*The Enemy Within: The Challenge of Domestic Terrorism* *---* Right-wing terrorists twice as likely to kill Americans than Muslim jihadists are ‒ report Published time: 2015 21:57 Get short URL <http://on.rt.com/4ccj1x> [image: Family members of those killed in a mass shooting at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin attend a candlelight vigil in in Oak Creek, Wisconsin on the one-year anniversary, August 5, 2013. (Reuters/Darren Hauck)] Family members of those killed in a mass shooting at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin attend a candlelight vigil in in Oak Creek, Wisconsin on the one-year anniversary, August 5, 2013. (Reuters/Darren Hauck) / Reuters 808 Nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by right-wing extremists since 9/11 as have died at the hands of radical Muslims on US soil, a new report found. There have also been nearly three times as many deadly right-wing attacks as jihadist ones. Trends9/11 tragedy <https://www.rt.com/trends/9-11-tragedy/>, Boston Marathon bombing <https://www.rt.com/trends/boston-marathon-bombing-usa/>,Colorado theater shooting <https://www.rt.com/trends/colorado-theater-shooting-batman-movie/>TagsCrime <https://www.rt.com/tags/crime/>, Religion <https://www.rt.com/tags/religion/>, Hate crimes <https://www.rt.com/tags/hate-crimes/>, Terrorism <https://www.rt.com/tags/terrorism/>,History <https://www.rt.com/tags/history/>, Psychology <https://www.rt.com/tags/psychology/>, USA <https://www.rt.com/tags/usa/>, Police <https://www.rt.com/tags/police/>, Security <https://www.rt.com/tags/security/>,Shooting <https://www.rt.com/tags/shooting/>, Intelligence <https://www.rt.com/tags/intelligence/>
In almost a decade-and-a-half, 48 Americans have died in the US in 19 attacks by white supremacists, so-called “sovereign citizens” and other non-Muslim extremists, while 26 have died in seven jihadist attacks on US soil during that same time period, research center New America found as it compiled a new database <http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html> on deadly attacks in the US since 9/11. [image: from http://securitydata.newamerica.net] *"Since 9/11, our country has been fixated on the threat of jihadi terrorism,"* said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, according to the Kansas City Star. *"But the horrific tragedy at the Emanuel AME reminds us that the threat of homegrown domestic terrorism is very real."* Last Wednesday, nine African-Americans were shot and killed at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Dylann Storm Roof, who later confessed to the massacre, made racist statements as he killed his victims, survivors told police. A website believed to belong to Roof contained a white supremacist manifesto <http://rt.com/usa/268612-roof-racist-manifesto-shooting/>, as well as photos of him posing with a gun, carrying the Confederate flag and burning an American flag. The Charleston shooting has not been officially labeled as terrorism, however, and Roof has not been charged with any crimes more heinous than murder. The New America database shows that attacks like Roof’s are a much more common occurrence than those like the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, in which Muslim brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed four people and injured over 260 more in a religiously motivated attack <http://rt.com/usa/boston-bombing-more-attacks-171/>. The dataset ‒ compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert ‒ relied mainly upon court documents, wire service reports and news reports as sources. A small number of individuals who either died or were killed without being charged, and are widely and credibly reported as having engaged in violent extremist activity, were included in the list of charged extremists. [image: from http://securitydata.newamerica.net] *“The purpose of this database is to provide as much information as possible about American citizens and permanent residents engaged in violent extremist activity as well as individuals, regardless of their citizenship status, living within the United States who have engaged in violent extremist activity,”* Sterman and Bergen wrote. *"We examine both those individuals motivated by Jihadist ideology, understood as those who worked with or were inspired by al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups, as well as those motivated by other ideologies that are non-Jihadist in character, for example right wing, left wing, or idiosyncratic beliefs.”