Report: US Must Deal With Domestic Radical Problem

[Purveyor]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. was slow to take seriously the threat posed by homegrown radicals and the government has failed to put systems in place to deal with the growing phenomenon, according to a new report compiled by the former heads of the Sept. 11 Commission.

The report says U.S. authorities failed to realize that Somali-American youths traveling from Minnesota to Mogadishu in 2008 to join extremists was not an isolated issue. Instead, the movement was one among several instances of a broader, more diverse threat that has surfaced across the country.

"Our long-held belief that homegrown terrorism couldn't happen here has thus created a situation where we are today stumbling blindly through the legal, operational and organizational minefield of countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment occurring in the United States," said the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

As a result, there is still no federal agency specifically charged with identifying radicalization or working to prevent terrorist recruitment of U.S. citizens and residents, said the report, slated to be released Friday by the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Preparedness Group.

The group, headed by former 9-11 commission leaders Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, laid out a detailed description of domestic terror incidents ranging from the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting spree and the attempted Christmas Day airliner attack in late 2009 to last May's botched truck bombing in New York's Times Square.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TERROR_REPORT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-09-10-00-15-17

[Ken Burch]

1. I really object to the use of the term "radical" in this context.

It's somewhere between wrong and obscenely wrong to equate "radicalism" with terrorism.

[Lasher]

3. Do you think terrorism is radical?

I do.

[Ken Burch]

4. I don't. If anything, terrorism is reactionary and nihilist

It's about giving up on any humane methods of enacting change, simply using fear in the name of what is always a limited and non-transferable victory. Terrorism never leads to redistribution of wealth or political power, the empowerment of working people, the emancipation of the poor from poverty, or any other goal that is in any sense recognizably radical. And it inevitably is used to justify violent oppression of people who aren't violent, but who are just guilty of working for the goals that terrorists claim to be working for.

Terrorism has nothing to do with radicalism, and no good comes to this country from anything else that can be used to discredit the term "radical". I'm a radical, so are a lot of people here on DU, and that term should NEVER be equated to what terrorists do.

Terror can never liberate anyone.

[Lasher]

6. I didn't ask if you thought terrorism was radicalism.

I asked if you thought terrorism was radical. You can use the word radical if you wish, but you don't get to own it by imposing your narrow definition upon others.

[Ken Burch]

7. I don't think it's "radical" either.

And I don't see the distinction between saying "it's radical" and "it's radicalism". Terrorism hasn't achieved any radical victories anywhere. If it had, the Middle East would now be Utopia. So would Northern Ireland. So would everyplace ELSE where anybody's tried it. And the Weather Underground would've stopped the Vietnam War by 1969.

[Lasher]

8. OK I'll try a new one on you.

dic·tion·ar·y
–noun, plural -ar·ies

a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictionary

[Ken Burch]

9. I understand the meaning of the words "radical" and "radicalism"

just as much as you do.

A radical is a person who seeks to change a society "from the roots". Radicalism is a course of action that seeks such change.

Terrorism is simply the effort to achieve short-term, usually trivially small, objectives through the use of fear.

Is there a reason you're being condescending to me?

You asked me if I thought terror was radical and/or radicalism(it's not as if those words have opposite meanings). I gave you my answer.

I believe the use of the term "radicalism" to refer to terrorism(as the article in the OP does)can only harm people who work for radical change in this country and other countries. Apparently, you disagree. Care to say why? You seem to feel strongly about this and have difficulty tolerating contrary opinions.

[Lasher]

10. Do you understand that the word radical is often used as an adjective, and correctly so?

You are trying to confine its use to describe one political ideology. That is a radical expectation. I don't think you understand the word is appropriately used much more widely.

Don't take my word for it. Look it up at the dictionary resource I linked, or at any other of the many to be found on the internet. Or just google the word and go where your interest directs you.

[Ken Burch]

22. I'm aware that the term radical is used in other contexts

often(and totally inappropriately)in advertising, for example.

That doesn't mean I have no right to object to its being unjustly associated with terrorism.

[Lasher]

24. OK, I'll concede that point.

You have a right to look like a fool if you want to.

[Ken Burch]

27. Is there a REASON you can't tolerate me taking the position I've taken on this?

Why are you so obsessed with getting people to agree that terrorism can be radical?

And why do you insist on personally attacking me on this.

It's hard to understand why you can't abide any dissent from YOUR view on the matter.

[Lasher]

31. You need to grow a skin.

I'm saying you're wrong. I have offered clear evidence to support this. I think that's constructive. You're just ignoring my argument while repeating your ridiculous original assertion. And now you're trying to make this all about you, whining about how mean it is to disagree with you.

