HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Shootings and the "Terror...

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 03:21 PM


Shootings and the "Terrorist" label, how extreme is the Religious component?

Last edited Tue Dec 15, 2015, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Allowing our national identity to be compromised, the real threat

Once we’ve identified threats within the USA, who decides our national response? What agenda drives that response?

Are we downplaying some threats, magnifying others?

Are you a potential Terrorist? Who gets to decide?

Keeping things in Context

Some perspective is in order, the following article was posted not long after the events of late June 2011, when a right wing Norwegian fringe racist killed over 60 persons, including children at a camp/school center.


A short summary of that event:

NYT quotes local Oslow Norway publications, “The shooter is characterized by officials as a right-wing extremist, citing previous writings included on his Facebook page. This person entered the youth camp on the island of Utoya, about 19 miles northwest of Oslo, a Norwegian security official said, and opened fire.”

Of the at least 80 people killed on the island, some were as young as 16, the police said on national television early Saturday. The suspect’s Internet postings suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views.

Was that person engaging in “Terrorism”? Members of the right wing continue to deny that, of course, across the international spectrum. Based on their own partisan political bias.

Recent Similar Events

Are there comparisons to be made in the USA? Currently? Yes, of course.


Some of our supposed “news sources” have immediately rushed to label that incident “Terrorism” and are calling for a national response targeting this supposed “Muslim Threat”. We’re being led to believe that middle east Al Qaida (or Isis?) connected radicals have somehow manipulated the actions of an Islamic couple in San Bernadino, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, however unlikely that scenario may be (see below article statistically comparing the threat of Muslim violence to White Supremacist activity within the United States).

What can we expect as a result of that irrational sustained media attack?


Our media “feeding frenzy” behavior assures that the number of incidents of resulting “defamation” behavior continue to grow and gain momentum, blow-back for this incident and the Paris attacks.

Since media coverage is amplifying this supposed looming national threat, we’re assured that this trend will continue in the USA, supporting the right wing Anti-Islam agenda we’ve come to recognize as prominent in that segment of our national political ambitions, thru ongoing biased media coverage.

What isn’t being covered, what’s intentionally excluded from our media?

To answer that question, let’s look at what other political interests are engaged in support of the right wing national agenda. If you control the media, you control the message. So instead of a “feeding frenzy”, we can demonstrate a policy of national exclusion regarding coverage of the following, with these exceptions.



The White Supremacist movement in the USA is much more of a threat than many of us realize.

Those of us who are not black may have difficulty understanding the scale of that threat, and national news media blackout on that topic is the reason. Can’t have organized dissent, now, can we?

Then there’s the subject of disproportional shootings minority members of our society are subjected to during confrontations with police, another topic altogether. I’ll not address that material here, tho it merits a great deal of discussion.


What else is NOT being covered in our national media?

Our Federal agencies can easily track this trend, have been documenting it for more than a decade.




Right wing media is intentionally rationalizing the Anti-Muslim rhetoric we’ve become familiar with over the last 1.5 decades since 9-11, while concurrently contributing to and encouraging the “defamation” of our national/international Islamic community.

Allowing our national identity to be compromised

Have we been compromised in this way? Absolutely.

And as asked in the opening paragraph, “Once we’ve identified threats within the USA, who decides our national response? What agenda drives that response?”

“Are we downplaying some threats, magnifying others?” Some of us are, obviously, to benefit their own partisan doctrine. Toward what end?


Let’s not allow our integrity to be further compromised on a global scale. Our national identity is at stake.

1 replies, 528 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 1 replies Author Time Post
Reply Shootings and the "Terrorist" label, how extreme is the Religious component? (Original post)
M Kitt Dec 2015 OP
Name removed Jan 2016 #1

Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Reply to this thread