This is a general statement on our FAR RIGHT and militias

[nadinbrzezinski]

This incident, per MO, will be a lone shooter, lone wolf, you know the drill.

In my view after OKC the FEDS should have dealt with the Militia issue, PERIOD, and that one was as clear as can be. Yes, both Timothy McVeigh and his partner had at the very least very clear associations with the Michigan Militia.

The fact that this was not done, either speaks of incredible cowardice on the part of the Federal Government, or INTEL that they were stronger than many of us give them credit for. Thus Mine Resistant Vehicles up the ying yang might be the explanation. But I have noticed a pattern... even when a shooter has certain ties... they are ALWAYS lone wolves.

Well, yes I am jumping there for the moment, if it happens to be that this shooter was a militia member, count on it... lone wolf, because we are too cowardly as a nation, or rather our political class is, to deal with this.

And yes, it also speaks, and not in any glowing term, about the political power of a small group of very loud people.

Oh and all the arguments we had after the Aurora shooting, I guess will have to go and copy and paste, since yes... THEY WILL BE BACK... alas this is not just about guns... but ... a culture. So all I gotta say is it is time to put precious behind the priorities of the country, not ahead. But the report from DHS early in the administration about the far right, that had to be removed, speaks volumes.

[Harmony Blue]

1. Most gun hobbyists I know

feel that high powered semi automatic rifles needs be banned, or heavily restricted to gun enthusiasts with a long track record. We are not talking about repeating rifles or bolt action rifles that is causing all this mayhem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Why I said it is a very small and chiefly loud and well connected, group

But we, as a society need to figure how to deal with this...

[Harmony Blue]

13. Indeed

but it will not be easy.

[deaniac21]

66. Hmm.....

A repeating rifle is the definition of semi-automatic....

[MineralMan]

2. For pete's sake! Let the story be told before

going all out on your theory. We do not know yet what happened and who the shooter was or shooters were. When we know more, it can be discussed. Right now, we have very little information to go on. Give it a little time, please.

[sabrina 1]

67. Why should the OP not offer her opinion on a news story? All anyone not interested has to do

is simply do not click the link. Other people here find her OPs interesting so here's an appeal to YOU, for pete's sake let other people read and discuss an OP without having it derailed every time when there is an easy solution for anyone not interested in it?

[MineralMan]

72. And why should I not offer my opinion on her OP?

It's interesting that others offered similar opinions to the one I posted, but you only chose to comment on mine. In fact, your only contribution to the thread at all was to scold me. That speaks to something, I'm sure, but I'm not sure what it speaks to.

I will comment in threads as it suits me, as I'm sure you will, as well. :shrug

[sabrina 1]

79. But you did not answer the question. You basically took it upon yourself to

tell someone else what they should or should not post. I asked why she should not be free to post her opinions.

I find it interesting that you chose this OP rather than the many others where people have expressed their opinions, to comment on.

[MNBrewer]

103. Here's some of the story

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/06/us/wisconsin-shooting-suspect/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Any surprises so far? Nope!

[loli phabay]

4. why not wait until we find out who the shooter is, he may be militia, maybe not

exactly how do you want the government to go after militias, is it all militia, cause regardless of what you think people have a right to be nuts and say nuts things, its only when they cross that certain line that you can shut them down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. After OKC they had a clear line of connection and responsibitly

and they refused to, with a clear line.

Per usual, this will be a lone wolf, count on it.

As to go after them... well legally there has to be a way... to pursue hate groups, which many of these are.

I have been studying the fire across the plain for over two decades now, and IMHO they are a clear and present danger to the United States. These are the people who will actually FIGHT the authorities (for the ten minutes that it will last), but it is them.

[loli phabay]

11. i think that might be due to a thing called laws, its kinda difficult to shut people down who dont

break them, and a lot of these guys are smart.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Yup, and there is also a fact we are familiar with

Grannies for peace, infiltrated by the FBI as a dangerous group...militias...well, what can I say?

Laws do not prevent investigations, and those were stopped...for the most part, with exceptions like Hutare, they are left alone.

We've noticed.

