|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 06 2017 12:49 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:03 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 08:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The joke flew over your head.
It's not that white people can't be terrorists, they very obviously can. It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines.
The joke is about the public perception and the reaction to events, not the events themselves. It might be just a joke, but it seems to be making a point, which you also think. I also disagree with this: "It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines." I'm sure there are some who do. But I think people have a general, if not entirely precise understanding of what terrorism is and usually it involves some level of organization by a group that has some sort of ideological objective, broadly speaking. On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US.
So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Well I can't just make up organizations. Give me something to work with, and I can see. I gave you historical examples of whites terrorists. They were clearly labelled as terrorists in the past- the FLQ for sure. And I'd say they would be labelled terrorists in the present. As we don't currently have the Mennonite Mafia running around blowing up stuff (Mexico probably does), or the Armed Amish, or the Jehovah Witness Warriors, or the Angry Atheists Assaulting Anonymously, we'll just have to wait until something crops up and starts blowing things to smithereens. And if they do, I'm confident we will label them terrorists- even if they are the (white) Bumpkin Baptist Beret. In the meantime, I don't think it's helpful to muddy categories by throwing in (granted equally horrific) acts like the Columbine shootings (to use another historical example). Mass murder, yes. Terrorism? I think not. And I think it matters because useful to know what you are dealing with- what is the source and cause? Creating a giant category where we throw in every mass killing called 'Terrorism' blurs motivation and purposes of these killers. White right-wing/white supremacist terrorists are committing more terrorist acts and killing more people in the US than Muslim linked terrorists. Take your pick. Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. You think inefficiency is why Dylan Roof wasn't labeled a terrorist but Micah Johnson was? No. Inefficiency has more to do with why certain things hit the news cycle while others don't. That's a separate musing. Micah Johnson killed a lot of people (relative to that list) and so it hit the news cycle. But I don't think that makes him a terrorist. I think at minimum there needs to be some sort of conspiracy (that is at least two people agreeing to commit an illegal act.) Micah doesn't even meet a conspiracy charge. Mass murder, yes. Terrorism, no (as far as I can tell.) Likely, for that reason, Dylan Roof also shouldn't be considered a terrorist, but a mass murderer.
My point has nothing to do with how you feel about whether they are or are not terrorists, you understand that, correct?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I was going to say, don't they all make their cars here already? Looks like the answer is an obvious yes.
|
Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two.
|
Norway28714 Posts
On November 06 2017 12:49 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:03 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 08:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The joke flew over your head.
It's not that white people can't be terrorists, they very obviously can. It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines.
The joke is about the public perception and the reaction to events, not the events themselves. It might be just a joke, but it seems to be making a point, which you also think. I also disagree with this: "It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines." I'm sure there are some who do. But I think people have a general, if not entirely precise understanding of what terrorism is and usually it involves some level of organization by a group that has some sort of ideological objective, broadly speaking. On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US.
So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Well I can't just make up organizations. Give me something to work with, and I can see. I gave you historical examples of whites terrorists. They were clearly labelled as terrorists in the past- the FLQ for sure. And I'd say they would be labelled terrorists in the present. As we don't currently have the Mennonite Mafia running around blowing up stuff (Mexico probably does), or the Armed Amish, or the Jehovah Witness Warriors, or the Angry Atheists Assaulting Anonymously, we'll just have to wait until something crops up and starts blowing things to smithereens. And if they do, I'm confident we will label them terrorists- even if they are the (white) Bumpkin Baptist Beret. In the meantime, I don't think it's helpful to muddy categories by throwing in (granted equally horrific) acts like the Columbine shootings (to use another historical example). Mass murder, yes. Terrorism? I think not. And I think it matters because useful to know what you are dealing with- what is the source and cause? Creating a giant category where we throw in every mass killing called 'Terrorism' blurs motivation and purposes of these killers. White right-wing/white supremacist terrorists are committing more terrorist acts and killing more people in the US than Muslim linked terrorists. Take your pick. Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. You think inefficiency is why Dylan Roof wasn't labeled a terrorist but Micah Johnson was? No. Inefficiency has more to do with why certain things hit the news cycle while others don't. That's a separate musing. (Actually, inefficiency might be the wrong word because it seems Jihadist are trying more often, but are foiled more often. I suppose from that list, we could say Jihadists are trying more often 20:3, but the ones that get through are spectacularly successful on the whole. Far Right try less often, but are usually successful in murdering lone homeless people or shopkeepers. If the ratio is 20:3 (Jihadist: Far Right) and the results are pretty big, it's then no wonder it stays in the minds of people rather than far less frequent and with far less devastating results when looking at each individual act.) Micah Johnson killed a lot of people (relative to that list) and so it hit the news cycle. But I don't think that makes him a terrorist. I think at minimum there needs to be some sort of conspiracy (that is at least two people agreeing to commit an illegal act.) Micah doesn't even meet a conspiracy charge. Mass murder, yes. Terrorism, no (as far as I can tell.) Likely, for that reason, Dylan Roof also shouldn't be considered a terrorist, but a mass murderer.
I think by that definition a self-radicalized ISlamist isn't a terrorist either. Dylan Roof is clearly a terrorist in my eyes. (As is the self-radicalized IS member who never him or herself talked to anyone in IS leadership)
|
On November 06 2017 12:58 LegalLord wrote:Yeah I was going to say, don't they all make their cars here already? Looks like the answer is an obvious yes.
Judging by Trump's current behaviour on this Asia trip, I have to assume his mind is still stick in the 1980s where Reagan was fighting against Japanese motorcycle imports that were eating Harley Davidson's lunch and Japan was still a mythical place that was going to take over the USA in the way its depicted in Blade Runner and Die Hard.
