More Armalite--the weapon of terrorism

 In this case, the AR-18.

 And The US once again proves that its gun problem effects the rest of the world.

The US should have enacted strict gun control had it been serious about the GWOT, but we know that was a joke. And we have defence distributed on top of it all. 

Is Luigi Mangione a vigilante or a terrorist?

 Ok, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, they tend to overlap.

I need to set up some definitions. I will define vigilantism as "collective coercive practices undertaken by non-state actors in order to enforce norms (social or judicial) and/or to take the law in their own hands". 

British criminologist Les Johnston suggests several criteria for defining vigilantism in his article What is Vigilantism?:

it involves planning and premeditation by those engaging in it; its participants are private citizens whose engagement is voluntary; it is a form of autonomous citizenship and, as such, constitutes a social movement; it uses or threatens the use of force; it arises when an established order is under threat from the transgression, the potential transgression, or the imputed transgression of institutionalized norms; it aims to control crime or other social infractions by offering assurances (or ‘guarantees’) of security both to participants and to others.

The punisments meted out by vigilantes can be quite spectacular and symbolic: vigilantes cannot arrest all criminals but can make punishment into a symbol to frighten others. Sanctioning often takes the form of physical punishment, public humiliation or, more rarely, execution. These sanctions are an attempt to control by exemplary punishment. So, the use of lynching is an example of both vigilantism and terrorism.

Terrorism  is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

What we have is the common factor of violence used to enforce, or create, a norm. Extra-legal or extra-Constitutional use of threats, or physical and psychological violence to punish, or to cause, incite or stoke fear and hate are common to both vigilantism and terrorism.  I would say that it's sometimes hard to distinguish between the two since they share the characteristics of (1) use of force (2) for a political purpose. 

Some might want to say that vigilantism is supposed to enforce the "law", or at least the established order. On the other hand, it is a non-governmental actor using force most of the time in violation of the law. To go back to the lynching example: the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) targeted African-Americans as well as Jews, immigrants, leftists, homosexuals, Catholics, Muslims, and atheists. The KKK used physical assault and lynching, against politically active blacks and their allies, even if the latter were whites. This was all done in opposition to the civil rights movement.

As I said, there is not a clear line between vigilantism and terrorism: both use violence for a political purpose.

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination

Let's start with defintion:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation uses a definition of terrorism that tracks with the Patriot Act. “Terrorism” encompasses “acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law” and “appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” It distinguishes between international terrorism (acts occurring abroad) and domestic terrorism, which occurs primarily within the U.S.

I'm going to focus on (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. This is because terrorism requires an intent. Just killing people to kill people doesn't cut it no matter how many people get killed.

On the other hand, we are given a handwritten confession which states an intent:

"Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”

Let's toss in that he shouted  "It's completely out of touch! It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people!" as he was being escorted into court. Which in my opinion caused him to waive any recourse to Miranda.

I know that he has shown an interest in the Unabomber. There are some other things I have heard mentioned about his possible intent, but I'm not going to bother with that stuff. First off, it's pretty much superfluous given the basic evidence out there (e.g., handwritten confession, possession of the murder weapon, possession of the ID, DNA and fingerprint evidence, etc.).  He's put enough out there to at least put him away for life.

 Mangione's actions and intent place definitely, show that he wanted to influence, or effect, the conduct of government through at least one act of violence. 

I would add that Mangione's supporters are his own worst enemies. Its too bad that insurance will not pay for a procedure to remove their heads from the assess.

As someone who has wanted to see healthcare reform in the US for a long time, I am disgusted by the actions of the people who are willing to lionise a person with a serious personality disorder.

The far better course of action would be to use the system to get healthcare reform.

While I would love to see Manione executed, that is the wrong course of action. It would be far better for him to be exposed for what he is (not someone to be idolised). And then stick him away where he may live out his life.

Or another inmate may terminate his life.

The "When we hang the capitalists, they will have sold us the rope" department part 3

This is the silly rhetoric which has taken the US right from being anything vaguely "conservative" into the realms of lunatic fringe:

“The courts do not have the last word on what the Constitution is. They decide particular cases, they don’t make law. Their decisions, unlike the Roe v. Wade usurpation, don’t extend to the whole of society, they’re not supposed to. And we may have to reassert that proper constitutional balance, and it may not be pretty. So, I’d much rather have an election where we solve this matter at the ballot box than have to resort to the bullet box.”