[cali]

17. uh, right wing militias have been infiltrated by the feds

and other law enforcement REPEATEDLY.

Didn't know that? I'm shocked. Or not.

Here's just one example and for many more, that handy google can provide:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125856761

[limpyhobbler]

57. I think the op is saying the gov't should do more to counter dangerous right-wing hate groups.

Spend less resources fighting peaceful protesters and go after actual problems instead.

Seemed like a good point to me.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Power Elites always create their own destructors....

The parallels with the French Revolution are eerie...

....

But the royalists, instead of realizing the significance of these Jacobins with their dangerous integrity and their dangerous grip upon the imagination of the mob, had the conceit to think they could make tools of them. The time for the replacement of the National Assembly under the new-made constitution by the "Legislative Assembly" was drawing near; and when the Jacobins, with the idea of breaking up the moderates, proposed to make the members of the National Assembly ineligible for the Legislative Assembly, the royalists supported them with great glee, and carried the proposal. They perceived that the Legislative Assembly, so clipped of all experience, must certainly be a politically incompetent body. They would "extract good from the excess of evil," and presently France would fall back helpless into the hands of her legitimate masters. So they thought. And the royalists did more than this. They backed the election of a Jacobin as Mayor of Paris. It was about as clever as if a man brought home a hungry tiger to convince his wife of her need of him. There stood another body ready at hand with which these royalists did not reckon, far better equipped than the court to step in and take the place of an ineffective Legislative Assembly, and that was the strongly Jacobin Commune of Paris installed at the Hotel de Ville.

....

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles32n/history-line-60.shtml

I said to my wife this morning: "You watch, the Left will storm the Bastille, but the Tea Baggers will construct the guillotines..."

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. There are also parallels to Te 1917 revolution.

Neither are a prospect I want to even envision.

[malaise]

18. Profound

[Junkdrawer]

24. More French Revolution Parallels....

....

Like the British revolution and like the revolution in the United States, the French revolution can be traced back to the ambitious absurdities of monarchy, The schemes of aggrandisement, the aims and designs of the Grand Monarch, necessitated an expenditure upon war equipment throughout Europe out of all proportion to the taxable capacity of the age. And even the splendours of monarchy were enormously costly, measured by the productivity of the time. In France, just as in Britain and in America, the first resistance was made not to the monarch as such and to his foreign policy as such, nor with any clear recognition of these things as the roots of the trouble, but merely to the inconveniences and charges upon the individual life caused by them. The practical taxable capacity of France must have been relatively much less than that of England because of the various exemptions of the nobility and clergy. The burthen resting directly upon the common people was heavier. That made the upper classes the confederates of the court instead of the antagonists of the court as they were in England, and so prolonged the period of waste further ; but when at last the bursting-point did come, the explosion was more violent and shattering.

During the years of the American War of Independence there were a few signs of any impending explosion in France. There was much misery among the lower classes, much criticism. and satire, much outspoken liberal thinking, but there was little to indicate that the thing as a whole, with all its customs, usages, and familiar discords, might not go on for an indefinite time. It was consuming beyond its powers of production, but as yet only the inarticulate classes were feeling the pinch. Gibbon, the historian, knew France well; Paris was as familiar to him as London; but there is no suspicion to be detected in the passage we have quoted that days of political and social dissolution were at hand. No doubt the world abounded in absurdities and injustices, yet nevertheless, from the point of view of a scholar and a gentleman, it was fairly comfortable, and it seemed fairly secure.

...

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles32n/history-line-57.shtml

That H.G. Wells could write....

[Fantastic Anarchist]

71. Love that quote you said.

[cali]

7. deal with militias in what way?

and what the heck does "it is time to put precious behind the priorities of the country, not ahead." mean?

babble op.

[petronius]

16. I think it's a Lord of the Rings reference

"Precious" = the ring and gun owners = Gollum. Some pro-gun-control DUers seem amused by the gag...

[cali]

22. Ah, thanks.

[malaise]

9. But the report from DHS early

in the administration about the far right, that had to be removed, speaks volumes.
Yes the administration was attacked for presenting the details of that report. Funny the report started under Bush.
It is time to deal with the RW lunatics

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Yup.

