Now conservatives know how many Muslims feel.

[jAZ]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/04/15/dhs-report-on-right-wing-extremists-is-no-attack-on-tea-party-conservatives.html

DHS Report on Right-Wing Extremists Is No Attack on Tea Party Conservatives
April 15, 2009 03:18 PM ET | Robert Schlesinger | Permanent Link | Print
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Now conservatives know how many Muslims feel. The right is up in arms (as it were) over a Department of Homeland Security report that was leaked this week and looks at whether the first black president and a historically bad economy might energize right-wing extremist groups.

Please note the word "extremist"—because few prominent conservatives seem to have. Instead, they are painting this as a cheap propaganda attack, specifically timed to counter the "Tea Party" movement. Seriously?

Here's my question: Why are prominent conservatives so quick to lump themselves in with genuine nuts and terrorists? Seriously.

Two stipulations: First the use of "rightwing" (one word at DHS, two words at USN & WR) may have been ill-advised. That said, if the department released a report looking at eco-terrorists or other far-left terrorist groups and described them as "leftwing extremists," I don't think I would get particularly upset. Oh wait, they did, and I'm not. Note again in any case the use of the word "extremist."

Second: Michelle Malkin makes one arguably fair point:

They were very defensive — preemptively so — in asserting that it was not a politicized document and that DHS had done reports on "leftwing extremism" in the past. I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

The DHS report (which is available in PDF here) would certainly be more useful or at least credible with more detail, specifically regarding sourcing. But in fairness, its earlier report on "leftwing extremists" didn't provide much either. And such lack of detail (in both reports) is less an indication of a political bent than, arguably, a sign of sloppy preparation.

But here's where Malkin and the cons go wildly off-track:

By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives.

Well ... no. It's not. It's simply not. Just as U.S. leaders have to periodically assure aggrieved Muslims around the world that we are not fighting Islam but rather Islamic extremists, maybe someone at DHS should let the conservatives know that we're not worried about them but rather about--again—extremists.

Here's who the report is talking about, according to a footnote on Page 2:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

The last time I checked, that was not a description of conservatives. It's a description of extremists, specifically the kind that blew up a federal office building less than 15 years ago in what was, until 9/11, the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil (and remains the second-bloodiest terrorist act in our history).

So why are conservatives like Malkin and El Rushbo claiming that this report targets them (and the Tea Party movement)? Surely they would not be self-described as "primarily hate-oriented" or "rejecting federal authority," would they? Why are they trying to lump themselves in with genuinely bad people? This is the worst kind of demagoguery—the more so because it legitimizes the fringe who we can all agree are a threat. An al Qaeda-level threat? No. A Timothy McVeigh-level threat? Quite possibly.

[wild1]

The war the government waged on terror was not against Islam, but Islamist extremists.

The war the government is waging on the substance of what america is, is not against kooks or extremists of any kind, but against everyone.

[jAZ]

The war the government waged on terror was not against Islam, but Islamist extremists.

The war the government is waging on the substance of what america is, is not against kooks or extremists of any kind, but against everyone.
That had to hurt. You'll probably need this...
http://www.murrietachiropractic.com/images/coupon.jpg

[wild1]

That had to hurt. You'll probably need this...
http://www.murrietachiropractic.com/images/coupon.jpg

A health care facility that has to specify that they do in fact accept insurance kind of worries me. However you'll be glad to know I am in excellent physical condition and am in no need of such 'adjustments'.

[SNR]

The report said to watch out for people with 3rd-party candidate stickers on their cars.

Aren't those the candidates that sympathized with Muslims when they were racially profiled and put into the "them" camp away from the "us" camp?

Yeah, conservatives know how Muslims feel. They've been feeling that way since 9/11.

[jAZ]

A health care facility that has to specify that they do in fact accept insurance kind of worries me. However you'll be glad to know I am in excellent physical condition and am in no need of such 'adjustments'.

I just watched you do this in your first post here...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1390/1025451290_829a9e5813.jpg

... see a Dr. Your back has to be shot.