The "When we hang the capitalists, they will have sold us the rope" department part 2

“if congress keeps going this way, people are looking for 2nd Amendment remedies.” 

                            --Sharron Angle, who served as a Republican member of the Nevada Assembly from 1999 to 2007. She ran unsuccessfully as the 2010 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in Nevada.

Don't go whimpering if the "wrong" people start acting what you have been promoting in your ignorance.

Especially when it is a BOGUS interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is so far removed from the Constitutional context as to be a total absurdity (US Constution, Article III, Section iii).

Actually, I guess that corrects the Threeper's definition of themselves so that it should be III.iii to show they are really TRAITORS according to the document they claim to follow.

The "When we hang the capitalists, they will have sold us the rope" department

OK, this tweet is wrong on many levels.

The first one is the believe that somehow the Second Amendment invalidates article III, Section iii of the US Constitution.

Or that a document that begins:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

somehow contains the seeds of destruction of the nation.

The US Constitution was written as a response to Shays' Rebellion and a read of what the drafters thought about that event should eliminate any doubt that the Constitution somehow condones rebellion if it isn't clear enough from the Constitution itself.

Nevermind that the military structure envisioned by the founders which was supposed to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment is as non-existent as the American Dream.

But this is what happens when one chooses to ignore the purpose of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") and call it somehow meaningless.  Saying that a clause in the constitution which is somehow "mere surplusage" is a statement which makes judicial review meaningless (see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (more) 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352).

If the people who make idiotic statements like this would take a few moments to consider the ramifications of the Alexandria shooting, then we might actually get somewhere. They need to understand one person's freedom can be seen as another's tyranny. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

They can't go making statements like that and not understand that they may have just put a target on their OWN backs.

Even more importantly, one cannot have a serious war on terrorism and make weapons easily accessible to your enemy.

If anything, the Second Amendment's "well regulated" needs to be brought into the debate. And it fucking well doesn't mean "well-trained",[1] but under strict civilian control (the real issue of the Second Amendment is civilian control of the military, not personal weapons--that is exactly what you will find if you actually do some thinking and stop parroting idiotic statements which are detrimental to the constitutional structure of the US).

If gun rights are enumerated, then they are under very tight control.  As State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. (2 Pike) 18 (1842), pointed out about  the absurdity of the individual right assertion:

However captivating such arguments may appear upon a merely casual or superficial view of the subject, they are believed to be specious, and to rest upon premises at variance with all the fundamental principles upon which the government is based; and that, upon a more mature and careful investigation, as to the object for which the right was retained their fallacy becomes evident. The dangers to be apprehended from the existence and exercise of such right, not only to social order, domestic tranquillity and the upright and independent administration of the government, but also to the established institutions of the country, appears so obvious as to induce the belief that they are present to every intelligent mind, and to render their statement here unnecessary.

The US Supreme Court said in Presser v Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886):

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect...

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

US v. Miller was not helpful to the revisionist agenda of the Heller-McDonald decisions because it made clear that the Second Amendment has the "obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (organised in accordance with USC Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16), the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.[2] It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The Second Amendment is a victim of desuetude and it was  Scalia's job to have declared it such.  But it is now the public which must come to the realisation that the Second Amendment serves no purpose in modern society.

Before it ends up being the self-destruct button for the United States.

Notes:
[1] Military regulations are not a drill manual, but the rules of conduct.  And while we are discussing Article I, Section 8, we should mention clause 14 which states:

"The Congress shall have Power To ...make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces...."

Anyone with a shred of familiarity with the US Constitution should be ashamed at pushing the absurdity of the revisionist "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment as being so far removed from the text to be an obvious non-sequitur.

See also, www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/54/military-regulations

[2] " the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made"--this means that the Second Amendment MUST be read as a whole.  That basically invalidates the bullshit spouted by the Heller and McDonald decisions and the pseudoscholarship which would remove the Second Amendment from its Constitutional context.

Republican forgetfullness, or just crazy denial and delusion? Terrorism, let me count the ways

There is a pattern of denial and selective memory that is unique to conservatives as a broader pattern. I bring this up here both to correct the conservative false narrative, but also to raise awareness of this pattern as we continue through the 2016 election cycle.