But I fear none will deal with this, not until it's late.

[loli phabay]

12. exactly how do you mean deal with them, i get concerned with language like that

you do know they have a right to be nuts and talk nuts, same as people on the other extreme.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Enjoy the whirlwind

For we have seeded the field with quite a fierce wind.

[cali]

19. lol.

way not to answer the question- very pretentious way at that.

[loli phabay]

26. i was like wtf, no idea what that was about

[lunatica]

21. "this is not just about guns... but ... a culture"

Right on! I couldn't have said it better myself!

[99Forever]

23. We are at the mercy of the murdering, raging gun freaks....

... and quite clearly, there is NO ONE in Washington DC with enough spine and political influence to even try to do anything about it.


And they wonder why we are so damn cynical.

[pintobean]

25. Is this analysis based on your experiences

as a former cop?



Oh, wait... never mind.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002507495#post150
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240130220#post70

[cali]

27. wow.

way to discredit yourself. interesting find.

[pintobean]

31. Not my find

It's buried in the Meta thread at the second link. I just thought it could use a little more daylight.

edit - spelling

[cali]

35. oddly enough, it's not this sort of thing that irritates me so much

it's the refusal to answer legitimate questions- and yes, I know that the op has lots of us on ignore, but even when she didn't, she'd just sneer at questions she couldn't or didn't want to answer.

[Ya Basta]

42. I just started posting here yesterday and I already noticed that about her too.

Excuse me for a moment. I just have to LOL again at these two comments made by her, and only one day apart from eachother. Not very bright.


Bwhahahahahaha!

[Brickbat]

28. WTFF.

"You really need to learn how to read, and chiefly comprhehend (sic) what you read."

[Pacafishmate]

40. Don't you love how he ignores it?

This is truly a gem! Saved!

[pintobean]

43. She.

And she has me (and many others) on ignore, so she can't see my post or any of the replies to me. She may cheat and log out to see what's going on.

[Ya Basta]

41. LOL...Busted! Looks like someone's credibility has just been impeached.

GJ pintobean.

[pintobean]

46. kick

[2ndAmForComputers]

50. So.

It's OK to Overzealous Troll Hunt as long as the game is a leftie.

Doing the same thing to a right-winger is bad.

Got it.

And not surprised.

Not even a little bit.

[pintobean]

53. That's not troll hunting

It's exposing a lie. There's a huge difference, and you know it. I'm not surprised you would try this, though. Do you really think DUers are that stupid?

I'll make it really simple for you. I do not think nadin is a troll and I would never accuse her of that.

[limpyhobbler]

58. I went to the link. She did not claim to be a cop. Everyone should click through to see

how the "as a former cop" quote has been taken out of context. She was refering to someone else mentioned in that thread who was a former cop. You should delete your post with those out-of-context screen shots and apologize.

[SlimJimmy]

64. Not really. She was asked by several people in that thread (including me) to clarify, and she

refused. It would have been a simple matter to say "I was referring to this or that comment". That didn't happen. So feel free to take your outrage elsewhere. Nadin could have nipped it in the bud, but *chose* not to do that.

[limpyhobbler]

74. It does not need to be clarified. This is nothing but harassment.

Anybody can click through to see she was refering to the relative of the person she was replying to. It is not a misunderstanding. It is a deliberate misconstruction of an out of context comment to use for stalking and harassment.

If you have some language comprehension issue and you needed it explained, I've now explained it for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002507495#post150

[SlimJimmy]

84. No, a person can't click through and see what she was talking about. You are absolutely full of it.

I was in that thread and asked her directly, in a very respectful manner, if she was saying she was an ex-cop. Others asked the same question as well, and were completely ignored. The only one here grasping at straws and trying to defend her remarks, which were *very* clear at the time when she said "I" instead of "he", is you. Learn a little about reading comprehension yourself. Then get back to us.

[limpyhobbler]

87. Don't participate in stalking and harassment.

Several people have by now clicked through to see the person was not claiming to be a former cop.

Anybody can see that in context it meant "As your father-in-law was a former cop, I get why he carries a gun".

The way she phrased it was perfectly clear, normal, informal speech or writing in the context of what she was replying to.

The only reason it is an issue is because a small group of weird harassers took a screen shot of of the out-of-context comment to use for ongoing stalking and harassment.

It seems a small group of people is overly fixated on this person. They sense a weakness and get their jollies out of stalking and harassing.

It drags down the quality of the whole site.

[SlimJimmy]

88. I asked a legitimate question in the thread and it was ignored for several months. What part of

that do you not comprehend? She could have easily cleared it up at the time, but chose not to. If you would look at my history, you would know that I don't follow anyone around on this board. I read current threads and ask questions and make comments on a variety of topics. Feel free to take your fake outrage somewhere other than this thread.

[limpyhobbler]

89. Anybody can see the person did not claim to be a former cop.

Just click through and take a look at the post in its original context.

She was refering to the father-in-law of the person she was replying to.

Do you still think she was claiming to be a former cop?

[SlimJimmy]

101. What part of "I was part of the original thread" do you not get? I asked her *in* that thread

if she was claiming to be an ex-cop. She not only did not answer me, but several others who asked the same question. This could have been resolved months ago. How about this. Instead of interrogating me for no particular reason, why don't you ask her why she didn't resolve this months ago?

[limpyhobbler]

105. I get that. She was not claiming to be a former cop. That screenshot is out-of-context harassment.

It must be clear by now that the quote was taken out of context and she was talking about the father-in-law of the person she was replying to.

People who have you on ignore will not be able to respond to your interrogations. That may be why you didn't get a response.

If you're participating in the harassment with the losers who posted that hideous deceitful screenshot, not cool.

Anybody can click through and see she was not claiming to be an ex-cop but was refering to somebody else:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002507495#post150

There is no reason to pursue it to this extent other than getting a kick out of the thrill of harassing a weaker person. I'm not saying you personally are doing that. But when people take screenshots of peoples posts, way out of context, distorting the meaning, and then use that to get cheap laughs from other members, that is stalking and harassment. I wouldn't participate in it.

[SlimJimmy]

106. You keep repeating this as if it's fact.

If that were true, then why did several people in the original thread ask for clarification? It had nothing to do with failing to comprehend the thread - we all read it. When a person uses the personal pronoun "I" after making a statement, it is generally because they are referencing themselves, not someone else.

Example, "As a brain surgeon, I"

That phrase would lead one to believe that the person was a brain surgeon. That's what I and others read that day, and asked about. As I've said repeatedly now. All she had to do was clarify when she was asked about it, months ago. If she had, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Anybody can click through and see she was not claiming to be an ex-cop but was refering [sic] to somebody else:

[limpyhobbler]

111. It's the same sleazy smear tactic Fox News uses

They play a clip of President Obama saying something like "Americans are lazy". But then later you see it in context and find out in context he really said "Nobody thinks Americans are lazy". Oops they didn't show what was said immediately before. Same with that sleazy screenshot of the person supposedly claiming to be a cop.

Take a look at what came right before:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002507495#post146

Context makes all the difference.

The people who took that screenshot and are spreading it around understand they are taking it out of context, but they don't care, because they are having a good laugh at someone else's expense. There is a small group of pathetic losers who are overly fixated on this one poster because they get a kick out of harassment I guess.

Your question might have been sincere, but if it seemed like you were part of that group, that could be why it was ignored.

Anyway did it even warrant a response? Certainly President Obama would not owe Fox News a response to why did he say "Americans are lazy", because it was taken out of context to begin with. This is similar.

[SlimJimmy]

112. I can't make my position any clearer. You simply REFUSE to accept

anything I have to say and insist you are the arbiter of facts here. You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. Keep blathering on without me. I won't mind.

[limpyhobbler]

113. Anyone can view the quote in context & judge for themself if the person was claiming to be an ex-cop

Here ya go. View posts 146 and 150.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002507495#post146

Even if it was not the most articulate way to express an idea, does it really warrant being called out and harassed?