Since you were so free with your criticism of the OP, I'm a little surprised to see how sensitive you are when you are yourself criticized. If you can't accept criticism, maybe you shouldn't share silly opinions on public message boards.

[Ken Burch]

33. No, you haven't offered any evidence.

Posting a link to a dictionary is not "evidence". And it's just that you and I disagree. You can't claim papal infallibility on this point.

I don't care about your disagreeing with me. But you didn't actually do that. You just posted a link and acted as if this link somehow settled everything. Then you personally insulted another poster just because that poster agreed with me.

If you'd like to make an actual case that it's acceptable to use "radical" as a synonym for "terrorist" as the OP did...go ahead, make that actual case. You've made no case at all so far other than to point out that other people disagree with me. That isn't a case, it's just a casual observation.

You can't JUST say "you're wrong" and act as if that settles things.

[Lasher]

36. The OP didn't use "radical" is a synonym for "terrorist."

So dictionaries don't count? Or do you expect me to go the website I linked, search for the word, "radical", and paste the result here for you to ignore?

[Ken Burch]

38. OK, I'll humor you-here's one online definition

Radical:

1.
of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2.
thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3.
favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
4.
forming a basis or foundation.
5.
existing inherently in a thing or person: radical defects of character.
6.
Mathematics .
a.
pertaining to or forming a root.
b.
denoting or pertaining to the radical sign.
c.
irrational ( def. 5b ) .
7.
Grammar . of or pertaining to a root.
8.
Botany . of or arising from the root or the base of the stem.
–noun
9.
a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.
10.
a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.
11.
Mathematics .
a.
a quantity expressed as a root of another quantity.
b.
the set of elements of a ring, some power of which is contained in a given ideal.
c.
radical sign.
12.
Chemistry .
a.
group ( def. 3 ) .
b.
free radical.
13.
Grammar . root ( def. 11 ) .
14.
(in Chinese writing) one of 214 ideographic elements used in combination with phonetics to form thousands of different characters.


Nothing in THAT definition proves that I'm "wrong" to assert that terrorism ISN'T radical.

Even if we were to agree that terror is an "uncompromising method" it is not, in any current situation(and certainly not among any of those labeled as "domestic radicals" in the OP)being used to achieve a restructuring of any society "from the root". It's just about pushing certain forces out of power in certain places, or placing certain factions in power in certain places, NEITHER of which can lead to positive change in any of those places.

Radicalism involves more than simply using force to change power relations. It involves what is done by those who end up IN power, and it carries with it an obligation to make those changes progressive and emancipatory.

You don't agree with that? Fine. You have the right to disagree. But you're not entitled to simply say that I'm "wrong". You, in response to your own question about whether I believed that terrorism COULD be radical, simply said "I do". OK. Why DO you believe it can be? I responded to your insulting "dictionary challenge". Now, can you actually make a case for YOUR position on this? I'd be sincerely glad to read your case. The floor is yours.

[Chicago dyke]

46. it's very sad, but most americans are very ignorant of political history

and ideology. dictionaries have come to substitute history books; google searches stand in the place of writing critical analysis, etc.

you are correct. "radical," like most english words, has many meanings and using it correctly in context can be hard for people who only understand some of those definitions. the AP's use of "radical" here is a deliberate attempt to conflate the history of far-left political movements with reactionary and/or theocratic far-right movements and ideologies. it's meant to discredit violent, but left leaning movements that seek greater equality and income redistribution and radical feminism and gay rights with religious movements that suppress women, gays and religious minorities. the AP does this all the time, and it's one of the reasons i tend to mostly ignore them in favor of McClatchy. but thanks to 30+ years of declining standards in public education, most americans today don't know that this country has had several very successful radical waves (as far as left wing movements go) including union organizing, 2nd and 3rd wave feminism, and the Black Panthers and other elements of far left activism of the Civil Rights period. mostly, the left is NOT violent, and lefty radicals believe in peaceful ideas. it is the strength and common sense of those ideas that scare TPTB so greatly, such that they have to sic their lapdog press on anything and everyone who may for a moment consider a truly radical idea.

i'd really, really like more on the left to start learning about the word "reactionary" and using it more. i don't expect that from the press, but it would be nice to see more of that in the blogosphere/internet. what america is going thru today is very, very much a "reaction" to the radical changes and movement towards equality born in earlier periods, esp the 60s-70s.

pre-coffee edit for clarity.

[defendandprotect]

53. Fantastic post -- thank you -- !!

[Lasher]

51. I'm pleased to see you didn't cherrypick.

This might turn into an actual discussion after all.

