US citizens have committed 80 percent of terrorist attacks since 9/11 September 11, 2001, marked the worst international terrorist attack on American soil, killing more than 3,000 people and wounding countless others. But 9/11 is an outlier. In the 14 years since, not one domestic terrorist attack has been committed by an outside foreign terrorist organization.
In the same time frame, however, there have been 26 deadly domestic terrorist attacks perpetrated by homegrown terrorists. Homegrown terrorism commonly refers to terrorist acts committed by a government's own citizens. While sometimes used to describe an Islamic extremist threat, homegrown terrorism isn't tied to any one ideological background. Of the 26 deadly homegrown terrorist attacks, only seven of those attacks were related to Islamic extremism. The other 19 attacks were led by right-wing extremists, including, most recently, the mass shooting that killed nine <http://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8802547/mass-shooting-emmanuel-charleston-sc> at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina. The data from New America clearly shows that domestic terrorist attacks have, since 2001, been more commonly perpetrated by right-wing groups than by Islamic extremists. But when you look at data on arrests, the story flips: Since 2001, there have been 314 arrests for "jihadist terrorism," which New America defines as violent extremism motivated by al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups, and only 183 arrests for right-wing terrorism. Sterman says one reason for this discrepancy is it is often hard to obtain reliable data on right-wing terrorism, as the government doesn't always label it as terrorism, whereas jihadist terrorist activity is almost always labeled as some form of terrorism. When deciding whether to classify a violent attack as a terrorist attack, Sterman said New America focuses on whether the attack was linked to a political group or organization — meaning many hate crimes often wouldn't fall under this kind of categorization. The presence of large weapon caches is another criterion used in their assessment, as Sterman said it speaks to the organizational aspect of the attack. Most acts of domestic terrorism are committed by US citizens Regardless of the type of terrorist attack — jihadist or right-wing — the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks are committed by US-born citizens. Of the 497 individuals arrested for terrorism, 64 percent were born here. As my colleague Jennifer Williamsnotes <http://www.vox.com/2015/11/20/9764078/paris-terrorist-radicalization>, citizens living at home can radicalize and become terrorists, too, even though that issue gets less attention. And as the data from New America confirms, terrorist acts committed by US citizens and not by refugees has formed the narrative of domestic terrorism since 9/11. The New America data set does show that since 2001, 10 refugees have been arrested on terrorism charges. That number is still dwarfed, however, by the 320 American citizens arrested for the same charges. Right-wing terrorism kills more Americans than jihadist extremism In the 14 years since 9/11, domestic terror attacks have killed 74 people. Forty-eight of those people died in attacks by right-wing extremists, and 28 died from jihadist extremism. The most deadly jihadist attack since 9/11 was the attack on the Fort Hood military base in Texas in 2009, in which 13 people were killed and more than 30 others were wounded. Domestic terrorism kills a small number of Americans each year; far more die from gun violence <http://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/9437187/obama-guns-terrorism-deaths> annually. But what gets lost in the national conversation on domestic terrorism is that terrorist acts are largely perpetrated by American citizens already living inside America's borders. Radicalization — whether it's jihadist extremism or right-wing extremism — more often than not starts at home in the US rather than entering the country from abroad. On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 10:23:14 AM UTC-6, brine wrote: > > The title negates it: > Guns Don’t Kill People—Liberals Kill PeopleA blanket attack on "liberals" > is never a good way to get your point across!!! > > I do believe that sick people kill and that a responsible person should be > allowed to own a gun, that's where background checks come in!!! We need > better mental health screening, not bans on guns!!! > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I thought this was an excellent column, and worth the read. Dunkin is >> "Spot On' here, although I am quite sure there will be some Progressives >> who will disagree with him: >> >> You think individual left-wing fruitcakes on Ritalin are dangerous? Just >> wait until left-wing government gets into power without a citizenry that is >> broadly and