Tag Archives: homegrown terror

Just Like Trump, Media Outlets Rarely Label Far-Right Attacks ‘Terrorism’: Study

A rare exception in the glaring trend came last month when New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was swift to characterize the massacre in Christchurch as the work of a white nationalist terrorist

By Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 4-10-2019

Governor Wolf Joins Pittsburgh in mourning after the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting. Photo: Governor Tom Wolf/flickr

A new study shows that media outlets frequently echo the instinct of political leaders like President Donald Trump when they refuse to label the violence of far-right assailants as “terrorism” while showing significantly less reluctance if an attack was carried out by an Islamic extremist.

The British media monitoring firm Signal AI found that most news sources are quick to draw links between incidents identified as “Islamist” attacks and terrorism, but are far less likely to do the same when an attack suspect is linked to far-right ideologies like white nationalism. Continue reading

Share

#PutMyFaceOnIt Launched to Begin Social Media Reality Check

As the fallout from the elections on Tuesday continue to take place, we are observing conversations on social media that are further deepening the divide that threatens the unity of this nation.

Most of us have friends or family that may have voted opposite of how we voted, if people chose to vote at all. (Only about half the electorate chose to exercise this right in the 2016 election.) Some have described this as “urban vs. rural”; others saying “intellectual vs. uneducated” and many other descriptors that fall in-between.

What ever it is, if each of us were to take that conversation that rips through you and enhances your fears or emotions, ask them to #PutMyFaceOnIt.

Insert your photo, copy and edit the following to make it personal. Tell that “friend” that when they are talking about these things, they are talking about you.

unknown

Insert Your Photo Here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear “Friend,”
When you are talking about “those protestors,” you are talking about me.
When you are talking about “those libtards,” you are talking about me.
When you are talking about “those people,” you are talking about me.
If this is truly how you feel about ME, I can no longer look at you as a friend I can trust. I can no longer feel that you see me as equal to you; you have crucified me with the rest of “those people.” In order for us to all have a clear understanding of who my friends REALLY are, if that is how you actually feel, please “UNFRIEND” me.

Thank you,
One of “those” people

Embellish this as much as you can. Add every area that this has affected you. GET REAL.

Share

The Federal response in Malheur and far right extremism

David Alpher, George Mason University

Maheur

Photo: YouTube

After a weeks-long standoff with federal and Oregon state police, 16 members of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation have been arrested, one wounded and another killed. The occupation’s leaders, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, are among those in custody.

Although some of the foot soldiers remain on federal land, the occupation’s end is inevitable. But the end of the siege will do nothing to reduce the increasing threat from America’s radical right wing.

The official response to both this current takeover and last summer’s standoff at the Bundy ranch in Nevada has been subdued. Given that in both cases the radicals were heavily armed and threatening to kill anyone who tried to arrest them, the fact that only one militant has lost his life is startling.

I have spent 14 years studying terrorism and extremism in conflict. The militants in Malheur aren’t, in my view, currently terrorists, but groups like theirs have performed acts of domestic terrorism in the past. I believe the country’s leadership needs to work quickly to stop that from happening again.

‘Act or do nothing’ is a false choice

Burns resident Jen Hoke. Burns, Oregon, January 30, 2016.
REUTERS/Jim Urquhart

Restraint is certainly preferable to the violence of the federal actions at the compound of Randy Weaver in Ruby Ridge, Idaho and the Branch Davidian cult’s compound in Waco, Texas in 1992 and 1993, respectively. Each of those cases began as investigations into the sale or possession of illegal firearms and escalated into sieges involving multiple agencies.

In Waco, the siege ended with a full-scale assault on the compound, four federal agents killed and 16 wounded. Eighty-two members of the Branch Davidians were killed, including 17 children.

Ruby Ridge ended with a U.S. marshall killed along with two members of the Weaver household, and two more wounded. One of the dead was Weaver’s 14-year-old son, and one of the wounded was his pregnant wife.

Two years later, Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, killling 168 and injuring more than 600 others, in retaliation for Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The comparative restraint demonstrated recently at the Bundy ranch and Malheur suggests the government has taken a clear lesson to heart: there are more militants out there, and they are watching.

Double standard

Unfortunately there is also legitimate protest that had these armed occupiers been anything but white, we’d likely have seen far less restraint.

