I'm sure some will think so. Seems like not a terrorist, simply yet another nutter... :D
Printable View
I'm sure some will think so. Seems like not a terrorist, simply yet another nutter... :D
SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009:eek:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...e-on-the-right
Exactly, the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center is notoriously sleazy. I am very skeptical about the information put out by the SPLC.
Hat Tip to Leah Farrell.
Link:http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar..._______?page=1Quote:
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?
Note the only comment on the SPLC.
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?
MSNBC. 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 in 2001.
Oklahoma: the day homegrown terror hit America, by Ed Vulliamy. The Observer (UK), Sunday 11 April 2010.
Quote:
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?
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 (Director, Intelligence Project) of the Southern Poverty Law Center(Wiki and official site; first menu item is "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; UK Times, Domestic terrorists as big a threat as al-Qaeda, says FBI head Robert Mueller.
From the Times (same at Fox):
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" ?Quote:
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.
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
With the recent shooting in Colorado Springs targeting Planned Parenthood, 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).
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.
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.
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.
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/...ead.php?t=7094
2. From 2007 Terrorism in the USA:threat & response, with 442 posts and 118k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.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/...ad.php?t=11147
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.
This passage struck me as applying here, although the theme is not small war(s) in the USA:Link:https://www.lawfareblog.com/routiniz...rorism-americaQuote:
First, the American mass media, and as a result, the American public, simply does not have the attention span 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.
After two surveys in 2010 the author writes today:Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ent-heres-why/Quote:
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.
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-...-window-part-2
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.
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!
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.
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-...ive-materials/Quote:
According to the Miami Herald, 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.
The local paper's report:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...151953257.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:
Quote:
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.
Note that RAW STORY massaged this event to exclude all mention of the "Derka Derka Mohammed Jihad" aspect.Quote:
‘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.
Now, however will the SPLA classified this? Islamic terrorism or Right-Wing terrorism? Place your bets now, kids.
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
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/-th...heatlantic.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.
An academic study by three US academics, they explain their project inpart in:Link:http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/201...error-attacks/Quote:
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.
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
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:
Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-charlottesville-lost-control-amid-deadly-protest/2017/08/26/288ffd4a-88f7-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?Quote:
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.
It will be interesting to read - one day - how Berkeley PD's performance today is reported.
The full title and sub-title of this article is:Link:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ecurity-242140Quote:
Virginia received DHS warning before Charlottesville rally; Homeland Security alerted officials to potential for 'most violent' clash between white supremacists and anarchists.
It opens with: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-a...ille-far-left/Quote:
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.
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
For background this closed thread will help:DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism
A What if" article by Daniel Byman and this passage explains:Ouch, a lesson from Charlottesville:Quote:
...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....
Link:https://www.brookings.edu/articles/s...d-what-doesnt/Quote:
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.
From the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness
https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/a...tifa?rq=antifaQuote:
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.
A WaPo report: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?Quote:
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.
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?
The rationale for not labeling domestic acts of violence as terrorism has now been explained by a DoJ lawyer:Link:https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/-th...ingtonpost.comQuote:
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.
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:Link:http://thehill.com/opinion/national-...italian-lessonQuote:
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.
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.
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."
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/...wing-Extremism
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?
It is a 'long read' blending the historical and contemporary, in particular with one extremist being interviewed, alongside his personal history.
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/201...seone_today_nl
It starts with,
And ends with,Quote:
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.
For more on the Anders Breivik in Norway see the closed thread, Norway Attacks What HappenedQuote:
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.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...w-title)/page3