Conscious or unconscious parallelism
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):
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.
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
Small Wars(s) in the United States
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.
Rooooollllllll Tide Roll 29-13!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
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.
Millions of ordinary Americans endorse the general idea of violence in politics
After two surveys in 2010 the author writes today:
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.
Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ent-heres-why/