning to a global audience, where it has found purchase. Less deadly acts of violence by Dylann Roof and Elliot Rodger have been elevated in the same way. We have only begun to suffer the cost of these writings, crafted with an intent no less lethal than their authors’ violent crimes. We must do better when we confront the next, inevitable outbreak.

For more on the Anders Breivik in Norway see the closed thread, Norway Attacks What Happened

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?13830-Norway-attacks-what-happened-and-the-implications-(new-title)/page3