I am not implying you intentionally excluded the following synonyms section that we find when scrolling down on the same page you just cited:

—Synonyms

1. basic, essential; original, innate, ingrained.

2. complete, unqualified, thorough; drastic, excessive, immoderate, violent.

RADICAL, EXTREME, FANATICAL fanatical denote that which goes beyond moderation or even to excess in opinion, belief, action, etc.

RADICAL emphasizes the idea of going to the root of a matter, and this often seems immoderate in its thoroughness or completeness: radical ideas; radical changes or reforms.

EXTREME applies to excessively biased ideas, intemperate conduct, or repressive legislation: to use extreme measures.

FANATICAL is applied to a person who has extravagant views, esp. in matters of religion or morality, which render that person incapable of sound judgments; and excessive zeal which leads him or her to take violent action against those who have differing views: fanatical in persecuting others.

(edited for paragraph cleanup only)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical

Forgive me for being redundant by mentioning that the article used the synonyms radicals and extremists interchangeably:

"...Somali-American youths traveling from Minnesota to Mogadishu in 2008 to join extremists was not an isolated issue."

This, together with the overall context of the article, make it clear that the author was discussing radicals and not Radicals.

Faced with these synonyms, and with some of the definitions you just supplied, it's hard to imagine how you can continue to claim that the author was wrong to have "...used the term "radical" in this context." or that he intended "...to equate "radicalism" with terrorism." The word Radicalism, by the way, which can be appropriately used to identify an ideology, did not appear in the article.

No conjugation of the word terror is included in the list of synonyms for radical. There is a good reason for this. Here is an analogy I have mentioned before: My pickup truck is a motor vehicle; but all motor vehicles are not pickup trucks. By the same token, if we say that terrorists are radicals, this does not infer that all radicals (or Radicals) are terrorists.

[boppers]

32. Malcolm X, Ghandi, Chavez, Castro, Mandela, and Che disagree.

Sometimes "terror" is the only tool left for radicals...

The fine point your argument seems to be missing is that "terror" and "non-violence" are interchangeable to those in power, because they both threaten to radically disrupt power, alter ownership of property, and alter political systems.

[Ken Burch]

34. Gandhi never did anything remotely like terrorism

Malcolm X spoke only of the right to self-defense(which is an entirely different category).

Hugo Chavez never committed terrorist acts(he came to power in a free election).

Mandela was in an armed struggle. He didn't blow up innocent people.

And Che mainly used violence in combat situations.

I'm fine with resistance, and even armed resistance. But that doesn't include the kind of tactics the IRA, ETA(in Spain) or Hamas has used, none of which ever actually worked. That's my point here. And it also goes without saying that the groups talked about in the OP aren't working for a RADICAL program in any recognizeable sense. They are working for a reactionary religious separatist program, in which no left component can exist. By me, we should NOT call them "radicals".

and I agree that, to those in power "terror" and "non-violence" are interchangeable to those in power-which is all the more reason not to do the kinds of things that give the authorities any pretext for violent retribution against those in resistance, or to allow them to equate ANY resistance with "terrorism".

Remember what happened in the late Sixties? The FBI and Nixon used a couple of extremely minor bombing events by the Weather Underground
to launch a massive police repression campaign against the counterculture and the antiwar movement, ultimately crushing those movements.
In a situation where we'd have no chance of winning an armed conflict(which was the case then and remains the case now)we need to be very very careful of saying anything that sounds like loose talk of violence. It can only lead to all of us getting crushed and arrested.

[boppers]

35. Your view of history seems to be missing some frames.

Chavez, for example, served time in prison for the people murdered in his first major political change attempt, Gandhi wished the people of India had been armed, and Mandela was jailed for leading an organization that was killing people.

That being said, maybe I should have thrown in the Irgun as another example, as they were violent, radical, terrorists, who got a state as a result, as had the Taliban.

I think where our perspectives might clash is whether "radical" has any sort of inherently good, or bad, value, or no value judgment attached to it.

[Ken Burch]

37. At least you made a case for your views

And, for that, I respect you.

My own sense, looking at the history, is that the "terror" component of liberation struggles tended to poison any "liberation" that occurred. Israel is a good illustration of that, given that it is now, from what I can see, permanently dominated by the supremacist-based perspective of Revisionist Zionism(as exemplfied by the Irgun, which was also known as the Etzel and Lehi, aka as "The Stern Gang",the armed wings of Revisionism).

Mandela actually brought down apartheid through negotiations, btw.

Can you give me a source on Gandhi's wish that the Indian people had been armed? That sounds totally out of character.