You could actually make the argument that America's car is the Toyota Camry, which makes Trump's musing about "why aren't you making cars here instead of importing them here" even more bemusing and ignorant. Maybe Toyota can take Trump to the prefecture of Kentucky.
When you thought GWB vomiting on the Japanese prime minister was the worst gaff possible, everything this guy is doing has you asking "are you literally 10 years old" and its actually completely deliberate on Trump's part.
|
Canada11375 Posts
On November 06 2017 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 12:49 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:03 Falling wrote:
[quote]
It might be just a joke, but it seems to be making a point, which you also think. I also disagree with this: [quote] I'm sure there are some who do. But I think people have a general, if not entirely precise understanding of what terrorism is and usually it involves some level of organization by a group that has some sort of ideological objective, broadly speaking.
[quote]
Well I can't just make up organizations. Give me something to work with, and I can see. I gave you historical examples of whites terrorists. They were clearly labelled as terrorists in the past- the FLQ for sure. And I'd say they would be labelled terrorists in the present. As we don't currently have the Mennonite Mafia running around blowing up stuff (Mexico probably does), or the Armed Amish, or the Jehovah Witness Warriors, or the Angry Atheists Assaulting Anonymously, we'll just have to wait until something crops up and starts blowing things to smithereens. And if they do, I'm confident we will label them terrorists- even if they are the (white) Bumpkin Baptist Beret.
In the meantime, I don't think it's helpful to muddy categories by throwing in (granted equally horrific) acts like the Columbine shootings (to use another historical example). Mass murder, yes. Terrorism? I think not. And I think it matters because useful to know what you are dealing with- what is the source and cause? Creating a giant category where we throw in every mass killing called 'Terrorism' blurs motivation and purposes of these killers. White right-wing/white supremacist terrorists are committing more terrorist acts and killing more people in the US than Muslim linked terrorists. Take your pick. Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. You think inefficiency is why Dylan Roof wasn't labeled a terrorist but Micah Johnson was? No. Inefficiency has more to do with why certain things hit the news cycle while others don't. That's a separate musing. Micah Johnson killed a lot of people (relative to that list) and so it hit the news cycle. But I don't think that makes him a terrorist. I think at minimum there needs to be some sort of conspiracy (that is at least two people agreeing to commit an illegal act.) Micah doesn't even meet a conspiracy charge. Mass murder, yes. Terrorism, no (as far as I can tell.) Likely, for that reason, Dylan Roof also shouldn't be considered a terrorist, but a mass murderer. My point has nothing to do with how you feel about whether they are or are not terrorists, you understand that, correct?
Yes. You gave this question: "So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population?"
And I'm saying the list is faulty, so it's no wonder that corporate media and the general white population are not calling a great many on this list terrorists. You say there's a problem with white population not labelling white crime as terrorism. But if you look at that list, do you see, as another example "2009 North Palm Springs, Calif Murder of Sex Offender by White Supremacists" as an act of terrorism or murder? I tried looking it up for more information, but got nothing. Charles Gaskins at least belonged to group that required their members to kill child molesters so I could some sort of organization and ideology. The point is the problem isn't necessarily white America so much as the data. (Christine and Jeremy Moody is a bit iffy. On one hand, they acted alone, on the otherhand Crew 41 has a history of members killing sex offenders, so that sounds more like organization + ideology.)
But compare those examples with this:
+ Show Spoiler +Adham Hassoun and Kifah Jayyousi were under surveillance by a FISA wiretap first obtained in 1993 as a result of the investigation of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, commonly known in the United States as 'the Blind Sheikh' and serving a life sentence for orchestrating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Hassoun and Jayyousi were being investigated for their fundraising activities. The wiretaps included conversations with Jose Padilla that sparked suspicion, so Padilla continued to be monitored as he traveled abroad, though his location was not continuously known. He eventually ended up in Afghanistan. Around 230 phone calls between Hassoun, Jayyousi and Padilla formed the core of the U.S. government's case against them.</p><p>On March 28, 2002, Abu Zubaydah, a Saudi citizen who was thought to be a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda, was captured and revealed a plan for a 'dirty bomb' attack in the United States that involved Padilla. Seth Jones, author of Hunting in the Shadows: The Pursuit of Al Qa'ida Since 9/11, writes that CIA and FBI officials found this moment to be pivotal. On April 4, 2002, Padilla was picked up alongside Binyam Muhammad, an Ethiopian national and British resident, in Karachi, Pakistan, on passport and visa violations. They were both released, but Pakistani intelligence tipped off Western intelligence and Padilla was arrested on May 8 in Chicago, while Muhammad was arrested on April 10 in Karachi.</p><p>It is also possible that a binder found by the FBI in Afghanistan in an old office building, which included Padilla's application to attend an al-Qaeda training camp and had his fingerprints on it, played a role in the investigation.
+ Show Spoiler +p>Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, traveling with an unidentified passenger, was stopped for speeding in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2007. Explosive materials, particularly rocket propellants, were discovered during a search of his car. The investigating officer first became suspicious when one of the two men in the car quickly shut a computer as they were being pulled over. A later search found jihadist literature on the computer. Mohamed pleaded guilty to providing support for terrorists by posting a YouTube video showing how to convert a remote-controlled toy into a bomb. He was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.</p>
+ Show Spoiler +<p>Farooque Ahmed, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was lured by an email to his first meeting with a supposed al-Qaeda liaison on April 18, 2010, but the liaison was actually an undercover FBI agent. Ahmed videotaped four Northern Virginia subway stations and suggested using rolling suitcases instead of backpacks to transport the explosives for an attack the D.C. Metro. He was arrested in late October 2010. The investigation was initiated due to a tip from within the Muslim community. Ahmed pleaded guilty in April 2011.</p>
(These are drawn from the prevented category.)
