Monday, 10 January 2011

In the wake of the attack on Rep. Gifford should we call it terrorism & is this the end of lone-wolf terrorism?

Another excellent post from Brigitte L. Nacos which questions why people are not prepared to call this attack an act of terrorism and simply white wash over it with the usual assumptions that the guy must be crazy. I agree, and writers like Sam Harris have already pointed out that only the liberal left would be the ones left surprised by these acts of violence and terrorism. This pressure-cooker is of the creation of many right-wing pundits, but equally by those who shrug it off as crazy rhetoric and that only a few would sipping that crazy kool-aid.



Now we have a mess that needs to be cleared up and due to the 'now media' we should ask if any terrorist attack takes place in isolation by so-called lone wolves? Propaganda, indoctrination, training, support, etc. are all facilitated by others via the internet, and I expect the FBI are combing through all of Loughner's computers to assemble a full picture of his web-footprint. With careful analysis, some good may come from this.



Peace
Amplify’d from www.reflectivepundit.com
According to evidence presented by law enforcement officials in court, Jared Lee Loughner planned the assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) well in advance
It wouldn’t be far-fetched to assume that the Tucson shooter shared other causes and grievances of the right-extremist milieu—predominantly directed against the “unpatriotic” liberal and moderate enemies that do share their extreme ideas. For that, he did not have to attend actual meetings of so-called patriot or militia groups or even know any of those movements’ activists.
 “The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that not only threats but also hate speech and other inciteful speech is much more readily available to individuals than quite clearly it was 8 or 10 or 15 years ago.”
Was the attack, then, the insane act of a mad young man?
As far as I am concerned, the premeditated attack that killed six persons and wounding a dozen others was an act of terrorism by definition. Terrorism means after all the deliberate, politically motivated targeting of civilians or non-combatants.
Strange, that the chattering class has far less of a problem calling similar acts of violence inside the United States “terrorism,” when the perpetrators are identified as Muslim Americans.
But starting with the election of President Obama, the emergence of the Birther movement, the revitalization of the extremist patriot and militia movement, the threatening nature of the Tea Party advent during 2009 town hall meetings at the heights of the health care reform debate, and peaking again during last year’s bitter election campaign, right-wingers have been particularly extreme in the rhetoric of hate and division.   
Although one would hope that Sarah Palin did not want to encourage real life attacks on the targets she pinpointed during the campaign, the fact is that she publicized a graphic that displayed gunsight-style crosshair targets on the districts of 20 Democrat politicians that supported Barack Obama’s healthcare reform, among them Representative Giffords. The idea was to “take out” those opposition candidates—in the next election. But placing the “hit list” side by side with Palin’s gun-blazing "Don't retreat, reload” phrase, this stuff could be understood quite differently.
Sarah Palin's 'target list'
What happened in Tucson the other day should be a wake-up call for extremists of all colors and, more important, for the majority that tends to remain at the sidelines of political discourse.
It does not bode well that right-wingers have already began to push back against critics of their demagoguery and hate speech—and, of course, on their ridiculous interpretation of the right to bear arms based on the second amendment.
By now it the time for real American values to prevail. 
Read more at www.reflectivepundit.com