heavily armedGuns Don’t Kill People—Liberals Kill People >> [image: Author] >> By Tim Dunkin -- Bio and Archives >> <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/75831/TimDunkin/467> *October >> 6, 2015* >> 86 Comments <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article-disqus/75831> >> | Print friendly >> <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/75831> | Subscribe >> <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/About-us/> | Email Us <javascript:> >> >> >> By now the reader is well aware of the recent school shooting that took >> place at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Another mass >> shooting, another excuse for the left-wing vultures to prey on the >> carcasses of the dead. Another opportunity for Pres__ent Obama to >> grandstand and huff and sigh and affect an air of righteous indignation. >> Another occasion for left-wingers to roll their eyes and complain about >> how, even after this shooting, those dastardly right-wingers still won’t >> support “common sense gun laws.” >> >> The reason we don’t, of course, is because the left-wingers are still >> making the same old, nonsensical, discredited arguments that they always >> do. As always, the ideas they’re floating *yet again* would do nothing >> to stop a mass shooting such as occurred at UCC. They propose universal >> background checks after a case in which the shooter passed the stringent >> background checks that Oregon already imposes. They want to ban “assault >> rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” in response to a shooting spree which >> involved neither. They have literally no new ideas for dealing with these >> mass shootings, so it’s not surprising that normal people will continue to >> reject their “solutions.” Essentially, the left-wing solution is to punish >> millions of people who didn’t commit a crime. >> >> But what we need to understand is that those on the Left *cannot* really >> bring themselves to deal with these shootings in a rational manner, nor can >> they really produce reasonable plans for preventing them in the future, >> simply because the policies and predilections of the*liberals themselves* >> are >> ultimately root causes of these mass shootings. >> >> First and most obvious is the phenomenon of “gun free zones.” Liberals >> love them. So do mass shooters. Whenever you hear about a mass shooting, >> before you learn anything else about the situation, you can be guaranteed >> that the venue where it took place was a gun-free zone. You don’t see mass >> shootings at gun stores or shooting ranges for the same reason you don’t >> see doughnut shops setting up franchises inside a Gold’s Gym. The whole >> environment would render the attempt completely futile. So instead of >> choosing a tougher nut to crack, people like Chris Harper-Mercer and James >> Holmes choose places that they can be reasonably certain no one will be >> likely to shoot back. >> >> The problem, of course, is that this isn’t just a theoretical argument >> that has no real-world ramifications. People get killed in gun-free zones. >> And the left-wingers who put those zones into place are directly >> responsible for the taking of those innocent lives. They enable people like >> Harper-Mercer to have a target-rich environment. They disable good people >> from being able to defend themselves and other innocents. >> >> Further, the left-wingers have succeeded in inculcating a lot of folks >> with the attitude of, “I shouldn’t defend myself, I should just wait for >> the police to show up.” Let’s remember, though, that even the fastest >> police response is far slower than a pull of the trigger finger. As Umpqua >> was the latest to show, a psycho can shoot dozens before the police get >> there. Gun-free zones only serve to reinforce this sort of >> counter-productive and dangerous attitude because they instill the false >> hope that should something happen, the police will be there to do more than >> just clean up the mess and take statements from the survivors. In most >> cases, however, they will not, which means that for those present with the >> shooter, there is no credible means of defending themselves *in situ*. >> >> One argument for more gun control that the lefties will make is that we >> need to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazy people. In principle I >> agree—we *should *keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. But the >> problem is that the Left has made it so difficult to identify and interdict >> crazy people before they go off the deep end and actually do something >> crazy, that it is practically impossible to prevent the crazies from doing >> crazy things. >> >> Beginning in the 1960s, the Left made a “cause” out of “destigmatizing” >> mental illness. As a result of this, many institutions—which used to be >> known by the gauche and un-politically correct name of “insane >> asylums”—gradually began shuffling their inmates out the door. One effect >> of this was to vastly increase the number of mentally ill individuals >> living on the streets, or ending up in prison. >> Another long-term effect of this left wing-driven movement against >> institutionalization was to replace genuine care with medication. And this >> is another commonality between all of these mass shootings—each of the >> shooters was a young male who was taking, or had taken, one or more >> behavior-altering psychotropic drug. Instead of investigating and dealing >> with those who begin to show genuine signs of mental illness, the easy and >> politically correct route is simply to “give ‘em meds.” These meds, in >> turn, also carry with them side effects such as depression, anxiety, >> paranoia, and others. Even otherwise healthy young men are given Ritalin, >> Prozac, and other drugs in school under the guise of treating their “ADHD” >> (which most often is not) because the effeminized educational system would >> rather drug them than simply deal with active boys being active boys—female >> teachers in the publik skoolz often seem to want to turn these boys into >> docile little lambs like the little girls are in their classrooms rather >> than do the heavy lifting of shaping, molding, and directing these boys. >> These drugs, however, will often warp the minds of these boys, creating >> mental problems and making them more likely to display the personality >> traits associated with mass shooters. >> >> Having discussed these other areas, let’s turn to the elephant in the >> room that the Left desperately wants to avoid talking about. >> Mass shooters that we have seen have been—(almost) without >> exception—denizens of the Left. >> >> The mass shooters that we have seen have been—(almost) without >> exception—denizens of the Left. Take this latest shooter, Chris >> Harper-Mercer. Here you have a guy who had a well-known hatred of >> “organized religion” and who specifically targeted Christians during his >> rampage. His social media footprint indicates that he supported the Black >> Lives Matter movement and expressed admiration >> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/01/umpqua-gunman-id-d-as-chris-harper-mercer.html> >> for >> Vester Flanagan, the black supremacist who shot two white reporters dead in >> August. He was a supporter of the marxist IRA (Irish Republican Army), and >> stated on internet forums that he wanted to “strike back” at >> “normals”—which is a sarcastic term sometimes used by socially disaffected >> people on the Left to describe all the people like you and me who don’t >> support “social justice” and political correctness and all the rest. >> >> It’s interesting that the media and the Left seem to have an >> understanding that this is the case, for they initially made some >> underhanded efforts at casting Harper-Mercer as a “right winger”—and did so >> by attempting to hack, alter, and misreport information about him. For >> instance, at one online dating website, Harper-Mercer’s political views >> were listed as “republican, conservative”—yet it was noted that this was >> changed (and indeed, the profile was altered five times) *after* the >> shooter was already dead. Actually, Harper-Mercer was registered >> <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d79_1443808511> to Oregon’s Independent >> Party, a left-leaning third party that has previously cross-nominated >> liberal Oregon Democrats like Jeff Merkley and Ben Westlund in 2008 and >> John Kitzhaber in 2010. In a rather transparent attempt to distance him >> from ties to Black Lives Matter, the media even altered the image of >> Harper-Mercer (who is mixed race, with a white father and black mother) to >> make him appear more white >> <http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/10/02/the-curious-case-of-oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-a-social-media-profile-shaped-modified-and-deleted/>. >> >> Hilariously, the *LA Times* has even attempted to cast >> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/03/shock-la-times-labels-black-oregon-shooter-as-white-supremacist/> >> Harper-Mercer >> as a “white supremacist,” despite his identification as mixed race, his >> affinity for Vester Flanagan, and his murder of an exclusively white set of >> victims. >> >> The reason they do this is because the Left desperately needs a >> “right-wing killer” to counterbalance all the left-wing crazies who have >> perpetrated massing shootings in recent years. >> >> But there’s no getting around the data. >> >> Jared Laughner, who attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabby Giffords, hated >> George Bush, hated religion, and went after Giffords because she wasn’t >> liberal enough. Seung-hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, hated George >> Bush, hated Republicans, hated religion. James