What the list below exemplifies is the alternate reality of denial and delusion that characterizes both conservatives generally (like those who blame Pres. Obama for the poor emergency response to Hurricane Katrina  FIVE YEARS BEFORE HE ASSUMED OFFICE.) and prominent conservatives specifically that broadly mis-remember or misrepresent historic fact. 

An example would be Guiliani insisting the shoe-bomber attack occurred before 9/11 when it was after, and denying 9/11 occurred on George W. Bush's watch.  But he is far from the only example:



When it becomes a pattern, in the continuing factually false narrative of conservative talk radio, or the continuing false narrative of conservative political campaigns, I would posit this is deliberate misinformation, or more precisely disinformation aimed at creating a false belief system that supports the conservative ideology.  Sadly, it seems to work on at least the weaker-minded Fox-Not-News-watching conservatives.

We saw that when Rudely Guiliani claimed there were NO terrorist attacks under Dubya, apparently forgetting or willfully omitting - among others - 9/11. Being kind, let's say the idiot Rudely meant to say, "other than 9/11 and merely misspoke.



He'd still be wrong,  massively wrong. Wrong like when he says everyone commits adultery is wrong.

I'm confident that Hillary Clinton is aware, in detail, of every one of these attacks on Americans and American territory, both foreign-based and domestic.
     From Wikipedia, in chronological order, domestic terrorism attacks:

• May 21, 2001: The Center for Urban Horticulture at the University of Washington burned by the Earth Liberation Front. Replacement building cost $7 million ($9,355,000 today). Earth Liberation Front members pled guilty.
• September 11, 2001: The September 11 attacks were carried out against the United States by the Al Queda Network, killing 2,507 civilians, 343 firefighters, 72 law enforcement officers, 55 military personnel, and 19 perpetrators. Four domestic commercial airliners were hijacked simultaneously while flying within the Northeastern United States; two flew directly into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, the third into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, and the fourth (thanks to the revolt by the passengers and crew members) into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, during a failed attempt to destroy its intended target in Washington, D.C., either the White House or the United States Capitol. The Twin Towers were ultimately destroyed, and the Pentagon received extensive damage in the western side of the building. Building 7 of the World Trade Center was also destroyed in the attack, though there were no casualties.
• September 18 - November, 2001: 2001 anthrax attacks. Letters tainted with anthrax killed five across the U.S., with politicians and media officials as the apparent targets. On July 31, 2008, Bruce E. Ivins a top biodefense researcher committed suicide. On August 6, 2008, the FBI concluded that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks, and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro-choice views.  However, subsequent evaluations have found that the FBI's investigation failed to provide any direct evidence linking Ivins to the mailings.
• July 4, 2002: 2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, killed two Israelis and wounds four others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. The FBI concluded this was terrorism, though they did not find evidence linking Hadayet to a terrorist group. October 2002 Beltway sniper attacks: During three weeks in October 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10 people and critically injured 3 others in Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Virginia. The pair were also suspected of earlier shootings in Maryland, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Washington state. No motivation was given at the trial, but evidence presented showed an affinity to the cause of the Islamic jihad.
• March 5, 2006: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar injured 6 when he drove an SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world".
• March 25, 2006: Capitol Hill massacre: Kyle Aaron Huff entered a rave afterparty in the southeast part of Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood and opened fire, killing six and wounding two. He then killed himself as he was being confronted by police on the front porch of 2112 E. Republican Street.
• July 28, 2006: Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, Naveed Afzal Haq, an American citizen of Pakistani descent, killed one woman and shoots five others at the Jewish Federation building in Seattle. During the shooting, Haq told a 911 dispatcher that he was angry with American foreign policy in the Middle East.
• October 26, 2007: A pair of improvised explosive devices were thrown at the Mexican Consulate in New York City. The fake grenades were filled with black powder, and detonated by fuses, causing very minor damage. Police were investigating the connection between this and a similar attack against the British Consulate in New York in 2005.
• March 3, 2008: Four luxury woodland houses near Woodinville, Washington were torched, leaving behind a message crediting the Earth Liberation Front.
• March 6, 2008: Times Square bombing. A homemade bomb damaged an Armed Forces Recruiting Office in Times Square.  In June 2013, The FBI and New York City police offered a $65,000 reward for information in the case and revealed that ammunition used for the bomb is the same as is used in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones. On April 15, 2015, the F.B.I increased the award to $115,000 and said they have persons of interest.
• May 4, 2008: Multiple pipe bombs exploded at 1:40 am at the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse in San Diego causing "considerable damage" to the entrance and lobby and sending shrapnel two blocks away, but causing no injuries. The FBI is investigating links between this attack and an April 25 explosion at the FedEx building also in San Diego.