(btw, I'm not advocating a strict pacifist position-I'm fine with self-defense, and even MLK said a black family in the South had a right to have a shotgun in the house to protect itself from an armed white mob that was encircling the house planning to slaughter the family).

[boppers]

39. Namaste. The Gandhi thing gave me pause, as well...

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest ... if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity."

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Among+the+many+misdeeds+of+the+British+rule%22

What made him great, among other things, was that Gandhi realized they could win *in spite of* force. He didn't outright reject all uses of it.

[Ken Burch]

40. And neither do I.

I wonder where the Mahatma was going with that thought?

Gandhi could also have pointed to the fact that the right-wing Hindu nationalist movement(a movement allied with the Nazis, btw-these guys put the "Aryan" in "Indo-Aryan")were heavily armed, but never came anywhere close to driving the British away through THEIR tactics(although they did use a few of those arms to assassinate Gandhi in 1948-a decision on their part that's always mystified me. I mean, what's the point of murdering an 84 year-old man? He'd have been dead soon anyway).

[No Elephants]

42. I don't read that as you do. " IF" is a small word with a very big meaning.

I don't read it (or Ghandi's life) as Ghandi yearning for violence or wishing he had it as an ace in the hole. Nor does his condemnation of the well-armed British disarming all of India mean he was leaving a door open. Finally, there is such a thing in politics as rhetoric, including a subtely veiled threat that you have no intent (or genuine desire) to act on.


That is your interpretation, not the only possible interpretation.

[No Elephants]

43. His view is fine. You are ignoring what he said about Mandela and Chavez and mis-

characterizing the Ghandi quote you provided as a "wish" for arms. Nothing in that quote (or in Ghandi's work) says, "Gee, I wish I had a gun."

[boppers]

58. No, in context, it says:

"Gee, I wish we (as a people) could have guns."

[Chicago dyke]

48. no, i think you've bought into the modern day conflation of

"terrorism" (in which the amusing internet use of "terraism" and other Bushian malapropisms come to mind) with complicated and complex exceptions that can't be reduced to a single word. mostly peaceful far left ideologies must occasionally grapple with those exceptions to their overall messages of peace, usually in specific incidents where the question of a violent response is morally warranted. i'm actually sort of harsh on Gandhi, for some of his views on women. but just because he mentioned that Indians may find use in being armed or having a defensive home militia a few times over his long and completely peaceful life example is no reason to put him on a list of far lefties who advocate(d) some (mostly defensive) "terrorism."

this is what happens when words like "terrorism" and "radical" are tossed around in the media stream 100 times a day on 500 channels and websites with no context, history or critical comparison. propaganda works, yo.

[boppers]

57. "mostly peaceful far left ideologies...

...must occasionally grapple with those exceptions to their overall messages of peace"

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... many millions killed.

The left must grapple with violent ideologies within their ranks, just as the right does.

[Iowa]

20. Ken Burch, well said and I agree...

...and I wish I could reclaim the time I wasted reading the rather pointless dictionary-related criticism you received.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

26. Look....what's your point? Why the PERSONAL hostility?

It's not as if my position on the word "radical" harms anyone. Why is it so crucial to you to make me say "Ok, terrorism CAN be radical"? It's not as if my accepting that would serve any purpose.

[ObamaIn2012]

25. Free speech is overrated

[Ken Burch]

28. self-delete.

Misunderstood previous post.

[ObamaIn2012]

29. I was being sarcastic

[Ken Burch]

30. OH...well, you should've put in the "sarcasm" smilie.

I'll delete my post.

[No Elephants]

41. Given that "conservative" is an antonym of "radical," I dislike equating "radical" with "terrorism,

too.

AFAIK, terrorism and lawlessness of one kind or another, often violence to humans, are inseparable. The same is not so of radicals.

In addition to those you mentioned, Ghandi and MLK, Jr., IMO, the ideas ascribed Jesus, while often described (usually by the Left) as "liberal," were actually quite radical for their time and place.

Needless to say, equating "radicals," the opposite of conservatives, with "terrorists" helps conservatives and hurts the Left.

Good point.

[Chicago dyke]

49. i would formulate it as

liberal :: conservative
radical :: reactionary
atheist :: theocratic
nonviolence :: terrorism
actually paying attention :: "moderate"


/winkie emoticon for that last part/

[Brandlon]

2. Also from the article ...

The FBI, meanwhile, has worked to reach out to the Somali communities, in an effort to counter the radicalization of the youth.