I'm not blaming you, but rather the people who are getting cheap laughs at someone else's expense by circulating that out-of-context screenshot.

[sabrina 1]

76. Exactly. She was not referring to herself, but her buddies on that 'other site' naturally

jumped to conclusions, but then they've never been known for their ability to read comprehensively.

And once again it's sad to see a few here doing the same thing.

You are correct, that post should be deleted.

[zappaman]

78. "As a former cop, I get it"

Couldn't be more clear.
Just another boast like being a "trained historian", "a working journalist", "an EMT", "a novelist", "a former firefighter", "an (almost) championship fencer", and whatever other jobs/skills I have surely left out since there are so many, it is hard to keep up.

[sabrina 1]

80. You are wrong. Two people have now pointed out to you that you have completely misinterpreted

her post. The decent thing to do would be to admit it. That is up to you.

[sabrina 1]

81. The 'former cop' she was referring to, btw, was the one mentioned in the comment she was responding

to:

Tommy_Carcetti (13,721 posts)
146. That's CCW for you. I don't get it, but whatever.

My father in law (former cop) takes his little toy everywhere, even to church. And we live in a very low crime area.

Apparently the thinking is a gun battle will break out anywhere at any time. I can't imagine living in constant fear like that.

.......

Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #146)Thu Apr 5, 2012, 12:17 PM
nadinbrzezinski (107,449 posts)
150. As a former cop I get it actually

it is not that a gun battle may break out, just that a former customer might come hunting. That is why they keep their CCW after they retire.

For the record, at least my SIL and BIL who retired from LAPD are required to re-qualify at the range every so often to keep their CCW. There is something wrong when many civilians are not required to even qualify the first time.

There are people out there who honestly need a CCW... cops and retired cops come to mind. There are some civilians who honestly need them too. But there are FAR LESS than actual CCW out there... that is the problem.

Emphasis mine.

It's very clear what she meant. I know it's embarrassing to make such a huge error and then to dig in after being informed you have done so. But it really is always better to admit to a mistake. People understand mistakes, they don't get someone refusing to acknowledge one once it has been made clear.

[pinboy3niner]

82. I agree, sabrina

And note that here she said "they keep their," not "we keep our":

That is why they keep their CCW after they retire.

[sabrina 1]

92. Yes, I noticed that also when I read it which is why I did not think

she was speaking about herself!

[SlimJimmy]

85. As an actual ex-cop, not a pretend one, I took her comments as she wrote them. If, in fact,

she was referring to the previous poster, she wouldn't have used the personal pronoun, "I". Bottom line, she could have cleared it up at the time by responding to requests for her to clarify.

[limpyhobbler]

59. This is stalking and harassment. It's also a lie.

Anybody can click through and see the person did not claim to be a former cop.

Why do this?

[JoeyT]

61. Because most people won't click through.

It's the same way Fox News works. Sure a little bit of work will expose the lie, but most people won't do that little bit of work.

[JoeyT]

60. Reading comprehension fail.

"As a former cop" was referring to the post above her that stated "My father in law (former cop) takes his little toy everywhere, even to church. And we live in a very low crime area.".

So "As a former cop" means that she understands why the poster she was responding to's father, who is the former cop, would carry his gun everywhere he goes.

This is possibly one of the lamest smear attempts I've ever seen.

[SlimJimmy]

62. Well, at least she answered the question I've been asking her since April.

She was NOT a cop.

[zappaman]

69. Except when she says she was.

Which she clearly did.
Listen, as a former astronaut I get it.
But just so we are clear, I was never an astronaut.

[SlimJimmy]

70. I have to agree. If she was talking about someone else, she would have said "he", not I.

It looks more like back peddling, than correction, doesn't it?

[sabrina 1]

73. Looks like you misunderstood her comment.

To me it seems she was not referring to herself, but to how a former cop might feel.

[zappaman]

75. "As a former cop, I get it."

I as in I.
Nothing to misunderstand. just more BS from DU's resident Lara Croft.

