Initial Report:
A security guard has been shot at the Holocaust Museum by a gunman. Information is still coming in that at least 2 people have been shot, one is law enforcement.
That area of DC has been sealed off. Rumors are circulating that the gunman is in custody.
Is there any end to hate crimes? A doctor, a soldier, who else will be mowed down because some people feel they have the right to take matters into their own hands.
More information as the story unfolds…
Update: According to DC police, 2 people have been transported to Georgetown Hospital in serious condition.
Update 2: The alleged shooter has been identified as James Von Brunn. He is an anti-Semite and has been convicted of crimes related to his white supremist beliefs. There some confusion about his age at this point. If he is who police believe him to be, he is a WWII veteran and is quite elderly.
The gunman is in critical condition. The security guard is in grave condition.
This act seems to be terrorism and a hate crime at this point.
This doesn’t mention any wife and kids but does have a picture – http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/11/museum.shooting/index.html
Rick, I am gaining new respect for you all the time. Far better to refute Emma’s outlandish claims about terrorism point by point, with facts rather than accusations. Emma, don’t let Shelly’s adversarial tone push you further from reality. Nothing will be solved if people dig in to their entrenched views and block out all evidence or historical fact. This is counterproductive on both sides. The only people even remotely to blame for violent extremism are the ones who commit the acts of violence, and the ones who incite the acts of violence. People who happen to agree with the violent actors are not to blame.
What? Emma has left the Republican party? I wonder if this means the moderates are starting to push the extremists out? That would be great. The extremists could form their own party. Anyway, I did not say Emma was a violent person. I said she is not in fact. But she does have extreme views. Okay yes, Rick did a much better job of refuting her. But I did not say anything that is untrue other than that Emma gets her fictional anger directly from Rush Limbaugh. I defer to her on where her sources come from.
Hi Juturna,
Just going back through the last three presidents and the growing faction of violent extremism as it relates to Americans.
The DHS report of how Obama’s presidency has frightened certain factions of Americans, I believe Sarah Palin played into that fear by talking abou the “real america”. Clinton also was villified by certain factions that believed he would outlaw all guns and take away people’s second amendment rights. It’s just an observation with WACO, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma bombing, killing of Abortion providers during Clinton’s years that violence seems to rise. Now with Obama we have the killing of army recruiters, Dr. Tiller, and the Holocaust Museum murder.
So the take-home from today’s discussion is:
Carter was tough on terrorism and would have freed the hostages in 445 days if it weren’t for that old Reagan stealing the show.
Clinton was on the ball and reacted forcefully to terrorist provocation.
There is more domestic terrorism when Democrats are in power.
Dissent with the words and actions of Democrats=potentially violent anger and/or support for perpetrators of violent acts.
Seriously?
Emma,
It wasn’t about Reagan stealing the show it was more about the Iranian’s making sure Carter was embarrassed.
Clinton was belittled at every turn no matter what he did, he NEVER had the support of a repubican congress or senate, unlike Bush who had FULL support after 9-11 and decided to sqaunder it in Iraq. Democrats are far from perfect, if the impression is that only they can do right, that would be a mistake. However, there is this hysteria about Demoractic presidents that is fueled by the Right in a way that breeds unfounded fear. Wasn’t it Rush who said Obama was more dangerous that Al-Queda?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/06/04/limbaugh_obama/
So you would say that Clinton responded forcefully to terrorist threats? That he didn’t embolden Al Qaeda/bin Laden? That he made us safer? That “don’t ask, don’t tell wasn’t boneheadedly discriminatory?
I don’t deny that Clinton did some good things, and he did have. a real sense of caring for some groups. But I stand by my assertion that he was weak on terrorism, and that weakness encouraged more terrorism.
“Carter was tough on terrorism and would have freed the hostages in 445 days if it weren’t for that old Reagan stealing the show.”
Well, Carter did sacrifice a few lives trying to get them out at the last minute, trying to win the election … it was disgraceful … but so was the cake-and-a-Bible-and-a-planeload-of-weapons approach. Reagan got credit for getting the hostages out by giving the radicals some of what they wanted, i.e. giving in to terrorists – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords . I think either man would have behaved quite dishinorably in this regard to win the election – and Carter certainly did. But he went with an attack by our fighting forces, and Reagan went to capitulation.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Carter was an abysmal President and Reagan a better one. But reagan was soft on terrorism.