[wild1]

I just watched you do this in your first post here...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1390/1025451290_829a9e5813.jpg

... see a Dr. Your back has to be shot.

I am sure the point you are trying to make is very impressive.

[jAZ]

I am sure the point you are trying to make is very impressive.

It is, thank you.

We should all be able to agree that the subject of our anti-terrorism efforts should be extremists of any stripe. And that Malkin and Limbaugh should follow the Obama Administration's lead and not conflate the peaceful, conservative, astroturfing teabaggers with the violent, extremist rightwing nutjobs.

[jAZ]

The report said to watch out for people with 3rd-party candidate stickers on their cars.

Aren't those the candidates that sympathized with Muslims when they were racially profiled and put into the "them" camp away from the "us" camp?
I doubt many neo-nazi's were supporting muslims in any imaginable way.

[BucEyedPea]

A health care facility that has to specify that they do in fact accept insurance kind of worries me. However you'll be glad to know I am in excellent physical condition and am in no need of such 'adjustments'.

Why? A lot of chiros don't accept insurance because the insurance companies dictate the type of treatment.

[petegz28]

The report said to watch out for people with 3rd-party candidate stickers on their cars.

Aren't those the candidates that sympathized with Muslims when they were racially profiled and put into the "them" camp away from the "us" camp?

Yeah, conservatives know how Muslims feel. They've been feeling that way since 9/11.

Many of thise people who supported 3rd party candidates thought we never should have gone into Iraq.

[BucEyedPea]

I think Muslims feel like other people do. Reach out and touch one. :)

[patteeu]

What a coincidence this thread is. I was just thinking about how ironic it is that the Obama administration is on a world tour spreading the message that we are definitely not at war with muslims, no way no how,* while at home they are effectively posting wanted posters for people who oppose abortions, complain about illegal immigration, believe in gun rights, listen to talk radio, or vote for a 3rd party.


* As the Bush administration did before them.

[Iowanian]

Not really....I wipe my ass with triple ply paper, let my wife do pretty much whatever she wants, don't hate Jews or Christians by nature, and have an AR-15 that says "Infidel" in Arabic....oh, and I don't think its cool to shit in a non-plumbed room in my house or fornicate young boys or donkeys.

[jAZ]

...people who oppose abortions, complain about illegal immigration, believe in gun rights, listen to talk radio, or vote for a 3rd party.
So now you are among the endless list of conservatives who are equating peaceful political opposition to violent extremists... and then objecting to the action.

[petegz28]

So now you are among the endless list of conservatives who are equating peaceful political opposition to violent extremists... and then objecting to the action.

Um hello! He was merely repeating what the DHS said.

[jAZ]

Um hello! He was merely repeating what the DHS said.

His use of the word "effectively" and an absence of quotation marks suggests he's not "merely repeating what the DHS said".

And in fact, patteeu is paraphrasing what Malkin and Limbaugh and the rest of the corporate GOPundit class distorting.

[petegz28]

His use of the word "effectively" and an absence of quotation marks suggests he's not "merely repeating what the DHS said".

And in fact, patteeu is paraphrasing what Malkin and Limbaugh and the rest of the corporate GOPundit class distorting.

How are they distorting it?

[patteeu]

His use of the word "effectively" and an absence of quotation marks suggests he's not "merely repeating what the DHS said".

And in fact, patteeu is paraphrasing what Malkin and Limbaugh and the rest of the corporate GOPundit class distorting.

I'm not paraphrasing anyone (except the Obama administration). Perhaps Malkin and Limbaugh are paraphrasing me or maybe we are all coincidentally saying the same thing.

[patteeu]

So now you are among the endless list of conservatives who are equating peaceful political opposition to violent extremists... and then objecting to the action.

Uh, no.

[memyselfI]

Opologizing for what was condemned under Bush...

wow, what a shock.

[Velvet_Jones]

How are they distorting it?