[sabrina 1]

77. No, you are incorrect and you should delete your misinterpretations of her comment.

This comment also should be deleted by you as it is an attack on another DUer.

[SidDithers]

90. I'm thinking Walter Mitty, not Lara Croft...nt

Sid

[msanthrope]

102. Ben Stiller is remaking the movie....but I love the Danny Kaye one.

Sadly, too few high schools teach the short story now.

[Riftaxe]

29. Fairly harsh just because someone does not meet your social norms

Now how will you quantify lone wolf, so we know who to track down and execute preemptively? Or will mere lifetime imprisonment suffice to alleviate your irrational hatred towards non conformists...

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Mark my words. This will be another lone wolf attack

Patters.

And it has nothing to do with my expectations.

[Riftaxe]

34. The sun will rise tomorrow

and water will remain wet...and I suspect, human beings will continue to be so....even the ones who aren't social butterflies and perhaps might have different norms.

There is only one way to force every man, woman and child to the same social norm and those who attempted it in the 20th century failed miserably, they did however; excel at the the creation of misery and suffering on the largest scale in history.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. None of us is doing that

In spite of your imagination. But speaking of the 20th century, ignoring the radical right didn't end too well, did it?

We are ignoring the radical right.

[99th_Monkey]

30. If this shooter had ever attended an Occupy Wall St. protest

I bet we WOULD definitely hear about that, LOUD & CLEAR,
and repeatedly, ad nauseum.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Or a member of the Granny's for Peace group.

I know.

[DBoon]

37. You mean the way something like this was buried

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

I believe it was retracted after pressure from republican congressmen.

Similarly, there were attempts to investigate militias after OKC that were derailed

Your answer is that violent militias are far to close to elected republicans for comfort.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Yup

Ding, ding, ding

Suffice it to say that started under the bush years.

[Ya Basta]

39. Oh for fuck sake

Persecute people on the basis of having personal association with someone who committed a crime? Perhaps in Saddam's Iraq or Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union. But in the U.S.?

"But I have noticed a pattern... even when a shooter has certain ties... they are ALWAYS lone wolves."

A woman was murdered by her husband before he shot himself. They are survived by two kids. He shot her in the chest then in the head. He went to all their family get togethers. He had several friends. He was not even close to being a "lone wolf".

How do I know this? The woman he murdered was my half-sister.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Yup, because we all know there is zero evidence of the true intent of militias

And associated far right groups....good bye.

[pintobean]

48. Thanks

[TheManInTheMac]

52. Just up-thread when you said you'd only been here two days I was gonna ask if

she'd put you on ignore yet. Then I scrolled down, and there she is, saying goodbye to you.
Welcome to the club, and welcome to DU!
And bravo, BTW. I doubt that 25 posts to nadin's Infamous Iggy List is a record, but still pretty damn impressive.

[Ya Basta]

56. I thought she seemed like the combative type but wasn't sure because I haven't been here long

I guess it appears my judgment may have been correct. If so hopefully she'll take a chill pill.

And thank you for your welcome. If you ever see me act like that give me a swift kick in the butt ok?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

44. I don't believe in someone's right that's not part of the military or law enforcement...

To band together with weapons and play cops and robbers.

Fuck 'em. Shut 'em down. Harshly, if needed.

*GASP*

[revolution breeze]

45. Thank you for your enlightenment.

You speak with great insight.

[fascisthunter]

49. I believe we have militia crazies in the military

and elsewhere in our government. Yes, infiltration.

[flamingdem]

51. Good point! They finally have to give this issue some MSM time

This is not as easy to cover as the Aurora situation.

[emilyg]

54. Why the rush. No facts yet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Actually we have a few facts already

Authorities have not identified the gunman by name, though Thomas Ahern, a spokesman with the ATF's Chicago division, described him as a white male roughly 40 years of age. No connection has been established between the shooter and the temple, he added.

We also know this.

Oak Creek, Wisconsin (CNN) -- The FBI will investigate Sunday's rampage at a Sikh temple in a Milwaukee suburb as a "domestic terrorist-type incident" that left at least six people and the gunman dead, the town's police chief said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting/index.html

Now last time this was used, it was a LONG TIME AGO.