U.S. Diplomatic missions, such as embassies and of course our military bases abroad, are all U.S. territory.  Attacks on them are attacks on all of us.
     From politifact.com:

Here is a chronology of the deadly terrorist attacks on United States embassies, consulates and traveling U.S. personnel during the presidency of George W. Bush. The list below does not include foiled attacks or those that did not result in fatalities (other than those of the attackers). The descriptions for each incident are excerpted from the University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database.

• Dec. 15, 2001: Unidentified assailants gunned down a Nepalese security guard of the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal.
• Jan. 22, 2002: Two assailants attacked the American Center in Calcutta, India. Five policemen died, and 15 others were injured in the attack.
• March 20, 2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru, killing nine people and injuring 32. The U.S. State Department reported no American casualties, injuries, or damage.
• June 14, 2002: A suicide bombing in front of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, left 12 dead and 51 injured.
• Nov. 9, 2002: The security supervisor for the U.S. embassy in Nepal was shot dead at his house in Kathmandu. Maoist rebels claimed responsibility for the incident.
• May 12, 2003: In a series of attacks, suicide bombers blew themselves up in a truck loaded with explosives in a complex that housed staff working for U.S. defense firm Vinnell in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (The contractors worked out of the U.S. embassy.) At least eight Americans were killed in the incident. Al-Qaida was suspected responsible for the incident. This was one of three attacks, involving at least nine suicide bombers and suspected to have involved 19 perpetrators overall.
• July 30, 2004: Two people, including a suicide bomber, were killed and one person was injured as a suicide bomber set off an explosion at the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The Israeli Embassy and the Uzbekistan Prosecutor General’s Office in Tashkent were also attacked in related incidents.
• Oct. 24, 2004: Edward Seitz, the assistant regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, died in a mortar or possible rocket attack at Camp Victory near the Baghdad airport. An American soldier was also injured. He was believed to be the first U.S. diplomat killed following the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
• Nov 25, 2004: Jim Mollen, the U.S. Embassy’s senior consultant to the Iraqi Ministers of Education and Higher Education, was killed just outside the Green Zone in Baghdad.
• Dec. 7, 2004: Gunmen belonging to al-Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula stormed the U.S. Consulate in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, triggering a bloody four-hour siege that left nine dead. One American was slightly injured in the assault.
• Jan. 29, 2005: Unknown attackers fired either a rocket or a mortar round at the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad. The strike killed two U.S. citizens and left four others injured.
• Sept. 7, 2005: Four American contractors employed with a private security firm supporting the regional U.S. embassy office in Basra, Iraq, were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near their convoy. Three of the contractors died instantly, and the fourth died in a military hospital after the bombing.
• March 2, 2006: An unidentified driver detonated a car bomb while driving past the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing a himself, a U.S. Consulate worker and at least three others.
• Sept. 12, 2006: Islamic militants attacked the U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria, with hand grenades, rifles, and a vehicle rigged with explosives. One guard and the four attackers died.
• July 8, 2007: Two Iraqi U.S. Embassy workers were killed when the wife went to deliver a ransom for her husband who had been kidnapped in Baghdad. One of the couple's bodyguards was killed in the failed ransoming.
• Jan. 14, 2008: A bomb hidden on a north Beirut highway hit a U.S. Embassy vehicle, killing at least three Lebanese bystanders. The car's Lebanese driver and an American at a nearby school were wounded.
• March 18, 2008: Al-Qaida's wing in Yemen, Jund Al-Yemen Brigades, fired between three and five mortar rounds toward the U.S. embassy, but instead they hit a girls’ school nearby, killing a guard and a schoolgirl and injuring 19 others in Sanaa, Yemen.
• July 9, 2008: Four unknown gunmen killed three Turkish police at the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
• Sept. 17, 2008: Suspected al-Qaida militants disguised as security forces detonated vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, fired rocket propelled grenades, rockets and firearms on the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen. A suicide bomber also blew himself up at the embassy. Six Yemeni police, four civilians (including an American civilian), and six attackers were killed while six others were wounded in the attack.
• Nov. 27, 2008: A Taliban suicide car bomber targeted the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing four civilians in addition to the suicide bomber and wounding 18 others. The embassy was hosting a Thanksgiving Day event as Americans and other foreigners were arriving at the venue at the time of the attack.