Don't question the jAZ. He was vindicated with this election. Overlook that he is a stupid fucking liar that has no morals and will support all things Obama.

I ask you again jAZ - have you told that cute little boy of yours that you have sold him out and that he owes 34 grand to the government because you are stupid?

[Velvet_Jones]

Has anyone noticed that jAZ was good at promoting Obama until Obama actually started doing the crazy shit that others warned him of - now - the stats are flawed or the source is flawed or - fuck it - lets change the subject. What a total sell out.

[Velvet_Jones]

The good thing is that jAZ is too stupid to realize this. Fun for all.

[Direckshun]

My view is that any time you have nationwide protests about "revolution," "Fight Club" analogies, and stuff like that, some security is in order.

If that's a crime, then fucking sue me.

[petegz28]

My view is that any time you have nationwide protests about "revolution," "Fight Club" analogies, and stuff like that, some security is in order.

If that's a crime, then ****ing sue me.

Really? So how do you think we got the liberties we have? I will tell you now that they didn't come because we asked nicely.

[Direckshun]

Really? So how do you think we got the liberties we have? I will tell you now that they didn't come because we asked nicely.

So you're arguing that NO security should be present at these rallies?

None?

[SBK]

So you're arguing that NO security should be present at these rallies?

None?

I walked by streets full of cops and bomb squads. Hundreds of them.

[Direckshun]

I walked by streets full of cops and bomb squads. Hundreds of them.

I was at the demonstration in Springfield, and it was a few hundred strong.

Really enthusiastic crowd, but zero violence.

A couple cop cars parked across the street the entire time.

So. If that's controversial, I'd like to know.

[petegz28]

So you're arguing that NO security should be present at these rallies?

None?

That is hardly "getting to know the criminal element" that you were talking about.

[WoodDraw]

I'm not paraphrasing anyone (except the Obama administration). Perhaps Malkin and Limbaugh are paraphrasing me or maybe we are all coincidentally saying the same thing.

Can you quote for me, instead of paraphrasing?

[SBK]

I was at the demonstration in Springfield, and it was a few hundred strong.

Really enthusiastic crowd, but zero violence.

A couple cop cars parked across the street the entire time.

So. If that's controversial, I'd like to know.

I have no problem with having them there to protect the crowd. In a place with that many people jammed into such a small area something really bad could happen.

Now, if it's a legal, peaceful demonstration and they start to use force to control it I would have a problem.

[jAZ]

Opologizing for what was condemned under Bush...

wow, what a shock.

Congratulations. You've just become a complete f*cking idiot.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=205985

[SBK]

Is it me, or does Velvet Jones appear to be on some sort of contingency operation here lately?

[patteeu]

Can you quote for me, instead of paraphrasing?

I think there are a couple of threads here in DC that you can check out. I'm not going to bother with word games on this. Obama is bending over backward to make sure that muslims know that "muslim" isn't a characteristic that we associate with our enemies in the overseas contingency operations and we certainly aren't at war with them. OTOH, his DHS is clumsily identifying risk factors for domestic manmade disaster causers (or whatever euphemism they're using) and they happen to track pretty well with your run of the mill conservative. It seems backward to me, but then he's disrespecting our best allies, bowing to marginal ones and begging for an audience with our enemies so he seems to get a lot of things backward.

[patteeu]

Is it me, or does Velvet Jones appear to be on some sort of contingency operation here lately?

I don't know, but he makes me laugh.

[SBK]

I don't know, but he makes me laugh.

Me too. I should rep him more cause he's killing me.

[Iowanian]

Congratulations. You've just become a complete f*cking idiot.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=205985


I hate to be the one to tell you this jaz, but the Conservatives figured that out oh...10 years ago, while you were high fivin' her.

[Garcia Bronco]

The war the government waged on terror was not against Islam, but Islamist extremists.

The war the government is waging on the substance of what america is, is not against kooks or extremists of any kind, but against everyone.

Exactly

[blaise]

So, jAZ- were you for or against the profiling of the left wing groups, or Muslims?