Per the LA Times we also know this

Tattoos on the body of the slain Sikh temple gunman and certain biographical details led the FBI to treat the attack at a Milwaukee-area temple as an act of domestic terrorism, officials said Sunday.

Oak Creek police handed control of the investigation to the FBI on Sunday afternoon.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sikh-temple-domestic-terrorism-20120805,0,6094643.story

So no, we have facts emerging that are pointing in a certain direction that should give you pause. For the record, yes some of us have gone there... it IS giving pause to some of our upstanding members at Stormfront. You should also go visit the Southern Poverty Law Center and check just how many neo nazi, skin heads and White Christian Identity churches are in the area.

So no, I am not saying this guy is definitely tied to your local far right group... what I am saying is that it is time we start dealing with this. Those of us who have paid attention to them, if in the end it happens to be that the shooter was indeed tied to any of these groups, will not be too shocked. What I am also saying is that even if that is the case, I do not expect DC to do a thing about it. They did not when there were clear links to Militias after OKC... I don't expect them to do a thing now, even if they have a "smoking gun."

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Emily here are more facts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021080563#post31

[malaise]

65. Nailed it again

This one was obvious from the beginning

[zappaman]

68. A "general statement"?

More like a word salad.
Speaking of which, I can't believe I still like Catalina dressing after all these years...

[Hoyt]

83. Ah come on, society needs more bigoted gun lovers getting together for fun and politics?

Just in case I need it --

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Well lets just say that unit will not survice contact

with a real unit.

That said, of course we need more of them! How else are we gonna go WOLVERINES!

[SidDithers]

91. If Timothy McVeigh had a partner, how was he a lone wolf?...nt

Sid

[zappaman]

93. Well Sid...

You never heard of a one man wolfpack???

[sabrina 1]

94. You missed the point completely. None ever are 'lone wolves', but that is how they are portrayed

including McVeigh who is still regarded in this country by many many people as a 'lone wolf'. And I doubt many people could name his partners.

Nadin's point is accurate.

[zappaman]

95. "None ever are 'lone wolves"

Really?
You really think mass murderers never act alone?

[sabrina 1]

96. Sure, but those who commit murder for political reasons rarely are lone wolves.

[zappaman]

97. Like today's shooting?

Sikh temple shootings: Gunman acted alone, officials say

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sikh-shooting-gunman-0120806,0,912971.story

[sabrina 1]

98. 'Acting alone' and 'lone wolf' are two different things. He clearly was not a lone wolf, he had

plenty of friends who apparently held similar beliefs. Lone wolf means someone who had no friends. Holmes fits that description far better than this guy.

[zappaman]

100. "Lone wolf means someone who had no friends"

Says who?

[sabrina 1]

107. Try the dictionary for starters ...

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/lone%20wolf

Lone Wolf

n a person who prefers to be alone

[RZM]

99. Define 'rarely'

Because I can think quite a few off the top of my head:

Jared Loughner, The Unabomber, John Hinckley (not really political, but close enough), Charles Guiteau (shot President Garfield), Anders Breivik, Dan White, etc.

[sabrina 1]

108. And that is her point, which you just made for her.

McVeigh was NOT a 'lone wolf' but he was often described as such, as Nadin pointed out:

Behind the Lone Terrorist, a Pack Mentality

The FBI has long maintained that Timothy McVeigh, who was executed in 2001 for the Oklahoma City bombing that claimed 168 lives, was the prototypical "lone wolf" terrorist and that anyone implicated in the bombing conspiracy is behind bars.

So, why does the FBI refer to him as a Lone Wolf, when clearly he was not?

Good question, Sid, the same one Nadin raised.

[onehandle]

104. Cue our Rightists to defend their pals. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

109. It's kind of ironic that while denouncing these violent lone wolf types

your avatar idolizes Guy Fawkes; a lone actor who tried to commit a fairly heinous act of political/religiously motivated violence.

[Taverner]

110. Democracy Now has a great story on this

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/7/sikh_temple_shooter_wade_michael_page