Holmes, the Aurora theater >> shooter, was connected with the Occupy Wall Street movement, hated >> Christians, and eventually ended up converting to Islam in prison. Adam >> Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, was reported to have a website dedicated to >> satan, and hated Christians. Even Craig Stephen Hicks, the atheist who shot >> three Muslims students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in February, hated >> “religion” of all kinds and could just as easily have vented his >> frustrations on Christian neighbors. It’s not just shooters, either - >> Andrew Joseph Stack, the guy who flew his Piper Cub into the IRS building >> in Austin, Texas, left behind a rambling screed praising Marxism. The only >> seeming exception to these in recent years would be Dylann Roof, the little >> sicko who shot up the church in Charleston, South Carolina, back in June, >> killing nine black parishioners. But even then, we should note that he *SHOT >> UP A CHURCH* *AND KILLED NINE CHRISTIANS*—not exactly the actions of the >> stereotypical “radical religious righter” boogeyman that the Left always >> warns is hiding just over the horizon. >> >> It’s really starting to look as if the only way to keep Americans safe >> is, instead of banning guns, to ban liberals who don’t like Christians. >> >> But we can’t do that, of course, because there’s some kind of >> constitutional amendment against it. And we wouldn’t want to go overturning >> any constitutional amendments, after all. >> >> Oh wait >> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/03/obama-goes-beyond-mere-gun-control-hints-confiscation/> >> . >> >> At this point, the only way the Left is going to be able to achieve its >> dream of a gun-free America (except for police and the military and other >> agents of government, of course) is to overturn the 2ndamendment. They >> can try to do this legally by amending the Constitution, either with an >> Article V convention or the more old-fashioned way that has been employed >> 27 times now. But let’s be realistic—this simply will not happen. They >> could not get anywhere near the support they would need to even begin to >> hope to go this route. >> >> So the more likely route they will take will be to “repeal” the 2nd >> amendment >> illegally. This could be done by simply legislating a ban and subsequent >> confiscation. It could be achieved via executive order. It could also be >> realized by ginning up lawsuits that would allow them to steer cases >> towards left-wing judges, who would then allow the federal courts to >> “evolve” on this issue and start finding that gun bans and confiscation are >> “constitutional,” hoping that by the time the cases made their way to the >> Supreme Court, at least one of the conservative Justices will have been >> replaced by a liberal. >> >> Any of these methods would be completely unconstitutional and would have >> no legitimacy at all. And should this route be employed, the states and the >> people should be ready to resist such attempts. The states should stand >> ready to nullify any such law or ruling, using their constitutionally >> provided right <http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/150904> to >> judge such legislation as unconstitutional, and hence null and void. At the >> same time, the body of the people should simply refuse to obey any order to >> turn in their firearms, as roughly 90% of AR-15 owners in Connecticut >> reportedly did. Further, the body of the people—the militia who stand in >> defense of the liberties of this nation—should also be ready to resist, >> with whatever force is necessary, any violent attempt by our own government >> to confiscate our guns. When a government makes war on its own people in >> such a fashion, it immediately loses any claim to obedience, legitimacy, or >> forbearance on the part of its people. >> >> The reason for this is simple. You think individual left-wing fruitcakes >> on Ritalin are dangerous? Just wait until left-wing *government *gets >> into power without a citizenry that is broadly and heavily armed. You can >> ask any survivor of the Soviet, Nazi, Khmer Rouge, Sandinista, or Maoist >> regimes what happens when the only people who have guns are the agents of >> government. The abundant evidence from these governments shows that the >> radical Left does not mind mass killings at all—provided they’re the ones >> who get to do the killing. >> >> The lesson from the Umpqua college shooting is not that we need fewer >> guns. Instead, it is that we need more of them in the right hands—the hands >> of law-abiding citizens ready and willing to take action to defend >> themselves, those around them, and ultimately, the liberties of their >> nation. >> >> -- >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > brine > http://brineb.blogspot.com/ > -- -- 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.
