You did see my mention of the possibility of home-grown, non-Islamist terrorism in my previous post, didn't you? But here's the difference between this story, and Abu Nidal (as an example of the other):tallmike wrote:Maybe he is.RPB wrote:Get ready to hear Tea Party Terrorist
Jim Holmes
Aurora, CO
United States
1. Nobody in the Tea Party movement, particularly among its leaders, has advocated this kind of activity. Instead, Tea Party members are by far more respectful and law abiding than say....the Occupy crowd. Whether or not you agree with the Tea Party objectives, they are still nothing more than a peaceful political movement which seeks to operate within constitutional boundaries, and is trying to get the government to do the same.........which is required by the laws that government passes and then routinely ignores. Also, I went and looked at that Tea Party page. Did you? It consists of a "welcome" note to a new member by the name of Jim Holmes. He's not only not a movement leader, he doesn't appear to be particularly active in the local chapter.
2. Abu Nidal was specifically recruited by Islamist movement leaders to perform his act of terror at Fort Hood, because his movement is fundamentally evil, and its leadership and adherents are insane by almost any rational measure. The FBI, by its own admission, was aware of his interest in jihad for a long time. So was the Army for that matter. Neither did anything about it because heaven forbid they should offend somebody. And beyond all of that, Abu Nidal collected an Army paycheck all that time. Does that mean that the Army is a hotbed of nascent terrorism? Of course not.
However, you can take it to the bank that the liberal media will start banging the "Tea Party Terrorist" drum in a deliberate attempt to marginalize the movement and its effect on our politics.......but they have been very careful not to offend or hurt anybody's tender sensibilities when it comes to Abu Nidal. Furthermore, leaked memos from Homeland Security have pumped the idea of conservative political groups being breeding grounds for homegrown terrorism, but they have studiously ignored groups which practice ecoterrorism, for instance.
I would not be surprised if we come to find out that Jim Holmes isn't anymore a conservative Tea Party member than Jared Loughner was—which the media ALSO tried to pin on the Tea Party movement. Loughner, as you'll recall, turned out to be a whack job who posted long screeds having nothing to do with conservatism, and everything to do with being a crypto communist. But the media reflexively tried to pin his killings/maimings on the Tea Party by association, absent ANY evidence. Over the past 2 or 3 days, probably dozens of young black men from the nation's inner cities shot other dozens of other young black men to death in violence relating to gang turf wars and drug sales gone bad. To the extent that any of either the killers or their victims were politically inclined, it is a fair bet that they were overwhelmingly Obama supporters, and favored democrat policies of state-created and supported dependencies. Does that mean that all democrats are gang-bangers and drug dealers? I don't know....you tell me.....just be sure to use the same logic as you would in describing a deranged killer who allegedly happened to join a local Tea Party chapter........and let us know if you're still beating your wife or not while you're at it.
THAT is how relevant his alleged Tea Party membership is.