There are so many of these
+ Show Spoiler +<p>Three Toledo men, Mohammad Amawi, Marwan El-Hindi and Wassim Mazloum, were convicted on June 13, 2008, of conspiring to kill people outside the United States and of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists in Iraq. The investigation into their activities was initiated through the use of an informant, Darren Griffin, also known as 'The Trainer.' The three men met Griffin in a mosque and he gained their trust by posing as a former soldier who had grown disenchanted with U.S. foreign policy and converted to Islam. All three men were arrested in 2006.</p>
+ Show Spoiler +<p>Tounisi was arrested on April 19, 2013, and charged with attempting to provide material support to Jabhat al-Nusrah, an al-Qaeda-linked rebel faction in Syria. He was caught as a result of an online sting operation when he allegedly contacted a website purporting to recruit people to fight in Syria but actually run by undercover agents. On Aug. 11, 2015 Tounisi pled guilty. </p>
These are the things most people think about, when they think about terrorism. There's a level of organization with a group, an ideology and conspiracy. I don't think it's because of the colour of their skin.
On November 06 2017 13:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 12:49 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:03 Falling wrote:
[quote]
It might be just a joke, but it seems to be making a point, which you also think. I also disagree with this: [quote] I'm sure there are some who do. But I think people have a general, if not entirely precise understanding of what terrorism is and usually it involves some level of organization by a group that has some sort of ideological objective, broadly speaking.
[quote]
Well I can't just make up organizations. Give me something to work with, and I can see. I gave you historical examples of whites terrorists. They were clearly labelled as terrorists in the past- the FLQ for sure. And I'd say they would be labelled terrorists in the present. As we don't currently have the Mennonite Mafia running around blowing up stuff (Mexico probably does), or the Armed Amish, or the Jehovah Witness Warriors, or the Angry Atheists Assaulting Anonymously, we'll just have to wait until something crops up and starts blowing things to smithereens. And if they do, I'm confident we will label them terrorists- even if they are the (white) Bumpkin Baptist Beret.
In the meantime, I don't think it's helpful to muddy categories by throwing in (granted equally horrific) acts like the Columbine shootings (to use another historical example). Mass murder, yes. Terrorism? I think not. And I think it matters because useful to know what you are dealing with- what is the source and cause? Creating a giant category where we throw in every mass killing called 'Terrorism' blurs motivation and purposes of these killers. White right-wing/white supremacist terrorists are committing more terrorist acts and killing more people in the US than Muslim linked terrorists. Take your pick. Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. You think inefficiency is why Dylan Roof wasn't labeled a terrorist but Micah Johnson was? No. Inefficiency has more to do with why certain things hit the news cycle while others don't. That's a separate musing. (Actually, inefficiency might be the wrong word because it seems Jihadist are trying more often, but are foiled more often. I suppose from that list, we could say Jihadists are trying more often 20:3, but the ones that get through are spectacularly successful on the whole. Far Right try less often, but are usually successful in murdering lone homeless people or shopkeepers. If the ratio is 20:3 (Jihadist: Far Right) and the results are pretty big, it's then no wonder it stays in the minds of people rather than far less frequent and with far less devastating results when looking at each individual act.) Micah Johnson killed a lot of people (relative to that list) and so it hit the news cycle. But I don't think that makes him a terrorist. I think at minimum there needs to be some sort of conspiracy (that is at least two people agreeing to commit an illegal act.) Micah doesn't even meet a conspiracy charge. Mass murder, yes. Terrorism, no (as far as I can tell.) Likely, for that reason, Dylan Roof also shouldn't be considered a terrorist, but a mass murderer. I think by that definition a self-radicalized ISlamist isn't a terrorist either. Dylan Roof is clearly a terrorist in my eyes. (As is the self-radicalized IS member who never him or herself talked to anyone in IS leadership)
If it's just one guy, probably not. I would count organization via internet as conspiracy though. But not if he was just reading online literature and got violent. But I'm okay with that. I haven't (and won't- I don't have the time) gone through all 200 of the Jihadist terrorist acts, but I suspect I would knock a whole bunch of them out as not terrorist, but even then, I suspect we'd be left with 150 or so.
I don't know, maybe my definition of terrorism needs reworking to include all lone-wolfs, but I think needing there to be some sort of conspiracy is a useful starting place. Well, to think of it another way- I can't include guys going postal as terrorists. That's not fundamentally what they are doing. (Patrick Sherrill) Or the mill worker last year in our province who came into work and shot a bunch of co-workers. It's a different animal altogether though the body count may look the same.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:03 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 08:09 KwarK wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And being French-Canadian and Irish, they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. The joke flew over your head. It's not that white people can't be terrorists, they very obviously can. It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines. The joke is about the public perception and the reaction to events, not the events themselves. It might be just a joke, but it seems to be making a point, which you also think. I also disagree with this: "It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines." I'm sure there are some who do. But I think people have a general, if not entirely precise understanding of what terrorism is and usually it involves some level of organization by a group that has some sort of ideological objective, broadly speaking. On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Well I can't just make up organizations. Give me something to work with, and I can see. I gave you historical examples of whites terrorists. They were clearly labelled as terrorists in the past- the FLQ for sure. And I'd say they would be labelled terrorists in the present. As we don't currently have the Mennonite Mafia running around blowing up stuff (Mexico probably does), or the Armed Amish, or the Jehovah Witness Warriors, or the Angry Atheists Assaulting Anonymously, we'll just have to wait until something crops up and starts blowing things to smithereens. And if they do, I'm confident we will label them terrorists- even if they are the (white) Bumpkin Baptist Beret. In the meantime, I don't think it's helpful to muddy categories by throwing in (granted equally horrific) acts like the Columbine shootings (to use another historical example). Mass murder, yes. Terrorism? I think not. And I think it matters because useful to know what you are dealing with- what is the source and cause? Creating a giant category where we throw in every mass killing called 'Terrorism' blurs motivation and purposes of these killers. White right-wing/white supremacist terrorists are committing more terrorist acts and killing more people in the US than Muslim linked terrorists. Take your pick. Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle.