In 1985, Philadelphia police responded to the occupation of a house by the black power group MOVE by dropping a firebomb that ultimately killed 11 people and left another 250 homeless. In 1973, the occupation of Wounded Knee by the American Indian Movement resulted in federal troops called up on American soil and ended with two dead and 15 wounded. More recently, we saw a militarized police reaction to a series of racial protests following the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Even noting the double standard, the degree of restraint shown in Malheur is still admirable. The current U.S. domestic strategy for countering violent extremism correctly recognizes that while violent or armed responses are occasionally needed, they are usually more effective at driving further violence than at ending it. Threat reduction should focus on preventing the cause of radicalization rather than attempting to crush the symptom. That means focusing on inclusive governance, ending social marginalization and focusing on community policing instead of violent reaction.

In the current political climate, however, restraint also has a dangerous edge. It gives the impression of leaving the field to emboldened extremists, who are now claiming victory. That’s a dangerous precedent, especially as such groups are showing a shift toward direct action that the U.S. hasn’t seen for a long time.

Right-wing extremists are on the rise domestically, becoming more active and far bolder than they used to be.

The diversity effect

Between President Obama’s election in 2008 and 2012, the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of right-wing extremist groups operating in the U.S. increased by over 800 percent. While we’ve seen a slight decrease over the past year, the U.S. now faces a perfect storm of conditions for resurgent growth.

As the tone of the presidential election has proven, the prevailing American emotion is anger. Mistrust of government is at record high levels, along with several beliefs that make the problem worse.

First is the belief among extremists that the government is not simply untrustworthy but actually an enemy.

Second is the belief that anyone who supports the other side is the enemy as well.

In addition, the perception by the Christian right wing is that they are fundamentally threatened with extinction by changing American demographics.

And the double standard in federal response to extremism on the left and right is driving an increase in tension on the nonwhite side as well.

It could get worse

All of this amounts to fertile ground for growing extremists. The presidential election is only adding fuel to the fire.

A Hillary Clinton victory would be seen by right-wing radicals as entrenching the same liberal sentiments that extremist organizations like the Oath Keepers – involved at both the Bundy ranch and Malheur – already hold up as the enemy. Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist makes him seem even more alien.

On the Republican side, GOP candidates and officeholders alike have failed to condemn the occupiers. At least one – Representative Andy Holt of Tennessee – has made explicit statements of support. Not only does this legitimize the right wing, but it also sends an ominous message to non-Christian and nonwhite America.

The GOP as a whole has become more radical from top to bottom – to the point where an article written in bipartisan collaboration between Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein (the former with the liberal Brookings Institution, the latter with the conservative American Enterprise Institute) labeled the entire party an “insurgent outlier” in American politics.

The party faces a growing divide between its white, Christian base and a population that bears it less resemblance by the year. They have sought to bridge that divide by inviting more and more of their own fringe to the table, to the point where extremist “sovereign citizens” and “patriot militias” now find themselves close to the party’s mainstream. Nativist xenophobia coming from the GOP presidential candidates lends an air of legitimacy to language that should have been universally denounced as political extremism long ago.

All of this means that the U.S. government finds itself in a catch-22: becoming more assertive, having previously backed down, is likely to fuel aggression from right-wing radicals. On the other hand, if the government doesn’t become more aggressive, the trend toward direct action will continue.

Victory means navigating the narrow ground between violence and capitulation. It means avoiding the double standard and applying consistent restraint to everyone, regardless of color or religion. The perfect storm can still be averted, but course corrections need to be set in motion as soon as possible.

There is little more dangerous than an extremist who feels betrayed, as Timothy McVeigh taught us.

The Conversation

David Alpher, Adjunct Professor at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Share

Media Coverage of Oregon Militia Standoff Raises Eyebrows — and Ire

Despite the extreme nature of the demonstration, both media and law enforcement response appears muted, especially in comparison to other recent protests

By Deirdre Fulton, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 1-3-2016

Ammon Bundy. Photo: Facebook)

Ammon Bundy. Photo: Facebook

After members of a rightwing militia—many armed with assault rifles—seized the headquarters of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon on Saturday afternoon, observers questioned the corporate media’s treatment of the event, pointing to a double standard in coverage compared to other recent protests.

The Oregonian reported Saturday that Ammon Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was the leader of a notorious standoff over cattle grazing rights last year, had “joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 30 miles southeast of Burns for years.” Continue reading

Share