[tiptap]

I think there are a couple of threads here in DC that you can check out. I'm not going to bother with word games on this. Obama is bending over backward to make sure that muslims know that "muslim" isn't a characteristic that we associate with our enemies in the overseas contingency operations and we certainly aren't at war with them. OTOH, his DHS is clumsily identifying risk factors for domestic manmade disaster causers (or whatever euphemism they're using) and they happen to track pretty well with your run of the mill conservative. It seems backward to me, but then he's disrespecting our best allies, bowing to marginal ones and begging for an audience with our enemies so he seems to get a lot of things backward.

And one would expect the politically disenfranchised to be the most agitated. We already know that gun and ammo purchase has jumped up in sales. People are seeing the decisions of an elected majority of the present government making decisions that they did not wish. That is the group presently one would expect a radical response if one is to come. And that is what these statements are about. They are meant to direct the attention towards increased potential and provide a push, that is in narrative only at this point, to deter such feelings rising to unlawful acts.

[Brock]

They are meant to direct the attention towards increased potential and provide a push, that is in narrative only at this point, to deter such feelings rising to unlawful acts.

Statements like this one are only going to escalate and inflame.

[patteeu]

And one would expect the politically disenfranchised to be the most agitated. We already know that gun and ammo purchase has jumped up in sales. People are seeing the decisions of an elected majority of the present government making decisions that they did not wish. That is the group presently one would expect a radical response if one is to come. And that is what these statements are about. They are meant to direct the attention towards increased potential and provide a push, that is in narrative only at this point, to deter such feelings rising to unlawful acts.

There is a huge discrepancy between the way our new government talks about muslim extremists who we have found provocative enough to draw us into a global war and these theoretical domestic extremists of various conservative bents who have only provoked a "narrative... push" to borrow your words.

[tiptap]

Because the government isn't entitled to enter into the public discourse? Of course the government should make its voice heard as the blunt to radical and unlawful displays. That is much more prudent than allowing minority opinion to resonate as to make it seem the majority.

[patteeu]

Because the government isn't entitled to enter into the public discourse? Of course the government should make its voice heard as the blunt to radical and unlawful displays. That is much more prudent than allowing minority opinion to resonate as to make it seem the majority.

My main point is that I think the government ought to be making it more clear who we are fighting a war with than they are. I think they could find a better way to describe their concerns with potential domestic troublemakers, but that's a secondary concern to me. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm in favor of reasonable profiling of conservatives as well as of liberals and muslims.

[WoodDraw]

There is a huge discrepancy between the way our new government talks about muslim extremists who we have found provocative enough to draw us into a global war and these theoretical domestic extremists of various conservative bents who have only provoked a "narrative... push" to borrow your words.

You just make shit up.

Find me one quote were Obama addresses muslim extremists in this way (extremists....not just Muslims). It's just a boring report, meant for HSC. I'd kind of assume it's their job to think about these theoretical things. Isn't that kind of the idea?

[tiptap]

There is a huge discrepancy between the way our new government talks about muslim extremists who we have found provocative enough to draw us into a global war and these theoretical domestic extremists of various conservative bents who have only provoked a "narrative... push" to borrow your words.

Well we have another thread with the McVeigh factor being argued. It is not that there has never been a right wing terrorists acts. The assassination of McKinley was by an anarchists. We have KKK acts which we both would consider to be right extremist.

The discrepancy is huge only if the government majority swings in your direction. In a principled government all that means is that you don't go silent, as within your constitutional rights, and accept it will be only the extreme acts that are being truly fingered.

[patteeu]

You just make shit up.

Find me one quote were Obama addresses muslim extremists in this way (extremists....not just Muslims). It's just a boring report, meant for HSC. I'd kind of assume it's their job to think about these theoretical things. Isn't that kind of the idea?

