A murderer is a murderer 
June 15, 2009 by Yamini Piplani
We must acknowledge rise in domestic extremism
Thanks to the eight-year-long War on Terror and the subsequent surge in Hollywood productions, when the word “terrorist” is mentioned, there is no doubt that a majority of us, willingly or not, imagine a foreigner, probably Middle Eastern in descent, associated with the word.
With years of talks about terrorism and terrorists, people have become consumed by the “us versus them” mentality.
As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman rightly noted, though the worst terrorist attack in American history is often linked to foreigners, the second worst attack “was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic” during the Oklahoma City bombing, when 168 Americans were killed.
We seem to have forgotten all about Timothy McVeigh and his act of terrorism against Americans and what he believed to have be the tyrannical government of former President Bill Clinton, in 1995.
Why is it that when our hate-filled speech generalizes about the loyalties of Middle Easterners, conservatives don’t rush to defend them but when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security points out that domestic terrorism has been and continues to be, more now than before, an area of national concern, conservative political junkies freak out and start insulting the establishment?
In mid-April, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a report that pointed to a recent increase in right-wing extremism and discussed the dangers of radicalization and increased recruitment. There was an extreme backlash from the conservative right following the release of the report, with some Republicans claiming that President Barack Obama was essentially labeling all Republicans as domestic terrorists.
Way to skew words and then put them in someone else’s mouth.
If this report had referred to international terrorism, the political right would have accepted it without a second glance. But because it refers to domestic terrorism, it must mean that the report is politically-charged? Sure.
When terrorism refers to foreigners, it becomes an issue around which political candidates can rally, but when it comes to warnings of domestic terrorism, the safety of Americans becomes an issue of political games and name-calling.
The New York Times reported that two months ago, the chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the Office of Intelligence and Analysis’ report, calling it an attempt to “segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration” and label them as domestic terrorists. In fact, conservative news anchors, talk show hosts and Republicans around the country jumped at the opportunity to label the president as irrevocably biased and liberals as haters.
I would like to hear what they all have to say today. Less than two months after the report was released, Dr. George Tiller, the director of a clinic that provided late-term abortions, was brutally murdered at his church. Soon after, a self-labeled white supremacist opened fire at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Do these incidents not point to an increase in right-wing extremism? If a foreigner was responsible for similar acts, no one would have trouble labeling them as acts of terrorism.
Even the conservative Shepard Smith, a Fox News anchor, recently warned his viewers on-air of an increase in the number of “amped up” Americans who are “taking the extra step and getting the gun out.” In fact, some areas of the country have reported sharp increases in gun sales since the election season, even in the midst of a recession.
Some claim that this is merely in response to fears that come along with a liberal, pro-gun control president, but this theory hardly explains the steeper-than-normal upsurge in sales as the president has never seriously mentioned any such policy and is far from making guns his national priority.
Smith also pointed to the surge in hate-filled e-mails he had received in recent months, filled with accusations and opinions about the president “not based in fact.” He said e-mails from his viewers had become “more and more frightening.”
So, the increased sales of guns cannot be linked only to the election of a pro-gun control president. Do these e-mails not point to an increase in right-wing extremism? When it comes down to a Republican news anchor, linked to one of the most conservative media outlets in the country, warning us of right-wing extremism, we should probably take it seriously.
Honestly, if the report had hinted at a rise in domestic left-wing extremism, I would be just as supportive of national attention to that issue. Similarly, I support the efforts to eliminate the roots of extremism world-wide.
Right-wing extremism in the U.S. is on the rise and we must do something about it. We cannot focus on extremism internationally and simply ignore the battle at home. It comes down to this: violent extremism, whether domestic or not, is terrorism.
It should not matter whether a terrorist is conservative or not – our assessment of terrorism and our treatment of terrorists should be fair and not driven by race, religion or politics.
After all, a murderer is a murderer.
Remember, terms like supremacist, racist and neo-Nazi have simply evolved into racial slurs since WWII that mean whitey.
If they were universal, both Barack and Michele Obama would be called racist because they support racially defined black leaders, all of whom promote discrimination based upon skin color. They belonged to a church whose minister openly praised Louis Farakhan and where white people were called whitey from the podium.