Next 2014 Bad Penny Award Goes to the NRA

WW I pennies with bullet holes in them
considered 'trench art'

The NRA consistently demonstrates their failed level of limited thinking and lack of moral values in their political and policy positions. They ONLY value guns, to the exclusion of all else, including people, and actual safety - in this case, global safety. They have taken a pro-terrorist position.

In the video from the Daily Show, this is evident in the pro-ivory importation/ pro-terrorist position.

Where is the connection?

Elephant ivory taken by terrorist poachers is funding anti-American and other terrorist acts, including attacks like the one on the shopping mall in Kenya.

As noted by Think Progress:

NRA Campaigns Against The Plan To Save The World’s Elephants


...While many people would make the mistake of assuming that this was about helping save endangered elephants, the NRA understands what the real motivation is. “This is another attempt by this anti-gun Administration to ban firearms based on cosmetics and would render many collections/firearms valueless,” the NRA said in its call to arms. “Any firearm, firearm accessory, or knife that contains ivory, no matter how big or small, would not be able to be sold in the United States, unless it is more than 100 years old. This means if your shotgun has an ivory bead or inlay, your revolver or pistol has ivory grips, your knife has an ivory handle, or if your firearm accessories, such as cleaning tools that contain any ivory, the item would be illegal to sell.”

For that reason, the NRA implores its members to flood the White House and Congress with phone calls and emails to “let them know you oppose the ban on commercial sale and trade of legally owned firearms with ivory components.” That desire to resell old — but not antique — weaponry clearly is more important to the NRA than preventing the looming extinction of the species — which is linked closely to the skyrocketing demand for ivory. “In 2013 alone an estimated 30,000 African elephants were killed for their ivory, more than 80 animals per day,” Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

The commercial ivory ban is only part of a new National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking announced at the same time as the embargo, which prioritizes “strengthening domestic and global enforcement; reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife at home and abroad; and strengthening partnerships with international partners, local communities, NGOs, private industry, and others to combat illegal wildlife poaching and trade.” In that vein, the United States has been leading the charge in persuading countries around the world to destroy their stockpiles of intercepted ivory, annihilating six tons of it last November. Since then, Togo, China, and France have also followed suit and destroyed seized contraband of their own.

Aside from the conservation concerns, which the NRA doesn’t seem moved by, poaching is increasingly being viewed as a national security issue for the United States. In an interview last year, Robert Hormats, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, said ivory had become a “conflict resource.” An Enough Project report from last year also found that Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army has begun poaching ivory from elephant tusks to fund the group’s activities, which include abducting children and forcing them into sex slavery.

Conservative values, pro-gun values, are failed values; conservative and pro-gun thinking is failed thinking.

Who's on Second?

New Terrorist Plot Uncovered by the U.S.

Too bad that Ahmadinajad wasn't still visiting the U.N., making his annual revisionist history rant, where he could be confronted over this.

From  MSNBC.com, Reuters and the AP:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

US: Iran faction plotted to kill Saudi ambassador

Saudi, Israeli embassies were also targeted, U.S. says; two men chargedNBC, msnbc.com and news service

updated 2 hours 7 minutes ago
 

WASHINGTON — Two men allegedly working for "factions of the Iranian government" have been charged with plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and to attack the Saudi and Israeli embassies, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday.

The criminal complaint, unsealed Tuesday in federal court in New York City, identified the two as Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri.
Holder said Arbabsiar, who was arrested on Sept. 29 in New York, was working for the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard and had confessed to a plot.
Shakuri, who is based in Iran, remains at large, Holder said. He allegedly is a member of Iran's Quds Force, a special unit of the Revolutionary Guard.
Both are originally from Iran and Arbabsiar, 56, is a naturalized U.S. citizen, the complaint said.
The Obama administration will be "taking further action" against Iran as a result, Holder said.