I can't seem to find the csv link you are referencing, maybe I'm blind but could you re-post it please?
Also, LibreOffice is an excellent office alternative that handles csvs well.
|
On November 06 2017 12:58 LegalLord wrote:Yeah I was going to say, don't they all make their cars here already? Looks like the answer is an obvious yes.
yeah same here, Was going to say "wait... aren't they already doing that?" only to find it already posted on this page.
I think it's just generally so that you have different plants for different cars in different nations. Or rather, not every plant pushes out every single car random auto-maker sells.
So sometimes you get more cars produced in the US than even the US buys because there just happens to be a big plant that makes that kind of car and you're probably even exporting some while other type of cars do get imported.
Same with BMW etc
That being said... if Trump genuinely asked that I do get the feeling that it isn't just some bullshit he says because he knows his followers like it while also being aware that it's wrong... he probably really doesn't understand it oO (idk... why am I even surprised)
|
Canada11375 Posts
On November 06 2017 13:19 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:03 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 08:09 KwarK wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And being French-Canadian and Irish, they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. The joke flew over your head. It's not that white people can't be terrorists, they very obviously can. It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines. The joke is about the public perception and the reaction to events, not the events themselves. It might be just a joke, but it seems to be making a point, which you also think. I also disagree with this: "It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines." I'm sure there are some who do. But I think people have a general, if not entirely precise understanding of what terrorism is and usually it involves some level of organization by a group that has some sort of ideological objective, broadly speaking. On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Well I can't just make up organizations. Give me something to work with, and I can see. I gave you historical examples of whites terrorists. They were clearly labelled as terrorists in the past- the FLQ for sure. And I'd say they would be labelled terrorists in the present. As we don't currently have the Mennonite Mafia running around blowing up stuff (Mexico probably does), or the Armed Amish, or the Jehovah Witness Warriors, or the Angry Atheists Assaulting Anonymously, we'll just have to wait until something crops up and starts blowing things to smithereens. And if they do, I'm confident we will label them terrorists- even if they are the (white) Bumpkin Baptist Beret. In the meantime, I don't think it's helpful to muddy categories by throwing in (granted equally horrific) acts like the Columbine shootings (to use another historical example). Mass murder, yes. Terrorism? I think not. And I think it matters because useful to know what you are dealing with- what is the source and cause? Creating a giant category where we throw in every mass killing called 'Terrorism' blurs motivation and purposes of these killers. White right-wing/white supremacist terrorists are committing more terrorist acts and killing more people in the US than Muslim linked terrorists. Take your pick. Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. I can't seem to find the csv link you are referencing, maybe I'm blind but could you re-post it please? Also, LibreOffice is an excellent office alternative that handles csvs well.
You had to go a couple links down. GH posted the Times article, which linked to the original study in New America
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/part-i-overview-terrorism-cases-2001-today/
Under Part I. Terrorism Cases: 2001-Today, there is the Dataset: Download as CSV or JSON
It's a rather interesting read, though the formatting is super bad. You need to click on the individual descriptions so that it pops up in the editing box above. I tried resizing the description cells, but it stretched across both my screens and was still pretty unreadable. One super long line across both screens and no way to get each cell to drop down and fill multiple lines 
|
On November 06 2017 13:07 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two.
Lawyer first 
I’m happy to acknowledge underlying tensions in conservatism in principle. A lot of what makes conservatism conservatism is not ideological, but a set of mixed civilizational virtues in part opposition and part strain with each other.
Some of the referenced political formulations I’ve found lacking in the past, but you go for first take since it’s closer to what you do for a living.
|
United States24741 Posts
On November 06 2017 13:17 Falling wrote:
If it's just one guy, probably not. I would count organization via internet as conspiracy though. But not if he was just reading online literature and got violent. But I'm okay with that. I haven't (and won't- I don't have the time) gone through all 200 of the Jihadist terrorist acts, but I suspect I would knock a whole bunch of them out as not terrorist, but even then, I suspect we'd be left with 150 or so.
I don't know, maybe my definition of terrorism needs reworking to include all lone-wolfs, but I think needing there to be some sort of conspiracy is a useful starting place.
I don't think there is any need for a terrorist to be influenced by or part of a large network/conspiracy in order to be a terrorist. What did the suspect do, and why did they do it? Those determine if the act was terrorism. If it was an illegal violent/deadly act for the sake of effecting some political change via fear and coercion, it can be terrorism even if there was a lone wolf responsible for it all. On the other hand, lone wolf terrorists may be very rare compared to the other kind.
|
On November 06 2017 13:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 13:07 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two. Lawyer first I’m happy to acknowledge underlying tensions in conservatism in principle. A lot of what makes conservatism conservatism is not ideological, but a set of mixed civilizational virtues in part opposition and part strain with each other. Some of the referenced political formulations I’ve found lacking in the past, but you go for first take since it’s closer to what you do for a living.
Well, my initial thought upon reading that post was that the tensions were overstated due to the framing being a bit off, but I think a lot of it depends upon what kind of "conservative" that you're talking about. Igne's post is going to look different depending upon whether you read it through the lens of a libertarian-conservative, a religious right conservative, or a neocon/Bush conservative.
|
On November 06 2017 13:17 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:49 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
White right-wing/white supremacist terrorists are committing more terrorist acts and killing more people in the US than Muslim linked terrorists. Take your pick.
Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. You think inefficiency is why Dylan Roof wasn't labeled a terrorist but Micah Johnson was? No. Inefficiency has more to do with why certain things hit the news cycle while others don't. That's a separate musing. Micah Johnson killed a lot of people (relative to that list) and so it hit the news cycle. But I don't think that makes him a terrorist. I think at minimum there needs to be some sort of conspiracy (that is at least two people agreeing to commit an illegal act.) Micah doesn't even meet a conspiracy charge. Mass murder, yes. Terrorism, no (as far as I can tell.) Likely, for that reason, Dylan Roof also shouldn't be considered a terrorist, but a mass murderer. My point has nothing to do with how you feel about whether they are or are not terrorists, you understand that, correct? Yes. You gave this question: "So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population?" And I'm saying the list is faulty, so it's no wonder that corporate media and the general white population are not calling a great many on this list terrorists. You say there's a problem with white population not labelling white crime as terrorism. But if you look at that list, do you see, as another example "2009 North Palm Springs, Calif Murder of Sex Offender by White Supremacists" as an act of terrorism or murder? I tried looking it up for more information, but got nothing. Charles Gaskins at least belonged to group that required their members to kill child molesters so I could some sort of organization and ideology. The point is the problem isn't necessarily white America so much as the data. (Christine and Jeremy Moody is a bit iffy. On one hand, they acted alone, on the otherhand Crew 41 has a history of members killing sex offenders, so that sounds more like organization + ideology.) But compare those examples with this: + Show Spoiler +Adham Hassoun and Kifah Jayyousi were under surveillance by a FISA wiretap first obtained in 1993 as a result of the investigation of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, commonly known in the United States as 'the Blind Sheikh' and serving a life sentence for orchestrating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Hassoun and Jayyousi were being investigated for their fundraising activities. The wiretaps included conversations with Jose Padilla that sparked suspicion, so Padilla continued to be monitored as he traveled abroad, though his location was not continuously known. He eventually ended up in Afghanistan. Around 230 phone calls between Hassoun, Jayyousi and Padilla formed the core of the U.S. government's case against them.</p><p>On March 28, 2002, Abu Zubaydah, a Saudi citizen who was thought to be a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda, was captured and revealed a plan for a 'dirty bomb' attack in the United States that involved Padilla. Seth Jones, author of Hunting in the Shadows: The Pursuit of Al Qa'ida Since 9/11, writes that CIA and FBI officials found this moment to be pivotal. On April 4, 2002, Padilla was picked up alongside Binyam Muhammad, an Ethiopian national and British resident, in Karachi, Pakistan, on passport and visa violations. They were both released, but Pakistani intelligence tipped off Western intelligence and Padilla was arrested on May 8 in Chicago, while Muhammad was arrested on April 10 in Karachi.</p><p>It is also possible that a binder found by the FBI in Afghanistan in an old office building, which included Padilla's application to attend an al-Qaeda training camp and had his fingerprints on it, played a role in the investigation. p>Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, traveling with an unidentified passenger, was stopped for speeding in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2007. Explosive materials, particularly rocket propellants, were discovered during a search of his car. The investigating officer first became suspicious when one of the two men in the car quickly shut a computer as they were being pulled over. A later search found jihadist literature on the computer. Mohamed pleaded guilty to providing support for terrorists by posting a YouTube video showing how to convert a remote-controlled toy into a bomb. He was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.</p> <p>Farooque Ahmed, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was lured by an email to his first meeting with a supposed al-Qaeda liaison on April 18, 2010, but the liaison was actually an undercover FBI agent. Ahmed videotaped four Northern Virginia subway stations and suggested using rolling suitcases instead of backpacks to transport the explosives for an attack the D.C. Metro. He was arrested in late October 2010. The investigation was initiated due to a tip from within the Muslim community. Ahmed pleaded guilty in April 2011.</p> (These are drawn from the prevented category.) There are so many of these + Show Spoiler +<p>Three Toledo men, Mohammad Amawi, Marwan El-Hindi and Wassim Mazloum, were convicted on June 13, 2008, of conspiring to kill people outside the United States and of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists in Iraq. The investigation into their activities was initiated through the use of an informant, Darren Griffin, also known as 'The Trainer.' The three men met Griffin in a mosque and he gained their trust by posing as a former soldier who had grown disenchanted with U.S. foreign policy and converted to Islam. All three men were arrested in 2006.</p> <p>Tounisi was arrested on April 19, 2013, and charged with attempting to provide material support to Jabhat al-Nusrah, an al-Qaeda-linked rebel faction in Syria. He was caught as a result of an online sting operation when he allegedly contacted a website purporting to recruit people to fight in Syria but actually run by undercover agents. On Aug. 11, 2015 Tounisi pled guilty. </p> These are the things most people think about, when they think about terrorism. There's a level of organization with a group, an ideology and conspiracy. I don't think it's because of the colour of their skin. Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 13:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 06 2017 12:49 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
White right-wing/white supremacist terrorists are committing more terrorist acts and killing more people in the US than Muslim linked terrorists. Take your pick.
Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. You think inefficiency is why Dylan Roof wasn't labeled a terrorist but Micah Johnson was? No. Inefficiency has more to do with why certain things hit the news cycle while others don't. That's a separate musing. (Actually, inefficiency might be the wrong word because it seems Jihadist are trying more often, but are foiled more often. I suppose from that list, we could say Jihadists are trying more often 20:3, but the ones that get through are spectacularly successful on the whole. Far Right try less often, but are usually successful in murdering lone homeless people or shopkeepers. If the ratio is 20:3 (Jihadist: Far Right) and the results are pretty big, it's then no wonder it stays in the minds of people rather than far less frequent and with far less devastating results when looking at each individual act.) Micah Johnson killed a lot of people (relative to that list) and so it hit the news cycle. But I don't think that makes him a terrorist. I think at minimum there needs to be some sort of conspiracy (that is at least two people agreeing to commit an illegal act.) Micah doesn't even meet a conspiracy charge. Mass murder, yes. Terrorism, no (as far as I can tell.) Likely, for that reason, Dylan Roof also shouldn't be considered a terrorist, but a mass murderer. I think by that definition a self-radicalized ISlamist isn't a terrorist either. Dylan Roof is clearly a terrorist in my eyes. (As is the self-radicalized IS member who never him or herself talked to anyone in IS leadership) If it's just one guy, probably not. I would count organization via internet as conspiracy though. But not if he was just reading online literature and got violent. But I'm okay with that. I haven't (and won't- I don't have the time) gone through all 200 of the Jihadist terrorist acts, but I suspect I would knock a whole bunch of them out as not terrorist, but even then, I suspect we'd be left with 150 or so. I don't know, maybe my definition of terrorism needs reworking to include all lone-wolfs, but I think needing there to be some sort of conspiracy is a useful starting place. Well, to think of it another way- I can't include guys going postal as terrorists. That's not fundamentally what they are doing. (Patrick Sherrill) Or the mill worker last year in our province who came into work and shot a bunch of co-workers. It's a different animal altogether though the body count may look the same.
Just to get back to the point then, do you have recent (post 9/11) examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population?
|
Your country has spent 15+ years fighting a war against groups consistently referred to as terrorists. It's really not surprising that a lot of people now take the word terrorist to mean "a member of the group of people we fought the war on terror against". That is, brown Muslim extremists and not white right wing extremists.
That might not be correct, but it's also not always going to be racially motivated. It's just the product of a decade of rhetoric in support of the war.
Really the word is just useless at this point. It means something different to pretty much everyone.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 06 2017 13:28 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 13:19 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:03 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 08:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The joke flew over your head.
It's not that white people can't be terrorists, they very obviously can. It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines.
The joke is about the public perception and the reaction to events, not the events themselves. It might be just a joke, but it seems to be making a point, which you also think. I also disagree with this: "It's that white society chooses to what is and is not terrorism along racial lines." I'm sure there are some who do. But I think people have a general, if not entirely precise understanding of what terrorism is and usually it involves some level of organization by a group that has some sort of ideological objective, broadly speaking. On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US.
So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Well I can't just make up organizations. Give me something to work with, and I can see. I gave you historical examples of whites terrorists. They were clearly labelled as terrorists in the past- the FLQ for sure. And I'd say they would be labelled terrorists in the present. As we don't currently have the Mennonite Mafia running around blowing up stuff (Mexico probably does), or the Armed Amish, or the Jehovah Witness Warriors, or the Angry Atheists Assaulting Anonymously, we'll just have to wait until something crops up and starts blowing things to smithereens. And if they do, I'm confident we will label them terrorists- even if they are the (white) Bumpkin Baptist Beret. In the meantime, I don't think it's helpful to muddy categories by throwing in (granted equally horrific) acts like the Columbine shootings (to use another historical example). Mass murder, yes. Terrorism? I think not. And I think it matters because useful to know what you are dealing with- what is the source and cause? Creating a giant category where we throw in every mass killing called 'Terrorism' blurs motivation and purposes of these killers. White right-wing/white supremacist terrorists are committing more terrorist acts and killing more people in the US than Muslim linked terrorists. Take your pick. Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. I can't seem to find the csv link you are referencing, maybe I'm blind but could you re-post it please? Also, LibreOffice is an excellent office alternative that handles csvs well. You had to go a couple links down. GH posted the Times article, which linked to the original study in New America https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/part-i-overview-terrorism-cases-2001-today/Under Part I. Terrorism Cases: 2001-Today, there is the Dataset: Download as CSV or JSON It's a rather interesting read, though the formatting is super bad. You need to click on the individual descriptions so that it pops up in the editing box above. I tried resizing the description cells, but it stretched across both my screens and was still pretty unreadable. One super long line across both screens and no way to get each cell to drop down and fill multiple lines
Thx!
A bit easier to read when you open the file in Pandas... but yeah, formatting isn't great. Interesting that 0 of the far-right attacks were prevented, whereas the majority of jihadist ones were (83%). Makes the amount of succesful attacks almost exactly equal between the two groups (33 far right, 35 jihadist, far higher casualties for the far right ones).
The word 'terror' shows up in 18% of farright descriptions and 46% of jihadist descriptions. I guess these are all labeled as terrorist acts anyway tho.
|
On November 06 2017 13:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 13:29 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2017 13:07 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two. Lawyer first I’m happy to acknowledge underlying tensions in conservatism in principle. A lot of what makes conservatism conservatism is not ideological, but a set of mixed civilizational virtues in part opposition and part strain with each other. Some of the referenced political formulations I’ve found lacking in the past, but you go for first take since it’s closer to what you do for a living. Well, my initial thought upon reading that post was that the tensions were overstated due to the framing being a bit off, but I think a lot of it depends upon what kind of "conservative" that you're talking about. Igne's post is going to look different depending upon whether you read it through the lens of a libertarian-conservative, a religious right conservative, or a neocon/Bush conservative.
The framing depends on my probably inadequate summary of nuanced concepts. If I had more than a couple pages (or a lot more time) to make my points it would probably cohere better. But it's also a first attempt at trying to recontextualize this debate over "Western Culture" and trying to point out why I think conservatives are the ones missing the forest for the trees.
