The Thrust called Threat!

  • SumoMe

It’s a good question, don’t you think? The difference between OWS and TEA party rallies and protests are huge. At a TEA party rally, there are prayers – even for those against whom the group protests. The Pledge of Allegiance is often part of the rallies and protests, as is the National Anthem and other patriotic songs. TEA party members love America and want her to thrive.

OWS protests are much different. Someone sent me a video – which you can find for yourself on YouTube – that has the crowd singing and chanting f-you America. There have been flag burnings at some. Communists and socialists are supporters of OWS.

Yep. Big difference in the two. One supports freedom. The other wants us all to be in chains.

Here’s what Ben Johnson of The White House Watch asks:

Is Occupy Wall Street a Domestic Terrorist Threat?

If the most recent news reports are to be believed, all the Occupy Wall Street protesters have to fear is each other. A 19-year-old demonstrator says her tent-mate, “Leland,” raped her last weekend in Cleveland’s Public Square. Seattle police arrested a man who took part in that city’s occupation after he allegedly exposed himself to children five times. At the protest’s center of operations in New York City’s Zuccotti Park, some protesters have tried to finance their way into the top 1 percent by ripping off their fellow rioters.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said 18-year-old Nan Terrie. The take includes Macintosh computers, phones, cameras, even $2,500 in cash donations. Cities and localities are already paying a heavy price to protect or clean up after the looney Left’s wretched refuse. But could these large scale demonstrations become the scene of violence and tragedy? It may be easier than you think.

Taking note of the crowds’ organizers, Floyd and Mary Beth Brown say people should prepare for violence from the Occupiers themselves. Adding additional reason for concern, Clinton pollster Doug Schoen wrote in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, that “nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.” Like the mobs some of these same groups whipped up by in Seattle in 1999, violence could spring forth from the ranks of the affluent aggrieved themselves.

Violence could as easily be brought up from without. While the city’s police dutifully attend to the antics of spoiled malcontents, terrorists could strike at a location on the other side of town left underprotected.

But violence could hit closer to the OWS protesters yet. Suppose you were an innovative jihadist looking for new ways to strike fear into the heart of the Great Satan. Where would you strike? Terrorism, by definition, means targeting the civilian population to make a political statement. Where could you be assured that, wherever you are in the country, you would be able to locate a large, earnest, welcoming crowd of infidels?

If a suicide bomber wished to infiltrate an Occupy Wall Street protest, how would OWS ferret him out? True, he would stand out from the lily-white complexion of most of the protesters, but his presence would bring welcome “diversity.” The violent and anti-American rhetoric of the OWS crowds would mask any clues the terrorist might let slip. Even if the left-wing rioters suspected something was awry with their newest member, their better instincts would be paralyzed with liberal fear of being branded a racist or Islamophobe.

Now snugly nestled into the structure of the crowd itself, all he need do is gin up his courage, shout “Allahu akhbar,” and pull a cord as he leers at his young victims and the attentive media gathered around to catch the movement’s every action.

The sight of an Islamist extremist blowing himself up in the midst of a huge crowd of mostly young, idealistic, college-educated teens and twenty-somethings would send a collective chill of horror up the spines of their parents, their fellow protesters, and the political Establishment. It would psychologically terrorize an entire nation unused to violence striking at unexpected moments.

What if several like-minded terrorists infiltrated an Occupy Wall Street protest determined to blow themselves up at a prearranged time after strategically positioning themselves to effect maximum damage, as they do on airplanes? The damage, and the psychological effect, would be multiplied.

Now, what if terrorists insinuate themselves into multiple Occupy sites around the country at once? The feat would be far easier to organize than bombing multiple U.S. embassies, which Islamist terrorists pulled off more than a decade ago.

Naturally, Mayor Michael Bloomberg would instantly blame the Tea Party. The Department of Homeland Security would attempt to find the “lone wolf” veterans its profiling labeled the most likely terrorist threat. The FBI, on the advice of Planned Parenthood, would look for pro-life offenders. But once the offending parties were made clear, such an easily coordinated attack would strike a blow the American psyche would never suppress.

Such a chillingly realistic scenario invites one question: Why hasn’t it happened yet? Or perhaps one other: How long until it does?

Perhaps the only thing restraining the terrorists is that they do not wish to kill so many people who are on their side.

**********

I think Mr. Ben Johnson is right both to be concerned and in his conclusion that it probably won’t happen at any of the occu-pooper events since these folks do lean towards supporting terrorists, not opposing them.

Ananya Rajagopalan

Share : Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter
Read previous post:
Wall-St-Protest
The Gandhian Angle to OWS

What would the "Liberal" MSM do if it weren't for the internet forcing them to pay attention? (I give MSNBC...

Close