Similarities between Seattle Zack De La Rocha clones and white supremacists recruiting military types:

They could be, somewhat hyperbolically, called terrorists.

The differences:

Seattle window-breakers want wind power.

White supremacists want white power.

Seattle window-breakers cover their faces with bandannas.

White supremacists cover their faces with hoods.

Seattle rock throwers see a conspiracy of capitalist pigs trying to control them.

White supremacists see a conspiracy of Jewish bloodsuckers trying to control them.

I can go on....but what's the point? I think with all this talk of "right wing extremists" you just want to bring some "left wing extremists" into the discussion, not because they're all that relevant, but because, well, "He did it first!"

Is that the best you got?

Since it clearly demonstrates that terrorism is not limited to those with military training, nor is it even desired on the part of the vast majority of those engaging in such activity domestically, it'll serve very nicely, thanks. That you don't understand that, (I'll be kind and say, probably by intent) tells me all I need know about who is misunderstanding what, Herb.

And my question still stands. I'm genuinely curious how you think them different.

Ah. So, the business at Seattle a few years ago was army types, huh? Again, not required.

Is that the best you got? Seriously? A knee-jerk variation of the old "I know you are, but what am I" trick?

Lame.

Ya know, if you re-directed half the energy you use to deliberately misunderstand something towards actually trying to understand it, you might find yourself a little less more convincing.

OK, explain to us how they're different.
(Crosing arms, and leaning back)

Umm, I don't think so...you are the one making the comparison, so it is up to you to make the case...by the way, if you can find anyone outside of the lunatic fringe who would favorably believe in any such comparisons, do let us know...

Well of course...if it is your goal is to compare the Obama Administration (or other's goal to compare the Bush Administration) to Nazis and/or Communists, such claims deserve to be discredited as the lunatic fringe bullshit that they are...

OK, explain to us how they're different.
(Crosing arms, and leaning back)

The left-wing report didn't go far enough. The right-wing report went too far. Considering your political persuasion, that's almost understandable. But why pretend that you're judging the issue on the merits? Why not just say "Left bad...Right good" if that's the limit of your analysis?

Hardly, but apparently, that's as far as you'd like to take the discussion... anything deeper is apparently beyond your ken.

After all, if I were the one trying to start a violent RaHoWa, I'd want someone with military training too.

Ah. So, the business at Seattle a few years ago was army types, huh? Again, not required.

But we didn't need the 'report' to tell us that, nor did we need to lump servicemen into that group.

Wait...now the report was unnecessary? Sounds like you're grasping at straws there.

At any rate, the report didn't lump "servicemen into that group." It indicated servicemen could be a recruiting target for that group. This shouldn't be too terribly controversial.

After all, if I were the one trying to start a violent RaHoWa, I'd want someone with military training too. A combat veteran would be even better. And if you think there's no white supremacists in the military that are more than happy to join these groups, then you're only fooling yourself.

As to this...this is almost comical:

Yes, I think that, too, was politically motivated, because for one thing, I don't think it went far enough in many areas.

Let me see if I get this right...

The left-wing report didn't go far enough. The right-wing report went too far. Considering your political persuasion, that's almost understandable. But why pretend that you're judging the issue on the merits? Why not just say "Left bad...Right good" if that's the limit of your analysis?

You are, on the other hand, trying to avoid such comparisons and discredit them when they show up.

Well of course...if it is your goal is to compare the Obama Administration (or other's goal to compare the Bush Administration) to Nazis and/or Communists, such claims deserve to be discredited as the lunatic fringe bullshit that they are...

It specifically warns of "lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks," and sorry, bud, but that describes this Von Brunn character, as well as the guy who killed George Tiller, to a T.

But we didn't need the 'report' to tell us that, nor did we need to lump servicemen into that group.

Also bullshit, as I've never made that comparison either...

Didn't say you had. You are, on the other hand, trying to avoid such comparisons and discredit them when they show up.

Besides, I'm curious to know what you think of the DHS's left wing extremism report that came out in January? Was that also politically motivated? Who, may I ask, do you think directed that conspiracy?

Yes, I think that, too, was politically motivated, because for one thing, I don't think it went far enough in many areas. At the same time, I think there was an awful lot of inaccuracies in that report, of the same sort in the one on right-wing groups and individuals. Never under-estimate how badly government wonks will mishandle intel data.

As for who 'directed' it, the phrase 'leaderless resistance' comes to mind.

Would you feel better had I said "Communists"? It's all the same; we've seen it from each, and the Nazis are only one such occasion.

Also bullshit, as I've never made that comparison either...

Of course, as Clinton found, it's all much easier to blame the whole thing on talk radio, and a vast right wing conspiracy, huh? to say n[o]thing of more productive to the end of eliminating the right from the political spectrum. Tar them all with the 'extremist label, damn them by association.

Funny, you don't mind doing the same thing to "The Left"...

Listen to AIP comments above.

And, uh, which comments would they be, pray tell...

Matter of fact, yes, I did. A bit of political work from end to end, targeting groups that the current power structure doesn't like... has a rather familiar ring to it. We ended up in a world war over the aspirations of just such people.

Sorry, Erik. While I'm willing to believe that you read the report, I don't think you read it all that closely.

It specifically warns of "lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks," and sorry, bud, but that describes this Von Brunn character, as well as the guy who killed George Tiller, to a T.

Besides, I'm curious to know what you think of the DHS's left wing extremism report that came out in January? Was that also politically motivated? Who, may I ask, do you think directed that conspiracy?

Sounds like you labeling people that lean right as more dangerous than a left leaning person. The number of cases of violence from members of left leaning groups in the last ten years outnumbers that on the right.

Michael the outrage about the DHS report was about profiling Iraq\Afghanistan veterans as likely threats. Many in the press yesterday were ridiculing those who had a problem with that part and said this case absolutely proves otherwise. Listen to AIP comments above.

What part of the DHS assessment does this case validate? That we have internal threats as well? Of course but to say it validate profiling veteran or right winger over the opposite is asinine which is the two traits that causes this story to be so prominent in the headlines. If it was a lone Islamic terrorist targeting troop on U.S. soil or a left wing group like ELF destroying millions of dollars in property it would get little play.

Liberals are so against profiling or having prejudice unless it’s their type of profiling or prejudice.

Yes, I was completely fooled by the title of the thread

(Grump)
Yeah, given the nature of the beast and the sheer size of the Google response I was skimming, in my efforts to get something useful quickly. More, the firewall I'm behind here at work blocks the site, as it happened.

I remain amazed at the number of links this guy's name brings up. I've seen legit bloggers that don't do that well. The evidence the guy is a nutbag has been out there for quite a while for there to be that much of a build-up the the crawlers.

So, the obvious question becomes, how does the DHS report bring anything to this party? Clearly it does not. The evidence... and actionable evidence at that, seemingly... has been out there for decades, already even absent that "report".

IIRC, the report suggested that a small number of disaffected ex-military would be good targets for recruitment efforts by domestic terrorist groups. That strikes me as a realistic problem rather than besmirching the reputation of all our troops. McVeigh serves as a prototype here. When I was in the service, the large majority of personnel clearly leaned to the right in their politics, some virulently so. In a time of economic uncertainty, unstable people with that background would seem to be prime targets.

Steve