Agree to some extent, Rick. And abandoning the Afghanis after we “won” the Cold War was shameful, especially after we essentially armed the Taliban.
Actually, Rick has it right – in general the intelligence community looks out for our interests. In practice, both parties accuse each other of various things that aren’t always truthful. The intelligence community does make mistakes, and the CIA has not always had a director who had its best interests in mind, but that is out of their control and up to the president and congress to appoint who he sees fit. There is a problem with rivalry between the CIA and the NSA, and the CIA and the FBI. Bush attempted to solve that by appointing someone who all these agencies (as far as their intelligence pieces – that is the part of the FBI that is into that stuff) would oversee. In practice that position was ineffective. It isn’t clear to me what Obama is doing in this regard, other than to appoint someone with no real experience in the field of espionage as director.
Both parties will continue to snipe at each other, meanwhile hopefully the real job of keeping the US safe from terrorists will somehow get done.
Carter – well not only was he a terrible president (even though he did get the Iranian hostages released) he has become really erratic in his old age – with his attempts to mess up things in the Middle East. His views on that make no sense, and he is no friend of Israel, that is for sure. He needs to really go into retirement, and stop making foolish statements about the situation in the Middle East. Although I suspect the Palestinians probably view him as a great hero – in my opinion they can have him.
Clinton had his opportunity to take out Bin Laden and he decided not to. A big mistake for sure. That is a well documented fact.
I still don’t see a confirmed link between domestic terrorism and Democrat or Republican presidents. If crime and violence could be predicted it would sure assist Law Enforcment everywhere. Most of these real nut cases live in their own world of hatred and conspiracy and I will bet few even know WHO is president let alone what party.
Saturday March 14 2009
The United States is facing what has been described as its “most serious instance of domestic terrorism” to date, the FBI has warned.
Officials say a second generation of Somali immigrants is becoming increasingly radicalised and could pose a growing threat to security.
The warnings come amid the revelation that 20 young Somali American men who returned to their war-torn homeland have been radicalised by a group linked to al-Qa’ida. The FBI is examining links between the youths, who are all US citizens, and al-Shabaab, an Islamist group fighting in the country’s long-running conflict.
Investigators were concentrating on two mosques, the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Centre in Minneapolis and the Dawah Institute in the neighbouring city of St Paul, but the probe has spread to Boston, San Diego, Seattle Ohio and Maine.
Officials are concerned young militants could return to the US to plot terror attacks, following a similar path to the British Pakistanis behind the London bombings in July 7, 2005, who made multiple visits to radical mosques in Pakistan. (© Daily Telegraph, London)
___________________________________________________________
Do you blame a Democratic president for the radicalization of second generation Somali immigrants? Or on Immigration policies supported by Democratic presidents?
Read the rest of this story at the link below –
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists now pose one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation, top federal law enforcement officials say.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html
I suppose the best defense is a good offense, but I dearly wish that conservatives did not feel the need to go on the offensive whenever there is an act of violence committed in the name of racism or antisemitism. Here we are discussing the substance of an attack on Presidents Carter and Clinton, with almost no discussion of the rising threat to our national security that is domestic terrorism. What a shame.
This kind of hateful extremism falls outside of the spectrum of political differences on this blog, or on any radio or television program that I am aware of. No one should be going on the attack over this tragedy unless they somehow subscribe to this man’s views. Personally, I would prefer to hear ideas that might prevent future acts of violence. Perhaps President Obama and Senator McCain could make a joint statement decrying acts of violence motivated by political frustrations.
Juturna,
Not doubting that at all, but I don’t recall any major news stories about deaths because of those extremist groups. I could be wrong, but nothing comes to my memory.
Last Best Hope,
That would be a great idea, a joing statement.
At some point, the blame isn’t important, I would agree with LBH on that premise. However, it is imperative to understand the why’s and how’s of radicilization, no matter what the group is espousing as their excuse to kill innocent people.
It’s interesting, the one differece that I recall being pointed out during the British “home grown” attacks, is that certain segments of their populaton are not necessarily welcome into British culture, that they don’t have a “salad bowl” or “melting pot” like the United States. In that, we are unique as a nation, truly a young country of immigrants.
Okay. Does the Sniper count? Sure fits the FBI profile of domestic terrorism. I don’t see “incumbent president’s party affiliation” as one of their filters.
