When people are running with an argument that blames the whole for the actions of the few.. There are over one billions Muslims in the world. To claim that their religion made them do it when faced with the sheer number of Muslims and how few commit such acts.. How often do people try to assassinate the US President? White supremacists and Ricin have a special relationship (similar to that of the KGB).. And they have a reason for hating Wicker (3 second google search) : The SITE monitoring service, which says it provides news and analysis "on the jihadist threat", reported that Wicker was the target of anger from US-based militia groups and white supremacists for his vote that helped move forward gun reform debates in the Senate. If he is not, then I duly apologise for having tarnished his reputation..
White supremacists and gun control? But can't guns be used by anyone? Anyway, was it sheer coincidence that the ricin letters coincided with the marathon bombings?
Guns are the supremacist's fetish. Fetish, definition: The attribution of religious or mystical qualities to inanimate objects. Guns represent freedom, patriotism, manliness, the American way of life. They are powerful magic.
It's a threshold scale, Bells. Increasing devoutness makes one increasingly likely to commit religious violence. Not all people do it - it's not an absolute threshold - but I don't think there's any reason to doubt it. Now: what's your perception on the relative attack rate by philosophy, above? Islamism is certainly a disproportionately high motivator of terrorism in the United States. I have a funnier and more sarcastic answer, but anyway I think it's not exactly uncommon. I see. It's possible, but at this point this is coincidental only, let alone circumstantial. I seem to recall attempts to tar and feather me being made on SF for having more evidence than that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't believe in coincidence, but if it were more than that it would indeed be a rare instance of cooperation between right-wing reactionaries in the Islamic and Christian spheres.
As for Darryl Johnson. He was a senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security. I would say he would have a fair idea of the issues concerning domestic terrorism in the US, wouldn't you? The list that I linked was compiled from what is known from the FBI (and I would presume other law enforcement groups) which include both attacks and plots. And it wasn't Johnson who made up the list.
Yeah, in the supremacist's warped mind. So you believe there was some cooperation? But those two groups seem fundamentally opposed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nope. Flat out. Not if he's missing stuff. (If that is indeed the lad, I noticed his Star Trek links in the same site - classy.) My respect for politicians and their flunkies hinges on their ability (or even abilities), not their title. By the same token, this guy was a great president. He had a lot more understanding of how to do that job than you or I. Ergo, he was fucking awesome. I was referring to Darryl's (sweet hillbilly name) list there. But I think your list also missed many attacks and plot. Here's what seems to be a conservative list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...ited_States#attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date. There's really no one better qualified to do their jobs? Listen, if any of you FBI stooges is reading this: I'm available, and I'm not particularly greedy. Drop me a PM. We can work something out. Think about it: awesome brain for hire. You can't lose.
Bit of an overstatement. However, there is widespread social conservatism in Islamic countries leading to a nearly fascist interpretation of personal liberties regarding religion.
Just checked that link of yours: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/09/13201853-meet-former-dhs-official-daryl-johnson?lite Ol' Darryl seems to have had a bit of a narrow focus there. Forgive me for griping, but I've been told that's a bad, discredity-sorta thing. He did call Oak Creek, but after about five minutes that wasn't exactly a hard one. It was only complicated because it was so iconically stupid. I mean, mistaking Sikhs for Muslims - classic right-wing shithead sterotype.
Wait, what? What stuff is Johnson missing? The list I posted about the plots and attacks is not from Johnson... he has nothing to do with that list. And he didn't call Oak Creek.. His report pointed to the increased risk of such forms of domestic terrorist attacks in the US: His job was to focus on domestic terrorism and the increase in extremist and radical supremacist groups in the US. That was quite clear from the quotes provided. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of radical right-wing groups holding extreme anti-government ideology has increased during the last four years eightfold -- from 150 to more than 1,200. The same period has seen more homegrown right-wing terrorism attacks on U.S. soil than acts committed in the name of Jihadi ideology, according to the SPLC. Many of the groups responsible for these acts have cameos in Johnson's new book, Right-Wing Resurgence: How a Domestic Terrorist Threat is Being Ignored. That is why it was so narrow. Hence why he wrote the report which cited the propensity and risk of returning servicemen being recruited into white supremacist groups, for example, (something even the FBI during the Bush era had raised red flags about).. And that was one of the things the Conservatives rose up in anger about the most. Much of the right's ignorant ire was directed at Johnson's warning that returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan could be targeted for extremist recruitment. Overwhelmed by the right-wing noise and smoke was the fact that the Bush administration's FBI issued its own warning about extremists and the military, noting that more than 200 individuals identified in white supremacist extremism cases from October 2001 to May 2008 had confirmed or claimed military service. This key piece of background was often missing from mainstream coverage of the right-wing freak-out. And he was not wrong. You can read more about other reports about the rise of white supremacists in the military here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/us-army-white-supremacists_n_1815137.html http://www.salon.com/2009/06/15/neo_nazis_army/ http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/summer/extremism-and-the-military#.UX_Z_8ovm5w And here is a copy of the report that caused such controversy: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf His report when he was with DHS was clear, that the US is so focused on Islamic terrorist threat that they are willfully ignoring a dramatic rise in radical right-wing groups in the US. Or are you now going to claim that he and the SPLC are wrong? That he doesn't have the experience or know-how about radical right wing terrorism because you believe he left something off whatever list?