The report also points to an "Americanization" of the leadership of al-Qaida and its allied groups, noting that radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had links with suspects in the failed Times Square bombing and the Fort Hood shootings, grew up in New Mexico. And Chicagoan David Headley played a role in scoping the targets for the Lashkar-e-Taiba attacks on Mumbai in late 2008 that killed more than 160.

Abroad, Al-Qaida, its affiliates and other extremist groups have splintered and spread, seeking safe havens in undergoverned areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and places in North and East Africa. That diversified threat has intensified as militants reach out to potential recruits through the Internet.

Assessing future threats, the report lists potential future domestic targets, including passenger jets, western or American hotel chains, Jewish or Israeli sites and U.S. soldiers, even at their own bases in America.

And it also warns that it is no longer wise to believe that American extremists will not resort to suicide bombings. As an example they point to Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who has been charged with killing 13 people and wounding 32 in last year's shootings at Fort Hood, saying he had written about suicide operations in e-mails, and that his attack appeared to be one.

This has been happening for some time. I'm surprised, but glad that this is starting to get more coverage.

[Downwinder]

5. Sounds like a justification for COINTELPRO.

[Demit]

17. Yes. This sounds very ominous to me. Laying the groundwork for further restrictions

on everybody's freedoms. Of course, the rightwingers won't see it that way, they'll let that go right over their heads.

We all still have to remove our shoes at the airport, 8 years later? Children on the no-fly list? All fine! It's all in the name of SECURITY, doncha know.

The report doesn't even deign to mention homegrown rightwing groups, Neo-nazis and the like. We're apparently only in grave danger from foreign-based radicalism. Yes, this is very ominous.

[leveymg]

11. When it comes to willingness and ability to kill a lot of people, you can't beat White, Made In USA

American military-trained, racist killers like Tim McVeigh.

Profile them, and we'll all be a lot a safer.

[tclambert]

12. Yeah! There're radical Koran burners and Teabaggers out there!

Not to mention a whole cable network of inciters.

[Downwinder]

13. And all those tree hugggers and ecologists. n/t

[Blandocyte]

14. and don't forget those damned free radicals

that antioxidants try to protect us from!

[sofa king]

52. We hate those radicals for their freedom.

[madrchsod]

15. i thought they were talking about the Aryan Nation and

the extremist christians....

[SpeechlessDem]

16. A Note about extremism - Please Read!

The govt. is stupid!
They keep complaining about militia movements, right-wing extremism

They complain and worry about right-wing extremists all the time.
Personally I find this stupid, shouldn't they FIRST complain about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?

They have so many viewers and fans...for some reason.
Especially Limbaugh, he has a large scope for spreading his extreme views.

[No Elephants]

44. I did not read that article as a complaint about the American RIGHT wing.

The examples given are the Fort Hood shooter, a Muslim American Army doctor who had apparently either simply gone nuts or become a terrorist, the Christmas Underwear Wannabe Bomber, London suicide bombings and Somalis--all Muslims. Nothing about those folk or the article says "right wing militia" to me. Nor is AP prone to picking on the right wing. Please see also, Reply 41.

[NashVegas]

18. Deal With the Koch Bros' Then

And everyone else who's funding the freaks.

[cliffordu]

19. NOW you're talking.....

[defendandprotect]

55. Koch Brothers have been financing right wing propaganda and right wing extremists

for decades ---

[Iowa]

21. More justification to restrict our liberty. Assholes.

[No Elephants]

45. "Give me liberty or give me death" doesn't seem to inspire the faux Tea Partiers as it did the Sons

of Liberty who did the original dumping of tea into Boston Harbor, does it.

Warren Commission, 911 Commission, Cat Food Commission. Maybe we need to take a really good look at the whole Commission thing, eh?

[RainDog]

47. I thought this article was going to be about Beck and Palin n/t

[area51]

50. +1

My first thought on seeing the headline was that it was about the teabaggers & their best bud Tim McVeigh.

[defendandprotect]

54. Our corporate-press has for 47 years now failed to acknowledge right wing political violence....

which took from us our people's government and our president in 1963 --

and/or stolen elections which computers have enabled --

Both the large and smaller voting computers began to come in during the mid-late-1960's -

just about the time America was passing the Voting Rights Act.

Prior to the large comuters used by MSM, they could only report ACTUAL vote tallies.

The large computers gave them new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections -- including

Electoral College and presidnetial winners! What we saw in 2000 was simply a reversal

of those new powers.

I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey -- another squeaker!

[BreweryYardRat]

56. Fine by me -- just make sure we deal with the radical fundamentalist "Christians."

A bigoted violent shithead is a bigoted violent shithead, regardless of whether they wear the cross or the crescent.