What the author completely and knowingly ignored was that the man who murdered the security guard at the Holocaust memorial musuem was not a Conservative, but he in fact hated and despised Fox News, he tried to blow up the office of the Weekly Standard–a conservative publication and he hated George W. Bush!
Perhaps the author address these facts as she is quick to label this man a Conservative and a terrorist.
Peter,
I neither labeled the man a conservative, nor a terrorist. I simply point to the rise in extremism which is clearly substantiated by my examples. The argument here is that we cannot ignore extremism at home – whether it stems from the left or the right. Perhaps you should read the entire article before jumping to any conclusions.
He didn’t only hate Fox news (which does not mean that he was not a conservative, as a side note – not all conservatives love Fox) , but he also hated Obama and was a self-proclaimed white supremacist.
Also, my last name is Piplani, not Paplani.
Good job Yamini! I completely agree. It’s completely ignorant and even dangerous to give a face to ‘terrorists’ when the group is so diverse. Terrorists can be homegrown or foreign, right or left wing and of any race.
Shepherd Smith a conservative and republican? Oh please the man would be more at home at MSNBC than at FOX. He’s not conservative nor Republican and he’s stated that, please get you’re facts straight and stop spinning to fit an agenda.
Where was the outcry of the Muslim terrorist (self proclaimed) that killed US soldiers on American soil in Little Rock, AR? Not much coverage there was there?
That’s another thing I forgot to add, Ms. Piplani. Apologies for messing up your last name.
You talk of extremism as being on the rise in America and you highlight it by pointing to Tiller’s killer and the guy who shot up the Holocaust Musuem, but not once in your article did you talk about the self-proclaimed Muslim terrorist who killed the soldier in Arkansas. It seems you’ve deliberately picked who you want to highlight as extremists and terrorists, which as I said earlier is Conservatives.
At least Mr. Jarzen’s article brought up the soldier’s slaying by a jihadist. I’d like to see your outcry about the soldier’s death as you do with Tiller’s.
Peter,
I don’t mean to argue with your opinion, after all, it is an opinion. But, I feel like you’re missing the point of my article.
My point is that we have been at war for 8 years to battle extremism in the middle east… we ARE paying attention to that issue. So the murder of Long is not being ignored….we’re fighting a war for that exact cause!
My point is that we ARE ignoring the rise in extremism at home. It doesn’t matter whether it stems from the right or the left, my opinion would remain the same.
Please try to drop the political agenda for once, and read the article for what it is trying to say – ignoring extremism here while battling extremism abroad isn’t productive.
Ms. Piplani, you are acting as a spin doctor. This is not an ad hominem attack, this is a valid criticism of your article. You write that you didn’t label the white supremacist a conservative yet you used him as an example to show an increase in right wing extremism in this country. This is an irreconcilable contradiction.
You clearly did label the man a conservative, so why are you claiming that you didn’t now?
Also, this is politically charged. When the Democrats are in power, there will be a rise in right wing dissent, and when Republicans are in power, there will be a rise in left wing dissent. To say this will lead to an increase in domestic terrorism is very hard to prove. I believe the word extremism is thrown around too frequently almost as much as terrorist. To cite two examples of crazy people committing murder isn’t nearly as much evidence of a rise in right wing extremism as you would like us to believe. Over any two month period in this country, you could find two examples of any group committing murder. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s true even of the elderly, the group who commits the least amount of murders per capita.
Your article is scary because it potentially leads to a further restriction on civil liberties and an unconstituional detainment of so called right wing extremists without cause. The Timothy McVeigh incident is very hard to stop because it is an example of one individual (he did have a co-conspirator) committing an act of terrorism. Once that act is completed, we have arrested the criminal and the co-conspirators, what’s left to do? Of course we should be leery of copycat attacks, but beyond that if there is no terrorist organization behind the attack, the threat is essentially over. With foreign terrorists, there is a whole organization, so once an attack is levied on US soil, that is potentially just the beginning. That’s why it is important to try and remove the whole organization. I don’t know of any US terrorist organizations who fit that description.