Nicholas Kamm  /  AFP - Getty Images

Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir was the target of an alleged plot by Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the U.S. said Tuesday.

Saudi Arabia's ambassador is Adel al-Jubeir, who has served in that post since 2007.
The indictment is the result of a sting operation conducted by the FBI, Holder said.
The case started when Arbabsiar, who lived in Texas, allegedly made contact with an undercover DEA informant in Mexico and asked for assistance from the Zetas drug cartel to assassinate the ambassador by blowing up a restaurant that he frequented.
No explosives were actually placed, and no one was in any danger, officials said.
A Justice Department statement said Arbabsiar claimed he was being directed by his cousin in Iran, described as a "big general" in the Iranian military and within the Quds Force.
Arbabsiar allegedly wired $100,000 to the informant as a down payment on a $1.5 million assassination fee.
Other sources told ABC News that he reportedly told the informant that Iran could provide "tons of opium" to the Zetas.
Arbabsiar was to make a first court appearance later Tuesday. He could face a maximum sentence of life in prison.
The Quds Force was designated a terrorist group by the United States in 2007, in part because of alleged support of the Taliban and other extremist groups.
A senior U.S. official told NBC News to look to Treasury and the State Department for the immediate response against Iran.
The official also said that U.S. intelligence has a "high-degree" of confidence that the "Quds Force at the highest levels" was involved in the alleged plot and that this was not some "rogue operation."
President Barack Obama was first briefed on the alleged plot in June, said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor."The disruption of this plot is a significant achievement by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the president is enormously grateful for their exceptional work in this instance and countless others," Vietor said.
NBC's Pete Williams and Jim Miklaszewski, as well as the Associated Press and Reuters, contributed to this report.

The Norwegian Terrorist Attack: White, Right Wing, Fundamentalist Christian Terrorists

Let me direct our readers to a blog from our blog roll which has addressed this better than anything I can write, Informed Comment, Juan Cole's blog.  You can access the pertinent post by clicking here, or by clicking on the listing for it on our blog roll.  It is excellent, and rather than being ideology driven, it is factual.

Their headline: White Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism in Norway.

That the horrible terrorist attacks in Oslo on Friday that left some 90 persons or more dead– a bombing of the prime minister’s office and shootings at a Labor Party youth camp– were allegedly committed by a blonde, far right wing Norwegian fundamentalist Christian rather than by a radical Muslim group is being treated as a matter of surprise in some quarters. But if those journalists and analysts had been paying attention, they would not be surprised at all.

and

Europol reports have long made it clear that the biggest threat of terrorism in Europe comes from separatist movements, then from the fringe left, then from the far right. In 2008, only one terrorist attack out of hundreds in Europe was committed by radical Muslims. In 2010, according to Europol [pdf], 7 persons were killed in terrorist attacks. Some 160 of these attacks that year were carried out by separatists. The number launched by people of Muslim heritage? 3. It would be silly to maintain that Muslim radicals do not pose a threat of terrorism; indeed, many plots were broken up by European police. But as an actually-existing phenomenon, terrorism in Europe is mainly the work of Christian-heritage people. For more on the Norwegian far right, see Firstpost.com.

Cole addresses a topic I have written about on Penigma, the crisis in this country of Islamophobia, which is actively fear-mongered by the right wing of our politics.  It is not a problem unique to Norway by any means.  We have only to listen to presidential candidate hopeful Herman Cain, or look at the provisions of the Iowa pledge signed by Michele Bachmann and Ick, er, Rick Santorum, provisions which are promoted by Gingrich, Huckabee, Pawlenty and pretty much all of the other GOP hopefuls.  We have only to look at the number of states which have passed incredibly stupid and unnecessary legislation about Sharia law, which is NOT in any way, shape or form a threat to our law, our autonomy, or our way of life, legislation which singles out and demonizes a legitimate religion for treatment that is different from any other religion.

The right uses all kinds of fears to gain support, mostly from low-information people who believe wildly inaccurate things about people they identify as different from themselves, as different from conservative, white, Christians.  It is what that right will do, both legally and illegally, that threatens our life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and our very multi-cultural melting pot American way of life.
Quoting again from Cole:

The suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, is anti-multiculturalist and believes that the Qur’an commands Muslims to be extremists. His attack on the Labour Party appears to have derived in part from its insufficient hate of people of other cultures. Breivik’s discourse, about Islam and the Qur’an being *essentially* evil, is part of the Islamophobia promoted by some right wing forces in the west; and his actions show where that kind of thinking can lead.