He called Oak Creek as a right-wing supremacist attack:but that's his focus, so I thought it might explain why he's missed so many Islamist attacks. If the list originates from elsewhere, then naturally that's someone else's oversight. If you absolutely insisted with cherries on top, I suppose I might be persuaded to dredge up a more complete list - but before that there's still the wiki list. ...oo-kay. I'm really glad for him, and for his agent. :shrugs: I'm not sure what this has to do with this discussion: my point was that the list overlooks a lot of attacks and plots. If he didn't compile it, why are we continuing on discussing him? Er - again, that's great, but I don't follow why you're introducing it. My point was that the list missed a lot of stuff. ?? What controversy? Ahhh I see what you're getting at now. Sure, he and the SPLC do appear to be wrong. Given the small population base from which Islamists have to come, there's a lot more threat per capita from Islamists and it seems very likely that they've missed a lot of plots and attacks; meaning that for a very limited population base, there is far, far more risk of terrorism from Islamism. I hear about a shitload of these things. Did you want to post the list of attacks and plots from the - what was it? 44 listed on your post comparing philosophical bases for terrorism? I could probably start collating a list as well (sigh) if you absolutely insist. I don't have a ton of time. I wouldn't be too surprised if it cranked right up past the non-Islamist events in absolute terms, actually. I wonder though if I could post it online when I'm done. At least then it would be a little more worth doing. Anyway; why do you say willful? You're telling me they're deliberately ignoring it. Where does that occur in the memorandum? And if so, why doesn't he give statistics? He talks about trends, but unrooted ones, and instances, but not numerical indications. I noted this introduction: Doesn't bode well as a statement of incipient relative risk, IMHO. Or even of relative risk. He doesn't compare it to other philosophical bases for terrorist attacks in the US. I don't know if you can argue a relative risk from this platform, which is what the discussion is about. ?? You just said he didn't have anything to do with the list! So how can it now be his mistake?
@geoffp Not sure what you are saying. This is the Oak Ridge gunman, Wade Page. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Are you saying that he isn't a right wing white supremacist?
?? When the hell did I say that? I that Daryl Johnson called Oak Ridge as a white supremacist crime, but that I didn't think it wasn't exactly an impressive call. Once you heard some of the details it wasn't hard to guess what happened. It was actually almost more surprisingly that it actually really did happen that way:that even a neo-Nazi could be so stereotypically stupid. It's dumb like you might see in a joke, or a bad movie. I'm not sure what you people are saying; is there a gas leak in here?
I'm more confused now. What is it I think happened about what? The Oak Ridge attack? A white supremacist/nationalist attacked a Sikh temple. If you read one of Bells' links above - and I forget which one - it talks about Darryl Johnson thinking that it was a white supremacist attack as soon as he heard about it. Now, that's what I thought too the second I heard what had been attacked - that a white supremacist attacked the temple because he thought it was a mosque. So I'm not hugely impressed with Johnson's prophetic abilities; I don't revere him just because of what he does. Is that a little clearer?
I believe all this started when I provided information which stated that there are more terrorists plots and attacks in the US from right wing/radical/white supremacist/black supremacists/Jewish terrorist groups/animal rights activists/etc combined than there are from Muslim extremists in the US. I then gave a list of non-Muslim terrorist plots from an article which was not apparently exhaustive or complete or very detailed. It then linked the article where Johnson is cited as saying that the US, at least, is so concerned with Muslim terrorists that they are disregarding home grown non-Muslim terrorists and also linked and quoted how radical and extremists groups are on the rise in the US and also in the US military. Johnson's predictions in his report, which saw him resign in disgust from DHS when Conservatives rejected it and demanded DHS cease and desist as they saw it as an attack on their supposed freedoms, were not that far off the reality of today. Now I don't know what the hell you're on about.. You seem to have taken it and run in a direction known only to you.
