|
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 15:08 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
*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:
[quote]
*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.
Me: "Post 9/11"
You: "So the last two years? No, let me try to make this tangential point instead"
Try again please.
|
|
|
Canada11375 Posts
On November 06 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 15:08 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Me: "Post 9/11" You: "So the last two years? No, let me try to make this tangential point instead" Try again please.
Frick dude. I'm not going to go through all 246 cases. I'm just not. I've already spent more hours than I care to scanning through this badly formatted document and cross-referencing with what google news pulls up for how they were characterized, trying to inform myself with the different attacks and attempted attacks. So I thought I would choose the last couple years as a test case. Look. I'm out for now. I've got lesson plans to write. Cheers.
|
On November 06 2017 15:40 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:08 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Me: "Post 9/11" You: "So the last two years? No, let me try to make this tangential point instead" Try again please. Frick dude. I'm not going to go through all 246 cases. I'm just not. I've already spent more hours than I care to scanning through this badly formatted document, trying to inform myself with the different attack and attempted attacks. So I thought I would choose the last couple years as a test case. Look. I'm out for now. I've got lesson plans to write. Cheers.
Fair enough. Maybe someone will find one in the meantime.
|
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.
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.
I agree that his post requires a lot of effort in order to respond to it respectfully, but he has made such posts asserting a conflict before. It's interesting because it's not popularly used critique today, beyond typical political accusations of hypocrisy. Perhaps the error comes in taking things to an extreme. Danglars is right in saying it's not just ideological. Modern American conservatism of most stripes also stresses learning from history (which I suppose IgnE would associate with myth, as he defined it). But I think when you look at it that way perhaps some underlying tension is unsurprising.
And framing is always an issue with an IgnE post 
Edit: I didn't see IgnE's response to xDaunt but I think the point still applies. The Right was more united by Anti-Communism in its time than it is by economics today, although given the fervor of the anti-communist perhaps that isn't a useful comparison. While
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.
may be true, they certainly aren't all free market purists.
Edit2: I get that he is talking primarily of this economic view where individual liberty doesn't really (to him) square with his view of the conservative economic philosophy, but I'd say these broader points can serve as the basis for the longer posts
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 06 2017 16:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 15:40 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:08 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. 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. (These are drawn from the prevented category.) There are so many of these + Show Spoiler +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. 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. 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:
[quote]
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. Me: "Post 9/11" You: "So the last two years? No, let me try to make this tangential point instead" Try again please. Frick dude. I'm not going to go through all 246 cases. I'm just not. I've already spent more hours than I care to scanning through this badly formatted document, trying to inform myself with the different attack and attempted attacks. So I thought I would choose the last couple years as a test case. Look. I'm out for now. I've got lesson plans to write. Cheers. Fair enough. Maybe someone will find one in the meantime.
Using the link you posted earlier (https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/part-i-overview-terrorism-cases-2001-today/) as source, and only checking the sources provided in said data (except when link was dead, where I made the effort to find an alternative link from same publication if available), I found 2 cases that were labeled as terrorism (with white perpretrators):
2011 FEAR Militia
2012 St. John's Parish Police Ambush
IIRC One of those two had the same publication as source twice so a little bit of double counting but was 4/5 sources labelling them as such.
Dylann Roof was described as a terrorist in 2/4 sources so I guess he's 50/50 as well.
Not a whole lot, especially the 2012 Sikh Temple Shooting you'd expect to be labeled as domestic terrorism, and a quick google search shows a lot of sources calling it exactly that (check sources used for its wikipedia page for instance).
