CFR: Militant Extremists in the United States

CFR: Militant Extremists in the United States

www.cfr.org

Introduction
The January 2011 shootings--in which a lone gunman killed six people at a Tucson, Arizona, shopping center--served as a reminder of the threat posed by militant extremism in the United States. Similar acts of violence in the last few years--such as the suicide plane crash into an IRS building in Texas and the 2009 shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum--have brought renewed attention to the dangers posed by fringe political extremism. Although the frequency of these types of attacks has decreased in recent years, "lone wolf" violence is on the rise. The FBI is particula

(visit the link for the full news article)

There is really too much info to put into a clear and concise comment post, but I will do my best to briefly describe each passage with my thoughts.

Introduction Utilizes all contemporary forms of domestic terrorism to set the mood for the piece, starting with the recent Arizona shooting.

Violent Extremism, or Domestic Terrorism? Starts off with the classic "Since Sept. 11" line to get us thinking about turbans and muslims and throws in this gem

"the FBI has reported that roughly two-thirds of terrorism in the United States was conducted by non-Islamic American extremists from 1980-2001; and from 2002-2005, it went up to 95 percent."

We keep reading, and find a discussion about domestic terrorism and civil liberties and WHAM:

"However, after the September 11 attacks, the FBI shifted its directive (CNN) from law enforcement to terrorism prevention--returning its emphasis to proactive domestic surveillance. The public fear of another large-scale attack ushered in a new privacy-security paradigm, and with it came legislation aimed at broad national security reforms, such as the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (PDF), and the 2008 FISA Amendment Acts. But despite this overhaul, CFR's Richard Falkenrath suggests, "The federal government has a quite limited domestic intelligence program and capability."

Finally, it leaves an open ended conclusion :

"Militant extremism in the United States continues to provide grist for the national debate on a number of policy areas. The shootings in Tucson revived the issue of gun control once again, highlighting some of the nation's controversial firearm legislation--like the Arizona law allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. In addition, public discussion continues over the legal definition of domestic terrorism and whether it is applied equitably. Questions also remain as to whether the United States has lessons to learn from the counterterrorism experiences of other countries. For instance, should it create an independent domestic intelligence agency (PDF) similar to Britain's MI-5, which does not incorporate a law enforcement function like the FBI?"

To me that equates to allowing a vast spy grid. This whole piece is a bait and switch between what is going on in the middle east, and here at home. Muslims are fighting for their religious beliefs and domestic terrorists are attacking because they feel oppressed. The two are entirely unrelated, and this piece puts them together like they are one in the same.

It is a total piece of garbage reporting, but a key insight into what the people running things see. It's insanity to the highest degree and I urge you to read it in entirety, if you are not outraged I will be surprised!

I tried to do my best to summarize this article without using it's content, but it is just so right out in the open and brazen it is hard to believe unless it is in their own words.

www.cfr.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by sbctinfantry


Propaganda and social engineering. Tell me, can we use the forbidden "T" word on this site?

I'd like to see a graph that demonstrates the number of deaths caused by radical extermists versus those caused by car accidents, or cancers, or heart disease. This is something that is quantifiable, so compare it to all other dangers and threats and let's see how big of a deal it really is.


Is it really that important that we have to burn the constitution to worry about it? Really? Do you not think that someone who is determined enough will not be able attack whom they wish?


Let's get real here, folks.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
I'd like to see a graph that demonstrates the number of deaths caused by radical extermists versus those caused by car accidents, or cancers, or heart disease. This is something that is quantifiable, so compare it to all other dangers and threats and let's see how big of a deal it really is.


Is it really that important that we have to burn the constitution to worry about it? Really? Do you not think that someone who is determined enough will not be able attack whom they wish?


Let's get real here, folks.

As far as statistics go, here's one from the article:

a Syracuse University-sponsored watchdog organization compared the number of terrorism cases listed by three entities--the courts (310), the prosecutors (508), and the National Security Division (253)--and found that from 2004-2009 only 4 percent of cases were classified as terrorism on all three lists. This suggests that the agency that made the designation, not the facts of the case, determined whether a suspect was prosecuted as a terrorist and, therefore, may have received a harsher sentence.

Anyone else find it disturbing? How about the fact this article is calling for MORE control, and an MI-5 like agency on TOP of this tyranny.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Their fear mongering tactics seem transparent and juvenile to me.

Here's an article which claims to have done some comparisons...no graph, sorry, but it does appear you're more likely to die by getting shot by a cop than by a scary terrorist. Maybe we should have a "war on Law Enforcement".

S E V E R E
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327

L O W
Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949
Terrorism: 3147
Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554

www.wired.com...

reply to post by sbctinfantry


this type of survailence is and has been happening with or without laws. I think the only thing that is changing is the public acceptance of it, mainly due to the propaganda machine, I mean the news. This kind of thinking will outlaw any organization not sanctioned by the lawmakers. Freedom isn't free and it may be outlawed if this keeps up.

Militant extremism and lone nutcases are really two different things.

Militant extremists usually means extremists with some kind of paramilitary apparatus, e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, Aryan Nation, Taliban, Brown Shirts, etc. The idiot in Arizona is a nutcase.

Lone nuts do not make militant extremists.

After going through some of the links cited in the article, I came up with this:

Domestic Intelligence in the United Kingdom: Applicability of the MI-5 Model to the United States
May 19, 2003

Todd Masse
Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism
Domestic Social Policy Division

Intelligence failures frequently lead to calls for reforms in the United States Intelligence Community to remedy what are real or percieved functional, procedural, regulatory, systemic, and/or structural problems. While it can be debated whether the events of September 11, 2001 represent a tactical or strategic failure, it has been widely cited as a prima facie intelligence failure. One potential remedy that has been suggested in response to the events of September 11, 2001 is the establishment of a domestic intelligence agency akin to the British Security Service, aslo known as MI5. Some analysts maintain that because the British have had more experience with terrorism on their own soil and have a democratic form of government, there may be value in emulating the MI-5 organization and jurisdiction in the United States. During a recent visit to the United States, the British Home Secretary David Blunkett met with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and agreed to establish a Joint Anti-Terrorism Working Group, in part, to leverage the United Kindom's anti-terrorism experience.

Source: www.fas.org...

This was written in 2003, and all I can think of when I read it is "Threat Fusion Centers" and the Joint Anti-Terrorism Task Force. It's a disturbing read so far, indeed. I will have more when I finally get through it all.

or maybe the CFR needs to add in the additional
data that was deleted from this report.

Like a comparison report between Domestic Extremists
and the CIA who a lot of other folks consider a terrorist
entity.

Domestic Extremism gave us less that 500 deaths in the past decade
CIA has given us 6 Million deaths over 57 yrs

just who is the biggest terrorist here ???

maybe we need a CIA Security Dept. just to
use NSA equipment to monitor CIA activities.

I would like to introduce the CIA Security Act to congress
which will basically audit the CIA like a business
entity.

Don't forget Janet Napolitano fearmongering even today, saying that the terror threat is at "it's most elevated" levels yet.

Give me a break, these people want total control, and it's slapping you in the face. Sadly, people respond here more to distractions and chasing alien hoaxes...

These people are nothing but transparent liars and propagandists. It is clear their agenda is to redefine crimes or the acts of insane people as "terrorism" so thy can claim there is more "terrorism", so they can reduce more liberties, so their corporate paymasters can get even fatter government contracts running privatized prisons, selling drones to fly over your cities, selling useless cancer causing scanning machines, etc.

Every time the corporate police state opens its mouth, it reveal an ever longer forked tongue.