* [image: from http://securitydata.newamerica.net] There were killings that gripped the national conscience but were not included. A North Carolina man who confessed to killing his three Muslim neighbors <http://rt.com/usa/232931-hicks-indicted-homicide-chapel-hill/> and had posted angry critiques about religion online, for instance, was omitted because the shooting may have been related to a parking dispute. Likewise, New America did not include massacres that did not appear to have ideological motives, such as the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting <http://rt.com/usa/colorado-shooting-gunman-identified-aurora-batman-685/> or the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting <http://rt.com/usa/shooting-reported-connecticut-school-085/> in Newtown, Connecticut. The report may even be understating the number of right-wing terrorist attacks in the US because the media often reports other, non-political motivations when the perpetrators are white, critics contend. *“With non-Muslims, the media bends over backward to identify some psychological traits that may have pushed them over the edge,”* Abdul Cader Asmal, a longtime spokesman for Boston’s Muslim community, told the New York Times. *“Whereas if it’s a Muslim, the assumption is that they must have done it because of their religion.”* New America noted that it focused on the acts themselves and remained neutral on whether the perpetrators’ motivations were considered to be violently extreme. *“We recognize that extremism is a subjective term and that the First Amendment protects the right to hold extreme political views,”* Sterman and Bergen wrote. *“Our dataset takes no stance on whether particular ideologies are extreme but focuses on violent extremism understood as the use of violence in pursuit of any political ideology whether that ideology is considered mainstream in the United States or not.”* Facts vs. public perceptions The New America database runs counter to public perception, which says that Muslim jihadists on US soil are a much larger threat to Americans. The people tasked with rooting out violent extremists and preventing attacks from occurring, however, see threats in line with what the dataset found, according to a survey about to be published. That study ‒ set to be published this week by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security and the Police Executive Research Forum ‒ asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. [image: from http://securitydata.newamerica.net] About 74 percent listed anti-government violence, while 39 percent listed *“Al Qaeda-inspired”* violence, according to study authors Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University. *“Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists,”* Kurzman told the NY Times. The mismatch between public perceptions and actual cases of jihadism in the US has become steadily more obvious in scholarly research, but that realization hasn’t made its way into the mainstream American conscience yet, John G. Horgan, who studies terrorism at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, told the NY Times. *“There’s an acceptance now of the idea that the threat from jihadi terrorism in the United States has been overblown,”* Horgan said. *“And there’s a belief that the threat of right-wing, antigovernment violence has been underestimated.”* The government ‒ or at least Republicans on the House Committee on Homeland Security ‒ may be playing into the public misconception that jihadi terrorism is the biggest threat Americans face. On Friday, the committee introduced its new, monthly Terror Threat Snapshot <http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/documents/June%20Terror%20Threat%20Snapshot.pdf> that will track *“the escalating and grave threat environment facing the United States.”* *“Terror threats to the US homeland have reached unprecedented levels,”*committee chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said in a statement <http://homeland.house.gov/press-release/june-terror-threat-snapshot>.*“There have been 116 homegrown jihadist plots in America since 9/11— more than half of those have occurred in just the past three years.”* According to that tool, the number of homegrown terror plots since 9/11 has tripled in the past five years. The data was compiled by the committee’s majority staff. On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 6:43:07 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > *The Journal of the Georgia Political Science Association Volume II * > > *The Enemy Within: The Challenge of Domestic Terrorism * > > *Saundra J. Ribando * > > *Georgia Regents University * > > *Amanda J. Reinke * > > *University of Tennessee * > > *Since the 9/11 attacks, the American media has focused heavily on > terrorism, terrorist attacks, and the possibility of a “homegrown” > terrorist threat. In this study, the researchers use the Global Terrorism > Dataset to analyze terrorist incidents in the United States and its > territories since 1970 to identify trends in domestic terrorism. The > analysis demonstrates that the number of terrorism incidents has > dramatically declined since the 1970s. However, the lethality of attacks > has significantly increased. Over time, the pendulum between right- and > left-wing-inspired attacks has also swung back and forth; currently, > legitimate threats from both ends of the political spectrum exist in the > form of the militia and sovereign citizen movement on the right and > environmental groups on the