Skip to main content

View Diary: Donna Brazille hits it OUT OF THE PARK (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Be careful with the ANC relation (none)
    because they were alleged to bomb!
    I mean we are talking about apartheid! standng up against a long tradition of racism and how much killing and suffereing did Aprtheid do?
    So to me it seems like the argument of claiming the ANC as bad becuase it bombed outweighs the eivls of apartheid is a weak one.
    So do we take the NYC cops riddling the body of an innocent man and associate such bad conotations on a universal scale like that? No.
    No one ever called Tim McVeigh and the freaky militia groups terrorists did they?
    Black Panthers were. Green Peace were. Teachers union were. You pick and chose always, but to me I think the fact that DICK called the ANC terrorists is stupid and should be pointed out, especially if he supported the regime that held onto apartheid.

    "If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you suck seed."--Curly Howard

    by JackAshe on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 09:32:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  a (none)
      McVeigh sure was called a terrorist by everyone.  Sometimes they would qualify his act as "domestic" terrorism, but yes everyone used that label in '95 and '96.  
      •  McVeigh was but were the militias? (none)

        "If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you suck seed."--Curly Howard

        by JackAshe on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 11:47:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (none)
          The militias did take quite a beating in the press for their loose association with McVeigh, I believe he attended a few meetings and was kicked out when they realized he was even crazier than they were but the press equated McVeigh with them for awhile.  I hate to be in the position of defending Militias but considering they never really attacked anyone and almost all of them just settled for playing GI Joe in their racist, paranoid camping troups, they caught their fair share of terrorist comparisons.  Is it worse that Green Peace gets that treatment, I think so but I am much more likely to sympathize with Green Peace so there is a bias there.  
          •  Aside from most are anti-US Government (none)
            to begin with, having arms/guns associated with anti US government sentiment is enough for me.

            According to the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 2000 there were 194 active "Patriot" groups in 2000. Of these groups, 72 were militias,3 were "common-law courts," and the rest fit into a variety of categories such as publishers,
            ministries, and citizen's groups. The Internet and other technologies have strengthened the
            movement, the goals of hardliners in all these groups are converging, and many have gone
            underground. The "Patriot" groups increasingly overlap with the 602 active hate groups also
            identified in 2000.

            There are secret militias, there are public militias, there are right-wing militias, and there are left-wing militias. There are so many militia-inspired movements going on across the country.  There are dangerous, unpredictable consequences that can result from individuals taking the law into their own hands.

            Their extreme anti-government ideology, along with their elaborate conspiracy theories and fascination with weaponry and paramilitary organization, lead many members of militia groups to act out in ways that justify the concerns expressed about them by public officials, law enforcement and the general public.
            What turned the concept into reality in the early 1990s was a series of catalysts that angered people on the extreme right sufficiently to start a new movement. Although some militia movement pioneers had been active in other anti-government or hate groups earlier, most militia leaders were in fact new leaders, people who only recently had been so motivated that they were willing to take action. The events that angered them ranged from the election of Bill Clinton to the Rodney King riots to the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. More than any other issue, though, the deadly standoffs at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and Waco, Texas, in 1993 ignited widespread passion. To most Americans, these events were tragedies, but to the extreme right, they were examples of a government willing to stop at nothing to stamp out people who refused to conform.
            I think the republican/conservative right had a lot to do with fueling a lot of this.

            "If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you suck seed."--Curly Howard

            by JackAshe on Fri Aug 06, 2004 at 10:50:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well (none)
              The Republicans fueled it sure, it was a subcategory of their Clinton-hate strategy.  Look, it is definitely a problem of great concern that there are hundreds of groups out there with thousands of members who convince themselves of the most hateful and paranoid conspiracy theories and also have themselves huge arsenals.  But, on the other hand, this phenomonen has been around for over 10 years now and there hasn't really been a whole lot of voilence associated with it.  

              Members here and there act out and the militias are a contributing factor, but the organizations themselves aren't launching premeditated, coordinated attacks like a true terrorist group would, like the KKK used to.  The biggest act of violence associated with them is Oklahoma City and that was the responsibility of two guys who had been kicked out of one or more militias, so there is a bit of self-screening going on here.  

              Most of these guys are just losers who like to feel they are in the know and are prepared to be the next George Washington when the U.N. paratroopers drop into Lansing.  Look how Moore depicts them in Bowling for Columbine, I think it's pretty accurate.  

              •  News to keep us Pacified yet Scared (none)
                Three people -- William Krar, a small-time arms dealer with connections to white supremacists; Krar's common-law wife, Judith L. Bruey; and Edward S. Feltus, the man who was supposed to have received the forged documents -- pleaded guilty in the case in November.

                At most, the critics say, increased attention to this case could have brought more answers.

                Arms cache in Texas leads to convictions but few answers
                Critics fault focus on foreign threats

                At the least, they say, if the defendants in this case had been people with foreign backgrounds or Muslims, U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft himself would have announced the arrests and the guilty pleas.

                Instead, details of the case were revealed in a half-page press release sent to local media.

                Officials say the case was at one point included in President Bush's daily security briefings, but it remains virtually unknown outside East Texas -- even though, critics point out, it represents an instance in which federal authorities discovered a weapon of mass destruction.
                It's because we have people like ASScroft and others who have a warped sense of reality. I wonder if puppets like Rice and Powell sleep well at nite knowing they work with these people.

                "If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you suck seed."--Curly Howard

                by JackAshe on Mon Aug 09, 2004 at 10:13:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site