But Elena, the truth is that the fact that we are a nation of immigrants is causing much of the anxiety that is driving all of this rage. Thus, those who have in the past recognized this fact may not be the best messengers to speak to the extremists who would do us harm. I honestly don’t know if John McCain or President Obama could reach these people either. I feel this responsibility should fall upon people that they WOULD listen to, such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilley, and Glenn Beck, as well as the lesser known pundits whose words have helped to create this powder keg of political violence.
It was the in vogue thing to do to talk about how awful Carter was. Unfortunately, too many people bought in to the program. He was extremely effective with the Camp David Accords. Both Began and Sedat won the Nobel Peace Prize.
The hostage rescue attempt was a horrible disaster, not because of poor planning but because of a sand storm. President Carter assumed responsiblity, as Commander in Chief. Ask youself how often that happened the past 8 years. Oh …Mission Accomplished. I forgot.
I don’t like picking on Bush but many of you here were in diapers when Carter was in office. You have heard the political version, not the real, live, in your living room version from night to night.
Get over the love fest with Reagan. All that glittered was not gold. Ketchup wasn’t a vegetable. Who are the Beach Boys? Who left Lebanon? Reagan talked a good show. He wasn’t perfect. He was tougher on communism than he was on terrorism. Perhaps he, like I, understood the concept better.
Excellant point. Talk radio has permitted adults to be bullies. Things we teach our kids not to do. Then they see us endorse bullies. I think some reality shows also endorse bullies.
Somali pirates, Somali snipers shooting down our helicopters, Somali thugs starving their own people…from, what I have read they are extremely dangerous.
But why has the topic turned to Carter and Clinton? That is such BS. Every time someone starts that crap, I am going to simply say Lebanon…the worst terrorist attack on America other than 9-11.
The DC sniper definitely counts as domestic terrorism, no disagreement there. They were on a mission to instill fear in people, and the fact the shot so many people – to me meets the definition of terrorists.
Good point Witness, good point. Unfortunately, the likes of Rush would probably never do that.
You know, from reading this thread, I can see that we are, all of us, overly invested in how to respond to extremism, bullying, and threats of violence transmitted in a political context because we lived through the election of 2007, the Immigration Resolution, and the rise and fall of Greg Letiecq.
Some, are invested in supporting the tactics of Mr. Letiecq, or at least the politicians he tries so hard to support and then supporting Letiecq by extension. That is understandable, unfortunately, because somehow such tactics have been fused with the gamesmanship of politics. The election of 2008 was a prime example.
Somehow we need to unpack all of this and realize that extremism, bullying, and threats of violence should be completely separate from politics. And, when political violence does occur, we should denounce it no matter how close or how far we are from the positions held by the perpetrator.
Emma, you say you have left the Republican party. If the extreme rhetoric were to cease, and Republican leaders emerged who could talk about ideas and policies instead, would you be inclined to return to the party? I ask this because I feel that this is the next step that must be taken for this political boiling point to settle back down to normal temperatures.
I gave up on the Republicans before this last election, gave up on Democrats after voting for Carter in college and getting burned. So it’s hard to answer your question, Witness, since both parties are more interested in retaining power than they are about the good of the nation. Let’s impose some term limits first, get rid of the dinosaurs like Kennedy, Frank and any others–democrat or republican–who have been in office for decades, and then see what emerges.
It seems this thread has come full circle, since the first thing I said was this:
In other words, sometimes people are just plain nuts, that’s all, and don’t represent any kind of expanding threat. Even von Brunn’s family wrote him off years ago.
And, as I said, I hope there is a special place in hell just for him, extra hot.
What I don’t understand is how people can consider this guy a ‘right-wing’ extremist. This guy was a crazy, bigot and racist… I don’t see any ‘right wing’ anything in this guy. This nut believed that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks and wrote an essay attacking “Jews, neocons, and Bill O’Reilly”. It’s all here in this article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Weekly_Standard_may_have_been_shooter_target.html?showall
The only people who cry out that this idiot was a ‘right-wing’ extremist are MSM and state run media (MSNBC) and people who watch and believe them. He was nothing more that a crazed anti-Semite.
Kind of reminds me of another anti-Semite, Rev. Wright who was recently quoted as saying “them Jews” wouldn’t let him talk with Obama. Huh… is Rev. Wright a ‘right-wing’ extremist now?
No argument about Von Brunn in hell.
Emma, didn’t another report, both created during Bush admin, address left wing extremism? I guess I have an issue with trying to pigeon-hole an act of terrorism as right wing or left wing. Where would you put that evil-doer who shot the 2 soldiers? He killed for religious/political reasons. Is that right wing? left wing? It shouldn’t matter. Liberal? conservative? Neither?