It's looking different depending on the type of conservative lens is really a product of your initial formulation of "individual liberty, inalienable rights, …" I think the American Right, as a whole, is aligned in practice, if not theory, with what might loosely be identified as "neoliberal" economic principles (even if at this point the word has kind of devolved into a buzzwordy jargon word). I think those economic principles are actually what unites the various factions on the Right, more than any single commitment to roll back abortion, stop immigration, or any other social policy.
|
Canada11375 Posts
On November 06 2017 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 13:17 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:49 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:
[quote]
Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. You think inefficiency is why Dylan Roof wasn't labeled a terrorist but Micah Johnson was? No. Inefficiency has more to do with why certain things hit the news cycle while others don't. That's a separate musing. Micah Johnson killed a lot of people (relative to that list) and so it hit the news cycle. But I don't think that makes him a terrorist. I think at minimum there needs to be some sort of conspiracy (that is at least two people agreeing to commit an illegal act.) Micah doesn't even meet a conspiracy charge. Mass murder, yes. Terrorism, no (as far as I can tell.) Likely, for that reason, Dylan Roof also shouldn't be considered a terrorist, but a mass murderer. My point has nothing to do with how you feel about whether they are or are not terrorists, you understand that, correct? Yes. You gave this question: "So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population?" And I'm saying the list is faulty, so it's no wonder that corporate media and the general white population are not calling a great many on this list terrorists. You say there's a problem with white population not labelling white crime as terrorism. But if you look at that list, do you see, as another example "2009 North Palm Springs, Calif Murder of Sex Offender by White Supremacists" as an act of terrorism or murder? I tried looking it up for more information, but got nothing. Charles Gaskins at least belonged to group that required their members to kill child molesters so I could some sort of organization and ideology. The point is the problem isn't necessarily white America so much as the data. (Christine and Jeremy Moody is a bit iffy. On one hand, they acted alone, on the otherhand Crew 41 has a history of members killing sex offenders, so that sounds more like organization + ideology.) But compare those examples with this: + Show Spoiler +Adham Hassoun and Kifah Jayyousi were under surveillance by a FISA wiretap first obtained in 1993 as a result of the investigation of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, commonly known in the United States as 'the Blind Sheikh' and serving a life sentence for orchestrating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Hassoun and Jayyousi were being investigated for their fundraising activities. The wiretaps included conversations with Jose Padilla that sparked suspicion, so Padilla continued to be monitored as he traveled abroad, though his location was not continuously known. He eventually ended up in Afghanistan. Around 230 phone calls between Hassoun, Jayyousi and Padilla formed the core of the U.S. government's case against them.</p><p>On March 28, 2002, Abu Zubaydah, a Saudi citizen who was thought to be a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda, was captured and revealed a plan for a 'dirty bomb' attack in the United States that involved Padilla. Seth Jones, author of Hunting in the Shadows: The Pursuit of Al Qa'ida Since 9/11, writes that CIA and FBI officials found this moment to be pivotal. On April 4, 2002, Padilla was picked up alongside Binyam Muhammad, an Ethiopian national and British resident, in Karachi, Pakistan, on passport and visa violations. They were both released, but Pakistani intelligence tipped off Western intelligence and Padilla was arrested on May 8 in Chicago, while Muhammad was arrested on April 10 in Karachi.</p><p>It is also possible that a binder found by the FBI in Afghanistan in an old office building, which included Padilla's application to attend an al-Qaeda training camp and had his fingerprints on it, played a role in the investigation. p>Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, traveling with an unidentified passenger, was stopped for speeding in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2007. Explosive materials, particularly rocket propellants, were discovered during a search of his car. The investigating officer first became suspicious when one of the two men in the car quickly shut a computer as they were being pulled over. A later search found jihadist literature on the computer. Mohamed pleaded guilty to providing support for terrorists by posting a YouTube video showing how to convert a remote-controlled toy into a bomb. He was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.</p> <p>Farooque Ahmed, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was lured by an email to his first meeting with a supposed al-Qaeda liaison on April 18, 2010, but the liaison was actually an undercover FBI agent. Ahmed videotaped four Northern Virginia subway stations and suggested using rolling suitcases instead of backpacks to transport the explosives for an attack the D.C. Metro. He was arrested in late October 2010. The investigation was initiated due to a tip from within the Muslim community. Ahmed pleaded guilty in April 2011.</p> (These are drawn from the prevented category.) There are so many of these + Show Spoiler +<p>Three Toledo men, Mohammad Amawi, Marwan El-Hindi and Wassim Mazloum, were convicted on June 13, 2008, of conspiring to kill people outside the United States and of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists in Iraq. The investigation into their activities was initiated through the use of an informant, Darren Griffin, also known as 'The Trainer.' The three men met Griffin in a mosque and he gained their trust by posing as a former soldier who had grown disenchanted with U.S. foreign policy and converted to Islam. All three men were arrested in 2006.</p> <p>Tounisi was arrested on April 19, 2013, and charged with attempting to provide material support to Jabhat al-Nusrah, an al-Qaeda-linked rebel faction in Syria. He was caught as a result of an online sting operation when he allegedly contacted a website purporting to recruit people to fight in Syria but actually run by undercover agents. On Aug. 11, 2015 Tounisi pled guilty. </p> These are the things most people think about, when they think about terrorism. There's a level of organization with a group, an ideology and conspiracy. I don't think it's because of the colour of their skin. On November 06 2017 13:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 06 2017 12:49 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:01 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:22 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:
[quote]