Read Professor Cole; his post is EXCELLENT.  And then take another long hard look at the message of the right wing media, and the politicians who want to run for President (and governor, and senator or congressman).  It will make you think, and it might even scare you a little.  It should shake you up, because to be safe, we must focus proportionately on the actual, factual sources of potential terrorism, and not be distracted or diverted by Islamophobia, no matter how hard the right tries to make it an fake issue.

Right Winger, Wrong Again - Rep. Peter King Versus the Statistics

Republican Rep. Peter King is playing to his Islamophobic base with made-up information AGAIN. 

A former terrorist sympathizer and supporter, King is proud of helping send guns and money to the highly terroristic IRA to aid them in blowing up civilians in the UK.  Apparently, so long as it is not on U.S. soil, King doesn't give a rip if he helps blow up our closest allies, on THEIR soil, or American tourists in the UK for that matter.  Mike Huckster-bee was just complaining that he didn't think Obama looked at the British the way that white, middle class, more real Americans did, because of the Mau Mau rebellion some 10 years before Obama was born... how well does Rep. King do in that regard? 

It is Rep. Peter King AND Mike Huckster-bee who are out of touch with how Americans - us REAL Americans - feel about terrorists, including those who blow up British department stores.  I would hope as we approach St. Patrick's Day, both the right, the center, and the left REMIND these men how out of step they are with the great parade of American thinking.

Fight Them! Kill Them! and there will be no more

This morning federal agents arrested Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized US Citizen born in Pakistan, for his part in an attempted bombing Saturday in New York's Times Square.

I'm certain we will soon hear the chorus of those who will say, "We weren't attacked while George Bush was President," ignoring Richard Reid AND the attempts in New Jersey and L.A., but my question for them would be 'since when were the lives of hundreds of Britons or Spaniards worth LESS than lives here?' Since when does the fact that attacks didn't primarily kill Americans make everything OK? (Please remember that dozens of Americans - for example - died in the Bali bombing).

However, my response to this kind of idiocy is simply this. I thought we were fighting them "there" to keep from having to fight them "here." I though, especially since we were told Iraq was the central front in the Greater War on Terror, and that we had "won" (both of which were BS) - but anyway, I thought, in the minds of neo-conservatives, that we wouldn't face these kinds of attacks any longer. I thought George Bush's vast successes included winning Iraq and by it, killing off the terrorists until there weren't 'no more.' Apparently not, apparently he and they were wrong, nearly dead wrong.

The point is, it was a lie to say we were in Iraq to fight them "there." People with any level of expertise and honesty understood that terrorists are born of many reasons. They may be zealots who firmly believe in Wahabism or Catholicism or even anti-tax/anti-abortion insanity. They may be the family members of those killed by errant bombs OR as may have been the case here, they may be sympathetic, deluded souls who think our attacks in Pakistan killing Taliban leaders and/or which inadvertently kill innocent civilians are unacceptable. The point is, we can't "kill off" terrorism, nor was there any validity to the idea that we were "engaging" ALL of the terrorists (or any significant number) in either Iraq or Pakistan. There are and were PLENTY to go around, most importantly because they are motivated by different things, and new ones are motivated by new things all the time, such as the killing of the Pakistani Taliban leader.

The end result simply is this, terrorism is only truly fought by de-legitimizing the message of the terrorists themselves. You can't "kill it", you can't "fight" in the streets. You will never run out of opponents, and killing a tactic is impossible anyway. Obama has in no way slackened the effort, in fact he's probably more aggressively engaged the Taliban than at any point since 2001, and the consequence is terrorism - and it is a price we are likely to continue to have to pay. So before anyone belly-aches about faux prevention by one President while ignoring the failure to prevent fighting "here" or there, let's remember that the enemy is implacable and irrepressible as long as we do not have a good and logical counter to their chaos. If we help to sustain a stable government in Pakistan, if we stop occupying Afghanistan as much as we are helping to end corruption, we will find ourselves a much more welcome sight, and our own wacko citizenry probably will only try to bomb us for asking them to pay for governmental services, rather than because we killed other terrorists (as was apparently this man's cause).