You can’t pigeonhole, anymore than you can blame Dr. Tiller’s murder on people who do not support government-funded abortions.
It seems there are people who want to believe that these misfits are part of a larger extremist conspiracy and will distort the facts towards that end.
Come on folks, liberals are just as dangerous as they act slowly in large numbers over time to undercut the morals of a nation until it isn’t fit to live in. Two men marrying each other and having sex, and we teach our children this is natural? BS, I’m with Miss California on that one! If you want to condone that action, then how long before having sex with minors will be the accepted norm? Don’t say it will never happen, because if you would have said that there would be gay marriage back in the 60’s people would have ridden you out of town. Liberals are always talking about the ‘slippery slope’ when laws are attempted to be passed to uphold the morals of a society as they complain about the attack on personal ‘rights’. They forget that their ‘right’ may be viewed as someone else’s ‘wrong’.
Second Alamo,
I am wondering, morals and rights are relative to the “times” in society. At one point, it was immoral and wrong to marry someone outside your race or religion. How does one reconcile that way of believing when during that time in history is was perfectly appropriate and acceptable?
Elena,
I’m with you on that. Who is SA to judge that two men in love and having sex is not “natural”. It obviously is for them. Why should anyone outside of that relationship give a second thought to how others live? It used to be perfectly “moral” to own slaves, have separate drinking fountains, push people to the back of the bus. Times evolve, and I would hope people are able to evolve and accept change.
What has this thread evolved into? Second-Alamo has changed the subject from the rightful condemnation of this white supremacist into a condemnation against liberals and homosexuals. What’s up with that?
Second Alamo is resisting change.
Second Alamo, if you are about the age I think you are, there has been lots of change. If you grew up in the south I doubt if you went to school, at least in the early years, with black kids. I except many of your friends, both male and female went to same sex colleges, and you wouldn’t have dreamed of dating someone who wasn’t your race. People who were gay kept that tid bit of information to themselves. They were there. They either didn’t let you know it or they didn’t let themselves ‘know’ it.
There are huge social differences in the ways women function in their society as well as minorities from when I was a girl. When I was a girl, having a child outside of wedlock was right up there with having your parents or siblings die in seriousness. It was considered the ultimate worst! Nowadays, the same social mores just aren’t there. You aren’t run out of town. When I was a kid, you could easily have been shunned. Even if you ‘had to get married,’ people talked about you behind your back like you were a worthless dog.
Not defending, just explaining.
Emma, sorry, I got side tracked…. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that all people opposed to abortion support the killing of Dr. Tiller. However, I think people need to be very careful that they don’t attempt to excuse his killing, because there is no excuse.
Many of us see a huge difference in abortion and gunning down an abortion provider. One is a legal medical procedure and the other is murder.
I think it is dangerous to pigeon-hole extremists as right wing or left wing. I certainly don’t want to round up people’s guns and confiscate them. In fact, I am a gun owner. However, I support commmon-sense gun legislation (like tying up the gun show loop hole). Does that make me a right wing 2nd amendment nut-case because I own a gun or 2? Funny thing. I didn’t think they were talking about me. I support the death penalty. I didn’t personalize the right wing extremist on that one either.
I think people got way too overly sensitive about the dept of homeland security report. Obviously going downtown to participate in the National Right to Life March isn’t an extremist action. HOWEVER…and I mean this very seriously, I expect there is more than one extremist in that crowd in any given year. And those are the ones we need to watch out for. They kill people with my beliefs, Emma, and they give people with your beliefs a very bad name.
Personally, I think there’s extremists on both sides and both are probably equally as dangerous. All tihs talk about right wing or left wing – from looking at extremists, I don’t see a huge difference in ones on either side.
Alamo, this was the wrong thread for a bigoted rant.
M-H, I suppose it’s time we stop apologizing to people who have right wing ideologies, just because there are some people who have taken the same ideas and gone crazy and killed people. The guy who opposed the war killed a soldier. I also oppose the war, but I don’t feel angry at the press for reporting that he opposed the war. Right now there just aren’t very many things for right wingers to be motivated by. I would argue that this rash of domestic terrorism is NOT an opportunity to rally the base. But, to each his own, I suppose. Alamo, what on earth is going on in your head?