Can you source some of that? Because it seems to me a certain group from Afghanistan got a little bit of a head start more than a decade and a half ago. *since 9/11 which was my point from the beginning of this. Yet people keep referencing things outside the US or prior to 9/11 Well that is a convenient stopping point, but okay, since 9/11 then. I want to see what some of those acts are. I'm familiar with the ones that show up in the news- school shootings (usually mass murder), Boston bomber, etc. I'm not so familiar with the white supremacist terrorist attacks, unless they were in the news and I just missed them? So if I've missed them (or forgotten them- there's so many mass killings, and I don't really dwell on them, so I can't marshal all the facts off the top of my head), then I'm open to having my memory refreshed. The references to outside of US are still relevant though. Supposing a random white American knew what the IRA or the FLQ stood for and what they did, would they agree that they were terrorists or would they think they it something else (because they view terrorism through a racial lense.) I say that the average white American would say terrorist. To partially test my belief, we could even ask our right wing American posters here if they think the IRA and FLQ were terrorists. It's not "convenient" it's when "Terrorists" became a brown/black only club in universal corporate media opinion (and much of the population). If you weren't foreign I would presume you're being intentionally dense on the US, post 9/11 point. That you don't know them proves my point. Because according to the FBI they are killing a committing a lot of attacks and killing a lot of people. EDIT: Worth noting that the Charleston shooter DID NOT get charged with domestic terrorism. Yay. Google sheets opens .csv Actually, looking through the list of wound/ death counts (thank you for that by the way), I think the issue is Jihadists are more efficient, and so it shows up on the news. The biggest kill counts belong to Jihadists, the biggest wound counts, also Jihadists. And there are a whole bunch that are indistinguishable from homicide that I do not think should be on the list. For example, under Black Separatist, Micah Xavier Johnson shows up as a terrorist. Perhaps if I knew more about the case, I would think differently. But as far as I can tell, he was a lone attacker that went rogue. What he did was terrible, but I don't think he was a terrorist (at least the way I think of terrorism). Another thing that is rather interesting is that at least the way the study is counting, they are really quite good at stopping Jihadists vs Far Right wing. There are 247 items on the list. I count 33 of them Far Right Wing. There are a handful of other ideologies, which puts the rest at easily 200 attempted acts by Jihadists... but the majority are prevented. Some of the Far Right Wing ones would be hard to prevent though. One that is counted is: "Aryan Soldiers Kill Homeless Man." Doesn't really sound like a plot that require a lot of planning- more like opportunistic homicide, so good luck with prevention. Also- no way that will make the national news cycle. You think inefficiency is why Dylan Roof wasn't labeled a terrorist but Micah Johnson was? No. Inefficiency has more to do with why certain things hit the news cycle while others don't. That's a separate musing. (Actually, inefficiency might be the wrong word because it seems Jihadist are trying more often, but are foiled more often. I suppose from that list, we could say Jihadists are trying more often 20:3, but the ones that get through are spectacularly successful on the whole. Far Right try less often, but are usually successful in murdering lone homeless people or shopkeepers. If the ratio is 20:3 (Jihadist: Far Right) and the results are pretty big, it's then no wonder it stays in the minds of people rather than far less frequent and with far less devastating results when looking at each individual act.) Micah Johnson killed a lot of people (relative to that list) and so it hit the news cycle. But I don't think that makes him a terrorist. I think at minimum there needs to be some sort of conspiracy (that is at least two people agreeing to commit an illegal act.) Micah doesn't even meet a conspiracy charge. Mass murder, yes. Terrorism, no (as far as I can tell.) Likely, for that reason, Dylan Roof also shouldn't be considered a terrorist, but a mass murderer. I think by that definition a self-radicalized ISlamist isn't a terrorist either. Dylan Roof is clearly a terrorist in my eyes. (As is the self-radicalized IS member who never him or herself talked to anyone in IS leadership) If it's just one guy, probably not. I would count organization via internet as conspiracy though. But not if he was just reading online literature and got violent. But I'm okay with that. I haven't (and won't- I don't have the time) gone through all 200 of the Jihadist terrorist acts, but I suspect I would knock a whole bunch of them out as not terrorist, but even then, I suspect we'd be left with 150 or so. I don't know, maybe my definition of terrorism needs reworking to include all lone-wolfs, but I think needing there to be some sort of conspiracy is a useful starting place. Well, to think of it another way- I can't include guys going postal as terrorists. That's not fundamentally what they are doing. (Patrick Sherrill) Or the mill worker last year in our province who came into work and shot a bunch of co-workers. It's a different animal altogether though the body count may look the same. Just to get back to the point then, do you have recent (post 9/11) examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population?
Recent, as in last two years? So from 2015-2017, I have 78 to choose from. 70 are Jihadist. That leaves me with 8. You want only white, so that leaves me with 6.
We have Dylann Roof- GQ called him a terrorist, but Washington Post argued that it was too good for him, he wanted the attention. (And also the problem is not that we are slow to call Dylann Roof a terrorist, but we are too quick to call other attacks terrorism... generally what I've been arguing.) So no on that front.
Next, Robert Dear- Terrorist by the New Republic, but otherwise 'killer' or 'incompetent to stand on trial' and other such.
John Houser- 'disturbed', 'unstable' 'erratic behavior'
James Harrison Jackson indicted for terrorism.
Alex Field Jr
and Jeremy Joseph Christian
I would guess both were not.
So we don't have many to work with compared to the Jihadists. So, sure. Those six guys weren't called terrorists by and large. But should they be? We may not find things neatly balanced. The fact that there are overwhelmingly more Jihadists attempts means the public conscious will tend to associate terror with Jihadists. But if you say there's a new school shooting, I say probably mentally unstable white guy. Again, not really a balance, as it there seems to be more unstable white guys shooting schools than any other people group. No balance there either. And then, it would seem Chinese and Japanese Americans are generally doing none of the above, so no neat and tidy balance there either.
|
On November 06 2017 14:25 Belisarius wrote:
Your country has spent 15+ years fighting a war against groups consistently referred to as terrorists. It's really not surprising that a lot of people now take the word terrorist to mean "a member of the group of people we fought the war on terror against". That is, brown Muslim extremists and not white right wing extremists.
That might not be correct, but it's also not always going to be racially motivated. It's just the product of a decade of rhetoric in support of the war.
Really the word is just useless at this point. It means something different to pretty much everyone.
It always did. French resistants during the war were labelled "terrorists" by the nazis. Every guerilla fighter is a terrorist in the eyes of its ennemies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