Either that or you don't read too well. My point is that Obama DOESN'T address muslim extremists this way. In fact, he bends over backward to avoid associating the muslim religion with our enemies in the overseas contingency operation (aka GWoT) to as great a degree as possible. Hell, he's even bending over backward to avoid saying we're at "war" with these people by changing the name to a ridiculous euphemism.

[patteeu]

Well we have another thread with the McVeigh factor being argued. It is not that there has never been a right wing terrorists acts. The assassination of McKinley was by an anarchists. We have KKK acts which we both would consider to be right extremist.

The discrepancy is huge only if the government majority swings in your direction. In a principled government all that means is that you don't go silent, as within your constitutional rights, and accept it will be only the extreme acts that are being truly fingered.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying because it doesn't seem like your responses make any sense in context. The discrepancy is huge in an absolute sense. It has nothing to do with the government majority.

[WoodDraw]

Either that or you don't read too well. My point is that Obama DOESN'T address muslim extremists this way. In fact, he bends over backward to avoid associating the muslim religion with our enemies in the overseas contingency operation (aka GWoT) to as great a degree as possible. Hell, he's even bending over backward to avoid saying we're at "war" with these people by changing the name to a ridiculous euphemism.

So if I find an Obama DHS report on muslim extremists, you'll take back this entire thread?

[patteeu]

So if I find an Obama DHS report on muslim extremists, you'll take back this entire thread?

It depends on what it says. If it says something like this, then no:

Homeland Security Report Sharply Rebukes McCain’s ‘Islamic Extremism’ Rhetoric (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/homeland-security-report-sharply-rebukes-mccains-islamic-extremism-rhetoric/)

Earlier this week, The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) launched a campaign to persuade Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to drop the adjective “Islamic” when describing terrorists and extremists. Indeed, one of McCain’s favorite talking points is railing against “Islamic” extremists and terrorists. But the McCain campaign has refused to budge, saying that he will continue to refer to Islam when talking about terrorism.

Now, the AP has learned that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agrees with the ISNA. A recent DHS report has concluded that linking Islam to terrorism offends moderate Muslims and gives extremists “religious legitimacy,” adding any such language should be avoided:

Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates. […]

U.S. officials may be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims,” says a Homeland Security report. […]

“We should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam,” the report said.

The report also stressed that “lingo like ‘Islamo-fascism’ is out, too,” a term that conservatives — including President Bush — consistently use to rally the country around a militant response to terrorism and terrorists. For example:

– Rush Limbaugh: “Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism.”

– David Horowitz: “The term ‘Islamo-fascism’ describes the agendas of the jihadists with perfect accuracy.”

– President Bush: Terrorists “try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call…Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism.”

Muslim leaders in the U.S. have long argued that such language “offends the vast majority of moderate Muslims,” but the McCain campaign thinks it knows better. Senior adviser Steve Schmidt recently said “the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is.”

[Chief Faithful]

It is, thank you.

We should all be able to agree that the subject of our anti-terrorism efforts should be extremists of any stripe. And that Malkin and Limbaugh should follow the Obama Administration's lead and not conflate the peaceful, conservative, astroturfing teabaggers with the violent, extremist rightwing nutjobs.

I don't have issue with extremists I have issue with those who use force to exact their will on others.

[WoodDraw]

Linking Islam to terrorism offends Muslims? I'm shocked and appalled.

[patteeu]

Linking Islam to terrorism offends Muslims? I'm shocked and appalled.

I assume you're shocked and appalled by the fact that linking a belief in gun rights, or opposition to abortion, or displeasure with disproportionate/high taxes, or any of a number of other standard conservative political positions with manmade disasters (get with the euphemism program, heh) offends conservatives too.

[Chief Faithful]

Is it me, or does Velvet Jones appear to be on some sort of contingency operation here lately?

Does that mean he is a peaceful Muslim or a hateful gun loving Bible toting conservative extremist?

[SBK]

Does that mean he is a peaceful Muslim or a hateful gun loving Bible toting conservative extremist?

We'll know the answer if he's considered the enemy, or if he's the guy our administration can't apologize to enough.