Newsweek has a set of stories about domestic extremism but they come across as a bit schizophrenic and one is wondering who’s editing these things.
Case in point…In this article reporting that the NYPD is claiming that there’s a significant and growing threat of radicalized Muslims in America they write:
In the last six months there have been nine cases of Muslims in United States allegedly becoming involved in Islamist terrorism.
There’s another article about the militia movement in America which gives a ‘maybe they’re dangerous, maybe they aren’t ‘ sort of non-story, despite the fact that:
In the first five months of Obama’s presidency, racist, right-wing extremists killed at least nine people…
Again, from NYPD:
“U.S. authorities have uncovered a significant and increasing number of radicalized clusters or individuals intent on committing violent jihad either in the U.S. or abroad,” and that arrests during the last 12 months and intelligence gained by the U.S. government “indicate that radicalization to violence is taking place in the United States.”
But from the militia article:
Today’s troubled economy and the perception that other countries are rising in influence might also be fueling activity among white supremacist and militia groups, according to an intelligence assessment by the federal Department of Homeland Security…But Jonathan White, a professor at Allendale, Mich.-based Grand Valley State University who has done extensive research on violent extremism and terrorism, says most militia members are “rhetoric only”
Now, this isn’t entirely fair since these are two different groups giving these opinions but since they’re both in the same issue of the same magazine, wouldn’t it be valuable to discuss how and why some could look at essentially the same information concerning these two threats and come up with different assessments? Might that merit a brief discussion or explanation?