left. While a legitimate concern exists about > online radicalization of Muslim youth, the severity of the threat appears > to be overblown in the media, as the Muslim community has itself been the > prime source of information disrupting potential terrorist attacks inspired > by radical Islam. * > > *T*errorism has a long history both internationally and in American > history. Indeed, Gage (2011) argues that many acts in American history that > are viewed positively (at least by Americans) would be labeled terrorism > today. She cites such activities as the Boston Tea Party as just one of > many examples of “patriotism” that would meet today’s definition of > terrorism in the US Code. > > *91 * > > [image: Description: Description: page1image15240][image: Description: > Description: page1image15400] > > [image: Description: Description: page2image432][image: Description: > Description: page2image592][image: Description: Description: > page2image752] > > *The Enemy Within**, Ribando & Reinke 92 * > > Terrorism also has received much media coverage in post-9/11 America. > Based on the media coverage, one would think that terrorism is common, very > violent, and only rarely happens in the United States. Using data from the > Global Terrorism Database, this article analyzes domestic terrorism data to > pick out trends since 1970 to evaluate the true nature of the threat. While > it may surprise many, the number of domestic terrorism incidents has > dropped dramatically since the 1970s. However, the source of the threat and > its potential lethality has changed significantly over the years. The > authors trace these developments in order to project how the threat could > evolve in the future. > > *Background * > > While there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism (Hoffman > 1998, 37), agreement does exist about its broad outlines. Generally, > terrorism definitions include the use of violence (or threat of violence) > directed at a broad audience by individuals or groups with a political goal > in mind. Such goals often include redistributing power, influence, or > wealth that are not achievable within the constraints of the normal > political process (see Hoffman 1998, 30; Krieger and Meierrieks 2011). > Since perpetrators either cannot or will not use the political process, > they resort to terrorism as the mechanism for drawing attention to their > cause. While it is not explicitly stated, this definition assumes that > terrorism is an activity undertaken by nonstate actors. > > The US Code defines terrorism as an offense that “is calculated to > influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, > or to retaliate against government conduct” and involves a violent crime > (18 U.S.C. §232b). Domestic terrorism refers to activities that have three > characteristics, which are included in the definition of domestic terrorism > outlined in the US Code: (1) involving acts dangerous to human life that > violate federal or state law; (2) appearing intended to intimidate or > coerce the population, government policy, or the conduct of government; and > (3) occurring primarily within US territory (18 U.S.C. § 2331). > > There are a number of problems with this definition. Some critics claim > the definition is too vague and could be used to suppress dissent. For > example, Amster (2006) argues that the definition in use, which includes > property damage, is overly broad. In his view, including property damage in > the definition results in subsuming constitutionally protected protest > activity into terrorist activity. Hoffman (1998, 38) argues that excluding > psychological components of terrorism, the threat of action, as opposed to > direct action, is also problematic. > > But there are also practical concerns with the definition, particularly as > it is actually implemented in the law enforcement and judicial systems. For > example, the FBI has historically operated with the understanding that > domestic > > *Questions in Politics *• Volume II • Georgia Political Science > Association > > [image: Description: Description: page2image24704][image: Description: > Description: page2image24864][image: Description: Description: > page2image25024][image: Description: Description: page2image25184][image: > Description: Description: page2image25344] > > [image: Description: Description: page3image432][image: Description: > Description: page3image592][image: Description: Description: > page3image752] > > *The Enemy Within**, Ribando & Reinke 93 * > > terrorists not only operate inside the United States, but also lack > foreign direction. Bjelopera (2013, 4), in a Congressional Research Service > report, asserts that the FBI’s shorthand definition of terrorism is > “Americans attacking Americans based on US-based extremist ideologies.” > Using this definition, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the > attacks on 9/11, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013 were not > domestic terrorism incidents, even though all three occurred within US > territory and meet the legal definition outlined in the US Code. > > The result is that it is highly difficult to determine just how many > terrorist acts take place in the United States. There is evidence that the > federal courts and the Department of Justice use different criteria when > sorting, counting, and categorizing terrorist prosecutions in general > (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse 2009). This opens the > possibility that what one agency refers to as “terrorism” is not counted as > such by another agency (Bjelopera 2013). > > Complicating matters further, domestic terrorism incidents typically > involve both federal, state, and local law enforcement and multiple crimes. > Incidents often encompass firearms, arson or explosive offenses, fraud, > vandalism, property damage, threats, and hoaxes. In some cases, what the > FBI describes as a domestic terrorism suspect may not be charged with > committing a federal crime. Instead, the suspect may be charged under state > law for crimes committed as part of a terrorist incident. As a result, > “individuals considered domestic terrorists by federal law enforcement may > not necessarily be federally charged as terrorists” (Bjelopera 2013, 6). > > Since terrorism is by definition a political act, law enforcement > officials may be neither able nor willing to label an act as “terrorism” > early in an investigation. It can be challenging for investigators to > distinguish between political motives and personal malice (Bjelopera 2013). > As an example, consider violent acts committed by white supremacist groups. > Are their violent actions driven by political motivations such as a desire > to set up an apartheid system, or simply by hate? “Hate crimes” pose a > particular challenge, as differentiating them from terrorism may be > virtually impossible. > > Finally, Bjelopera (2013) points out that the FBI often uses the terms > “extremism” and “terrorism” interchangeably. In part, this may be due to a > desire to reconcile the FBI’s traditional definition of terrorism as > American- based and originated with the reality of individuals on US soil > conducting terrorist operations under the direction or influence of > overseas parties. Alternatively, this could be an outgrowth of the > government’s reluctance to label domestic groups as terrorist groups due to > civil liberties concerns. Officially, the US government does not have a > list of “terrorist groups,” presumably due to concerns that the creation or > maintenance of such a list would lead inevitably to lawsuits challenging > the practice as a violation of First Amendment rights. > > *Questions in Politics *• Volume II • Georgia Political Science > Association > > [image: Description: Description: page3image25560][image: Description: > Description: page3image25720][image: Description: Description: > page3image25880][image: Description: Description: page3image26040][image: > Description: Description: page3image26200] > > [image: Description: Description: page4image432][image: Description: > Description: page4image592][image: Description: Description: > page4image752] > > *The Enemy Within**, Ribando & Reinke 94 * > > Given these difficulties, how can one reconstruct the scale and scope of > domestic terrorism? Sources vary concerning the number of domestic > terrorist events. For example, the FBI counted 308 domestic terrorist > events between 1980 and 2005 (FBI 2005), but the National Consortium for > the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism (hereinafter START) > recorded 1,058 such incidents. Why the difference? The FBI is using > investigatory records. START conducts content analysis of media reports to > develop its data set rather than formal prosecutions or investigations. In > addition, it includes all terrorist incidents occurring in US territories, > regardless of whether or not the attack had an international connection. In > short, for understanding the scale and scope of domestic terrorism, START’s > dataset is far more comprehensive than government records. > > START’s Global Terrorism Dataset (GTD) will be used, then, to reconstruct > the story of domestic terrorism since 1970. The GTD includes incidents that > meet their definition of terrorism: “the threatened or actual use of > illegal force and violence by a non‐state actor to attain a political, > economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or > intimidation.” START uses a computer screening process as the first step in > filtering and identifying media reports to create a pool of reports that > meet their broad definition of terrorism. Those reports are rerun through a > second computer program designed to eliminate duplicate reports of the same > incident. The final collection is then reviewed by hand by trained analysts > at START before being included in the final dataset. While the GTD includes > terrorism incidents from around the world, for purposes of this article, > only terrorism incidents that occur inside the United States or its > territories are included for analysis and discussion (START 2013). > Specifically, we retained for analysis in this article those cases meeting > the three criteria included in the definition of domestic terrorism > outlined in the US Code, which bears repeating here: (1) involve acts > dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; (2) appear > intended to intimidate or coerce the population, government policy, or > affect the conduct of government; and (3) occur primarily within U.S. > territory (18 U.S.C. § 2331). > > *The History of Domestic Terrorism since 1970 * > > Since 1970, there have been 2,611 incidents that meet the definition of > domestic terrorism outlined in the US Code. These domestic terrorism > incidents account for just 2.3 percent of 113,113 terrorism incidents in > the GTD. Domestic terrorism has decreased significantly over time, from its > high of 468 incidents in 1970 to just 13 in 2012. Over this same time > period, 2,652 individuals have been killed and another 2,613 wounded. > > *Questions in Politics *• Volume II • Georgia Political Science > Association > > [image: Description: Description: page4image23896][image: Description: > Description: page4image24056][image: Description: Description: > page4image24216][image: Description: Description: page4image24376][image: > Description: Description: page4image24536] > > [image: Description: Description: page5image496][image: Description: > Description: page5image656][image: Description: Description: > page5image816] > > *The Enemy Within* > *, Ribando & Reinke**Table 1: Terrorist Attacks in the 1970s by Type of > Group * > > *Number of Attacks * > > Black nationalists 173 Left-wing radicals 498 Environmentalists 2 > > *95 * > > [image: Description: Description: page5image3600][image: Description: > Description: page5image3760][image: Description: Description: > page5image3920][image: Description: Description: page5image4080][image: > Description: Description: page5image4240][image: Description: > Description: page5image4400][image: Description: Description: > page5image4560] > > Puerto Rican nationalists > Other nationalists > White supremacists > Right-wing radicals > Islamic fundamentalists > Other1 33 Unknown2 218 > > *% * > > 11.8 33.9 0.1 15.0 17.3 3.8 0.8 0.2 2.2 14.8 > > 1 “Other” refers to individual attacks. > 2 “Unknown” attacks are those where no group was ever identified as being > responsible. In the 1970s, these were primarily student demonstrations on > college campuses, protesting the Vietnam War or in support of civil rights, > where no specific group was identified as being responsible. > > *Source: *Global Terrorism Dataset, START > > The states that were most often targeted for terrorist attacks were > California (568, or 21.8% of all attacks) and New York (498, 19.1%). > Although not a state, Puerto Rico has endured 246 terrorist attacks (9.4%). > The most common type of attack was a bombing or explosion (1,352 or 51.8% > of all attacks), followed by sabotage/vandalism of a facility or > infrastructure (791, 30.3%). Suicide attacks are extremely rare—just nine > domestic terrorism incidents were classified as a suicide attack. > > *The 1970s * > > In the 1970s, domestic terrorism incidents were originating primarily from > the left wing of the political spectrum. There were 1,470 attacks during > this decade (56.3%) of all attacks between 1970 and 2012), resulting in 185 > deaths and 616 wounded. Table 1 summarizes the types of groups involved > with terrorist activities during this decade. > > Sparked by resistance to the Vietnam War, the civil rights and women’s > movements, protest movements swept the United States and were most > prominent on college campuses. Many of those groups were inspired by left- > wing ideologies such as communism and socialism. Such groups clearly > dominated the 1970s in terms of terrorist activities. Of the 1,470 > terrorist incidents in the 1970s, 498 (33.9%) were perpetrated by left-wing > radical groups such as the New World Liberation Front (86) and the > Weathermen (44). > > *Questions in Politics *• Volume II • Georgia Political Science > Association > > 220 254 56 12 3 > > [image: Description: Description: page5image24344][image: Description: > Description: page5image24504][image: Description: Description: > page5image24664] > > [image: Description: Description: page6image480][image: Description: > Description: page6image640][image: Description: Description: > page6image800] > > *The Enemy Within**, Ribando & Reinke * > > *Table 2: Terrorist Attacks in the 1980s by Type of Group * > > *Number of Attacks * > > Black nationalists [image: Description: Description: page6image2976][image: > Description: Description: page6image3176][image: Description: > Description: page6image3376]6 > > *96 * > > [image: Description: Description: page6image3912][image: Description: > Description: page6image4336][image: Description: Description: > page6image4496] > > Left-wing radicals > Animal rights > Environmentalists 8 > > *% * > > 1.2 6.6 1.2 1.5 > > 