http://news.yahoo.com/alleged-minnesota-terror-plot-know-far-170000908.html
I call shenanigans.
Am I the only one who notices things like this? What I mean is an imbalance in reporting and an imbalance in investigation and law enforcement.
If you haven't read the story or gone to the above address for the story, basically what has happened is that the FBI and other law enforcement officers have found a "weapons cache," (ok, he had "several" guns) some Maltov cocktails and what appear to be pipe bombs in some guy's mobile home in a rural Minnesota town. They have built a case that he (Buford Rogers) is a "white supremacist" and had formed a militia group. He apparently believed in conspiracy theories and posted incoherent rants on social media. He is a former felon who now has allegedly has violated the law by possession of weapons. Even though no attack is imminent and no specific targets have been named, he has already been labeled as a terrorist.
That's the guy the media has been looking for! This is going to be their GOP, NRA, Tea Party, Right Wing extremist that they were hoping to find in the Boston Marathon bombing, but never did. So now they have him... and they will crucify him.
This is going to be great for the media, DHS, the Obama Administration and liberals in general on several accounts - why?
1) This man is a white U.S. born American - as opposed to a typical run-of-the-mill terrorist (who would fit the profile as a Middle Easterner either "legally" on a foreign visa, illegally, or a naturalized person of Middle Eastern descent or a Muslim convert). That way they can prove that it's not just the brown-skinned, Arabic or African Muslims that are terrorists - so this can justify DHS and TSA policies and preclude "racial profiling" as a way to single out potential terrorists.
2) Rogers is a "Right-Wing" extremist - or so they say. It was very easy for the media to jump to this conclusion because of his paranoia and conspiracy theory rants. If he doesn't trust the government and has gained followers, then he must be part of a Right-Wing militia that wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights and take on the government.
3) This case can give credence to gun control advocates who want us to believe that "gun violence" is not just an inner-city problem, a Rural America epidemic as well.
4) It was important to throw in the "white supremacist" allegation because it further builds the case against this loony... and that his type can be lumped together with gun-toting, Right-Wing, GOP, NRA, conspiracy-theorist, Tea Party crazies.
5) Making this into national news will further marginalize those who believe in the Constitution - particularly the Second Amendment. Notice how rather than stating such a suspect's intentions or interpreting the barely coherent ramblings, the media source directly quotes (including misspellings and poor grammar) in order to further categorize "his type" as uneducated, illiterate and basically just plain stupid. This is a tactic used by the Leftist Elites who try to propagate the myth that gun owners and those that support the Second Amendment are ignorant or stupid.
Let's take a look at the imbalances in this case vs. Boston by comparing and contrasting to other stories involving Islamic extremists:
Buford Rogers is a terrorist even though no violent attack or apparent threats or imminent plans have been mentioned. The Boston Marathon bombers were not considered terrorists until after the attacks were confirmed, even though there was reliable intel and prior records on at least one of the brothers and other family members and associates. The attack at Benghazi was not even acknowledged to be a terrorist act until many days after the event - and that only when they were pressured for an inquiry. The mass-shooting at Fort Hood is still not considered a terror attack... just a workplace shooting, even though the shooter had become activated or radicalized in Islam.
They are actively looking at other conspirators in the Rogers case. In the Boston Bombing, assertions that there were other conspirators involved were quickly dismissed by DHS, files were altered (or destroyed), persons of interest were shuffled around and/or deported and even found sympathy from the First Lady and the Obama Administration. In Benghazi, it was suggested by the secretary of state and the Obama Administration that the attack was a mob riot... "protesters getting out of hand" and no other motives or conspirators were sought. The Fort Hood shooter "acted alone" and even though contacts have been made with a radicalized imam and these connections have been discounted simply because this anti-American imam has said so... so we believe him.
We know SO much about this guy already... and he hasn't even committed a violent crime yet. On the other hand when bombs went off and suspects were named in Boston, we knew very little about them and those who did know them (or should I say the accounts of those portrayed widely in the media) told about two pleasant and upstanding citizens who nobody could believe committed such atrocities... well, until further investigation and certain parts of the accounts could no longer be suppressed.
Rogers had a "cache" of weapons - including a Romanian AKM (a semi-automatic AK-style rifle - or modified AK-47). He also allegedly had what appeared to be pipe bombs and Maltov cocktails in his mobile home - AND combine this with his anti-government or anti-law enforcement rants AND had been a convicted felon. Wow! This sounds pretty major, right? Now take your average gang member in a violent city, say Chicago, and compare/contrast, if you will. Compare or contrast this to MANY Motown rappers... does anything sound familiar? Well, besides the alleged pipe bombs (which, for all we know are typical plumbing fittings found in many homes and garages... I know I've got a bin full of iron pipes and fittings in my workshop) and the alleged Maltov Cocktails, which could very well be a composite of a six-pack of vintage coke bottles + a nearby can of lawnmower gasoline. Who knows? So why is it that anytime a "gangsta" rapper gets busted for the same charges, he is not labeled a terrorist? All the same elements are there. Oh, but wait... his cop-killing diatribes simply constitute an expression of the First Amendment and are thus protected... it's only entertainment and not a call to action by other gang members - or is it? Why is it that when a white person is busted for these crimes and has racist tendencies, but when a so-called African American or other than caucasian race uses racial and anti-law enforcement rhetoric, they are not racist nor are they terrorists. Let me bring you back to an incident that America may have conveniently forgotten. It was the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Dozens of people were killed, thousands were wounded and billions of dollars of private and public property was destroyed. These riots were incited by such violent rhetoric. This was an act of terrorism. Why was it not labeled as such? It had all the elements of terrorism - a motive, violent acts designed to punish those who disagreed with them in a way that we would be fearful of reprisal in subsequent rulings (acquittals of those whom the mob believed were guilty) and future threats through gang-related culture and angry diatribes targeting law-enforcement, disguised as "music." This may seem like a one-sided racial statement, but let me ask this question: Why was there no similar rioting when O. J. Simpson was acquitted? Why was he acquitted? May it have been something to do with the fear of reprisal that was obviously present - as there were literally armies of police officers in riot gear ready for if the trial had gone the other way? This is just something to think about.
There are so many other unanswered questions and so many imbalances that I have not covered. Suffice it to say that this man has been targeted by the media as a terrorist when no terrorist act has been committed. I will assert very strongly that there are MANY terrorist acts which are thwarted but go unnoticed or unreported because the instigators are considered to be Islamic extremists. Could it be that the government intentionally suppresses or downplays these incidents because they are protecting us from being terrorized by terrorists? That would make sense, but when a story like this breaks where this WHITE U.S. BORN AMERICAN is labeled as a terrorist and credit is given to the FBI and local law enforcement for thwarting an alleged attack, then I may tend to think otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment