Patrick Martin
WSWS

As more information has emerged about the 22-year-old gunman who carried out a massacre Saturday outside a Tucson supermarket, the American media has sought to downplay the clear connection between his attempted assassination of a Democratic member of the House of Representatives and the politics of the ultra-right.

The explanation of the events of January 8 that now predominates is that Jared Lee Loughner opened fire on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, severely wounding her and killing six other people, because he was a deranged lunatic, and that there was no political motivation involved.

Loughner is undoubtedly disturbed, but he was calm and responsive Monday afternoon at his arraignment in a Tucson federal court, where he was charged with murdering federal judge John Roll and congressional aide Gabe Zimmermann, and attempting to murder Giffords. He will also face state murder charges for the killing of four other victims of the shooting spree.

The mental state of the shooter in no way exhausts the analysis of Saturday’s atrocity. It is merely the starting point, and a rather obvious one, since only a deranged individual would be capable of opening fire on a group of innocent people, including, among the dead, a nine-year-old girl and three elderly people in their 70s.

Loughner’s actions raise questions about what medical treatment is available for the mentally ill―virtual none, even in a case like this where college classmates were fearful that he might turn to violence―and about the widespread availability of weapons like the Glock 19, whose sole purpose is mass, indiscriminate mayhem through the firing of dozens of rounds in a few seconds.

But the most important issue is what led Loughner to target a Democratic congresswoman. Understanding this necessarily requires an examination of the political circumstances that shaped the gunman’s actions.

Lauren Booth
Gilad Atzmon's Blog

Lauren Booth

"British government now appears to be part of a larger attempt to stifle free speech"

The previously secretive campaign to halt Press TV Ltd, the British production company, from making programs critical of Western Imperialism, is finally out in the open. Thanks to Wikileaks.

Last month, Julian Assange’s incredible agency, released the news Her Majesty's Government (HMG) is now fully implicated in efforts to shut Press TV Ltd down. Backing, quite clearly, US led efforts, to cripple this tiny, yet heavyweight, British production company.

Let me explain. Ever since it first began making programs some four years ago, Press TV Ltd (the British company, who sells documentaries and series to the Iranian channel of the same name), has been under pressure from what Princess Diana would have known as 'dark forces.'

Pressure had taken the form, until recently, of the usual nonsense from Zionist organizations. Letter writers, linked to the Israeli Embassy in London and its web of supporters, have been trying to use Ofcom as some kind of offshoot Hasbara body. Endless letters of complaint were sent to the broadcasting monitor, whenever Press TV, broadcast a news items shedding light on the thuggery, blackmail and racism inherent in Israeli government policy. Thus, faux 'shock, horror' objections to shows like the one I present, 'Remember Palestine' pushed Ofcom to uphold minor criticisms. And have led to negative headlines in the ridiculous Jewish Chronicle against an otherwise excellent UK bureau. Happily, the most recent attempt to besmirch the veracity of Remember Palestine, was so feeble, that Ofcom dug its heels in.

Stephen Lendman

"Another Wall Street Cannibal," by Pat Bagley

On January 7, New York Times writer Jackie Calmes headlined, "Obama Promises Full Recovery for Employment," saying:

Visiting a window-manufacturing plant "to promote his economic policies and his new team of advisers," he said:

"We will not rest until we have fully recovered from this recession."

Another promise, another to be broken by a scheme to create ruler-serf societies globally, especially in America and the West. Obama's citing a "foundation" for growth is political blather, his specialty like other key team players around him.

Yet Calmes called his new appointees "pragmatic liberals with experience in the policy-making bureaucracy - and negotiating with Republicans in Congress."

Like his Geithner/Summers/Emanuel-led team, they're, in fact, hard-line pro-Wall Street, pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-populist conservatives, appointed to shift further right, embracing core neocon/Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) tenets.

They're pro-business, pro-working class austerity, anti-populist, anti-civil/human rights, anti-rule of law, anti-government of, by and for people, anti-labor, anti-welfare, militaristic, repressive, and pro-imperial for unchallengeable global dominance.

They're hardline against Blacks, Hispanics, Latino immigrants, Muslims, workers, the poor, consumer protection, progressivism, environmental protection, peace and its supporters, prosecuting corporate and government criminals, honest elections, and democratic governance.

Khalid Amayreh

The deadly New Year's bombing at the Coptic church in
Alexandria (Reuters)

The New Year bombing in Alexandria, which killed as many as 25 innocent people, nearly all of them Christian Copts, shocked Egypt and the Arab world. It infuriated Christians and Muslims alike as the criminals crossed the Rubicon in their terrorism, something that many – including myself – never thought would happen.

It is probably too early to determine the identity of the perpetrators, although there are signs indicating that the bombing may have been the work of al-Qaeda, which could indeed carry out the unthinkable. However, it is absolutely vital that any subsequent treatment of terrorism should go beyond the mere identification and punishment of those responsible if it is to be genuinely effective. In this case, it would be insufficient to rely on a security response alone. Egypt must do everything possible to eradicate the environment conducive to terrorism, not just the acts of terror themselves.

Such a move would require religious, cultural and political action as well as a security response. The sword alone cannot guarantee internal peace and security in any state. Even states with none of Egypt’s complex social, political and economic problems can guarantee to be free of terrorist acts.

Although government agencies might be tempted to take some hasty short-term measures to appease public opinion, this would be at the very best a futile reaction prompting further terror and bloodshed.