18.2 21.7 7.5 18.8 1.0 5.6 16.8 > > Puerto Rican nationalists > Other nationalists > White supremacists > Right-wing radicals > Islamic fundamentalists > Other 29 Unknown 87 > > *Source: *Global Terrorism Dataset, START > > Another 173 were associated with Black Nationalist groups such as the > Black Panthers and the Black Liberation Army. Those groups were also > heavily influenced by Marxist ideology (Rosenau 2013), as were Puerto Rican > and other nationalist groups active during this decade. > > *The 1980s * > > As the energy began to leave the Left, and law enforcement became more > effective in infiltrating groups and prosecuting their members, the number > of terrorism incidents began plummeting in the mid-1970s. In the 1980s, > there were 517 attacks, or about one-third the number that occurred in the > 1970s, resulting in 54 deaths and 924 wounded. As illustrated in Table 2, > nationalism was the driving force behind much of the terrorism during the > 1980s. Groups such as the Jewish Defense League (30 attacks, 5.8% of the > total) were joined by Puerto Rican groups such as the Macheteros (31.6%) in > using violence as a way to bring attention to their cause. > > As the Left became quiet, groups from the Right end of the political > spectrum began to increase their activities. In this decade, white > supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Order, and Aryan Nations > were responsible for 39 incidents (7.5% of the total). This was also the > decade that witnessed the emergence of the violent antiabortion movement. > As legal and political efforts to overturn *Roe v. Wade *failed, some > opponents adopted terrorist tactics and targeted abortion clinics and > doctors as a way to protest the legalization of abortion. Of the 97 > domestic terrorism incidents identified as right wing but not white > supremacist, 90 (93%) were attributed to antiabortion groups. > > *Questions in Politics *• Volume II • Georgia Political Science > Association > > 34 6 > > 94 112 39 97 5 > > [image: Description: Description: page6image25808][image: Description: > Description: page6image25968][image: Description: Description: > page6image26128] > > [image: Description: Description: page7image480][image: Description: > Description: page7image640][image: Description: Description: > page7image800] > > *The Enemy Within**, Ribando & Reinke * > > *Table 3: Terrorist Attacks in the 1990s by Type of Group * > > *Number of Attacks * > > Black nationalists [image: Description: Description: page7image2976][image: > Description: Description: page7image3176][image: Description: > Description: page7image3376]0 > > *97 * > > [image: Description: Description: page7image3912][image: Description: > Description: page7image4336][image: Description: Description: > page7image4496] > > Left-wing radicals Animal rights Environmentalists Puerto Rican > nationalists Other nationalists > > *% * > > 0.0 > > 0.3 13.2 3.2 3.8 3.2 10.0 22.6 0.8 14.6 28.3 > > 1 49 12 14 12 37 84 3 Other 54 Unknown 105 > > White supremacists Right-wing radicals Islamic fundamentalists > > *Source: *Global Terrorism Dataset, START > > *The 1990s * > > [image: Description: Description: page7image11888] > > During the 1990s, Puerto Rican and other nationalist groups moved away > from terrorism, and the overall number of attacks continued to decline. > There were just 371 attacks; however, there were 219 deaths and 945 > wounded. Most of these casualties, however, were attributable to one > attack—the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal office building in > Oklahoma City in 1995. > > In this decade, terrorism continued to be originating from the right wing > (see Table 3), with antiabortion extremists accounting for 79 attacks > (21.3%). A new cause did emerge from the Left—animal rights. The Animal > Liberation Front was responsible for 33 (8.9%) of the domestic terrorism > incidents. With that emergence came a shift in the type of weapon preferred > in attacks. For the first time, incendiary devices were used more > frequently than explosives in terrorist attacks. > > The most memorable terrorist event during this decade was the Oklahoma > City bombing. The perpetrator, Timothy McVeigh, was heavily influenced by > radical right-wing writings and ideology, and drew his inspiration for the > method of attack from *The Turner Diaries*, a fictional account of a > successful white supremacist uprising. McVeigh was not part of a right-wing > group. He applied for membership with the Militia of Michigan and was > rejected as too radical, but he shared their ideology. In that attack, 168 > people died, including 19 children, and another 680 were injured, making > Oklahoma City the single most devastating domestic terrorist attack until > 9/11 (Michel and Herbeck 2001). > > *Questions in Politics *• Volume II • Georgia Political Science > Association > > [image: Description: Description: page7image25120][image: Description: > Description: page7image25280] > > ... -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