I can’t take SA seriously at all, I mean after his rant about all the Latinos enjoying a day at Leesylvania Park with their families. What an “outrage” that people that aren’t speaking English are allowed to go to a park on a weekend. The self righeousness is unbelievable.
Righteousness of course. Sorry.
Was the guy who killed the soldier motivated by being opposed to the war or motivated by religious zealotry?
The answer has everything to do with which pigeon-hole he goes into and whether it is left or right.
True, M-H, religious zealotry adds a whole new layer to the man who killed the soldier. One could argue that zealotry and extreme nationalism with a “crusade” or “jihad” undertone are mirror versions of right wing extremism. It exists in the Middle East. It exists in Israel. And, it exists in the United States. The Taliban for instance is right wing if ever there was a right wing. Good point.
TWIN, it is really unfortunate that Alamo has been driven off the deep end by change (as M-H so astutely points out). I hope that he is not typical of people who are uncomfortable with change, because there will be a lot of it in the coming decades as the old power centers crumble and a more diverse and pluralistic democracy rises in its place.
There was some anger on my part and many others as well when the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. We knew we were in for a change then too. I can’t think of any acts of domestic terrorism, but there certainly were granny bake sales that were spied upon and infiltrated by the FBI, so there was at least a perceived threat. So, change does breed anxiety no matter what direction the country is going. I’m not sure why, but what we have right now is leaders and leading pundits ENCOURAGING and EXPLOITING this anxiety, and giving people who suffer from it the impression that they are in physical danger or in some other danger that justifies acts of domestic terrorism. I’m sure that the leaders and pundits would think twice if they could admit this to themselves. But truly, they see it as way of encouraging willful blindness and a faithful voting pattern. I don’t think they intend it to lead to violence. I just is.
*** It just is (not I just is).
This op-ed in the Washington Post today gave me a fright, especially how the Internet provides “fetid pools” for communities of malice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/11/AR2009061103335.html
Here are the two important quotes:
No community knows better than ours to beware of political movements that are founded in hatred. It’s frightening, really frightening. And when it happens ordinary people quiet down. We’re afraid to participate in public dialog. When terrorist acts like the murder that happened in a Kansas church, women’s health clinics close and people are afraid to go there. When terrorist acts target important symbols like Holocaust museums, those museums are shut down for a while and many people are less willing to go there.
I thought it was frightening when people on Gospel Greg’s blog voiced so much hatred, and threatened violence toward those who disagreed, but now people are really following through with that kind of violence. I wonder if all of this fear is just what these terrorists wanted. If so, the political effectiveness has been proven. And so more people will try the same tactics.
Witness, I might be totally off base. I am sure SA will tell me if I have mischaracterized him. Actually, it is very typical for the older generations to be tsk-tsking over the younger generations. It has gone on since generations were invented, I am sure. We all have a tendency to hang on to what we know and are comfortable with.
I don’t know if you have followed the Math Investigations fight that has gone on in PWC schools this past year or not, but what I am talking about is a lot of what this fight is about. Parents are uncomfortable with new ways of doing math. All sorts of ‘proof’ has been trotted out on both sides of the debate. Probably, when all is said and done, kids will learn math as kids have always learned math, before and after the advent of hand held calculators. It is the parents and the county people who really are the ones who care, not the kids.
Sounds an awful lot like you are talking about our president, who never fails to exploit any “crisis,” real or imagined. So far, Congress and the citizenry have been bullied into massive government takeovers of financial institutions and industry due to the banking “crisis” and the automotive industry “crisis”; massive government spending and a whopping $3.3 trillion debt to get us out of an economic “crisis,” with a bailout that was rushed through so that that no one bothered to read it before it was passed. Now we have to resolve the healthcare “crisis” by getting a bill passed by a random July deadline, or else the sky will fall.
Crisis, crisis, crisis. Someone should do a word count as to how many times Obama uses that term. He wants you to be afraid, and he doesn’t want to give you time to think too hard.
correction: “stimulus package” not “bailout” that was rushed through.
A few more examples of the liberal creation of/exploitation of “crisis” and anxiety:
Rahm “you never want a serious crisis go to waste” Emanuel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk
Joe “Rain Man” Biden on the looming international “crisis” that will test Obama in the first six months:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keEsJVrlw6I
And Rain Man again, on the swine flu “crisis” and the perils of classrooms, subways and airplanes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw1h2t355Bo
Our fearless liberal leaders are quite adept at spreading and exploiting anxiety themselves.