I hope this was what you meant so I didn't waste my time looking through all those links (waste it even more than usual that is).
|
On November 06 2017 17:07 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 16:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:40 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:08 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Me: "Post 9/11" You: "So the last two years? No, let me try to make this tangential point instead" Try again please. Frick dude. I'm not going to go through all 246 cases. I'm just not. I've already spent more hours than I care to scanning through this badly formatted document, trying to inform myself with the different attack and attempted attacks. So I thought I would choose the last couple years as a test case. Look. I'm out for now. I've got lesson plans to write. Cheers. Fair enough. Maybe someone will find one in the meantime. Using the link you posted earlier (https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/part-i-overview-terrorism-cases-2001-today/) as source, and only checking the sources provided in said data (except when link was dead, where I made the effort to find an alternative link from same publication if available), I found 2 cases that were labeled as terrorism (with white perpretrators): 2011 FEAR Militia 2012 St. John's Parish Police Ambush IIRC One of those two had the same publication as source twice so a little bit of double counting but was 4/5 sources labelling them as such. Dylann Roof was described as a terrorist in 2/4 sources so I guess he's 50/50 as well. Not a whole lot, especially the 2012 Sikh Temple Shooting you'd expect to be labeled as domestic terrorism, and a quick google search shows a lot of sources calling it exactly that (check sources used for its wikipedia page for instance). I hope this was what you meant so I didn't waste my time looking through all those links (waste it even more than usual that is).
I have to admit that I didn't go through every event on that particular list (there are others), but best I could tell none of those listed by you here did CNN (for example) use "terror__" to describe any of them. I think I saw one reference in one article about the Sikh attack, but it was in a "story highlight" not in the article itself.
So I'd say we're coming up pretty dry.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 06 2017 17:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 17:07 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 06 2017 16:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:40 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:08 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 13:17 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 12:49 Falling wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. 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. (These are drawn from the prevented category.) There are so many of these + Show Spoiler +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. 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. 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:
[quote]
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. Me: "Post 9/11" You: "So the last two years? No, let me try to make this tangential point instead" Try again please. Frick dude. I'm not going to go through all 246 cases. I'm just not. I've already spent more hours than I care to scanning through this badly formatted document, trying to inform myself with the different attack and attempted attacks. So I thought I would choose the last couple years as a test case. Look. I'm out for now. I've got lesson plans to write. Cheers. Fair enough. Maybe someone will find one in the meantime. Using the link you posted earlier (https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/part-i-overview-terrorism-cases-2001-today/) as source, and only checking the sources provided in said data (except when link was dead, where I made the effort to find an alternative link from same publication if available), I found 2 cases that were labeled as terrorism (with white perpretrators): 2011 FEAR Militia 2012 St. John's Parish Police Ambush IIRC One of those two had the same publication as source twice so a little bit of double counting but was 4/5 sources labelling them as such. Dylann Roof was described as a terrorist in 2/4 sources so I guess he's 50/50 as well. Not a whole lot, especially the 2012 Sikh Temple Shooting you'd expect to be labeled as domestic terrorism, and a quick google search shows a lot of sources calling it exactly that (check sources used for its wikipedia page for instance). I hope this was what you meant so I didn't waste my time looking through all those links (waste it even more than usual that is). I have to admit that I didn't go through every event on that particular list (there are others), but best I could tell none of those listed by you here did CNN (for example) use "terror__" to describe any of them. I think I saw one reference in one article about the Sikh attack, but it was in a "story highlight" not in the article itself. So I'd say we're coming up pretty dry.
For FEAR, 3/3 sources of that list used 'terror' and for the St.John shooting, 4/5. However 2 out of 33 is kind of low. I'm willing to bet if I had the energy to go through all the links for the Jihadist part the ratio would be a lot higher.
For Sikh one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting as 'source of sources':
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/05/wisconsin-sikh-temple-domestic-terrorism
http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-oak-creek-wisconsin-officials-white-supremacist/story?id=16933779
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/05/breaking-reports-of-shooting-at-sikh-temple/?hpt=hp_t1
Anyhow, the point feels strong enough either way.
Oh, and the FEAR thing, the main incident had them described as terrorists but one of them went and killed his wife later and there were no mentions of terror in those articles iirc. So yeah.
|
On November 06 2017 17:30 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 17:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 17:07 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 06 2017 16:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:40 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:08 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 13:17 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Me: "Post 9/11" You: "So the last two years? No, let me try to make this tangential point instead" Try again please. Frick dude. I'm not going to go through all 246 cases. I'm just not. I've already spent more hours than I care to scanning through this badly formatted document, trying to inform myself with the different attack and attempted attacks. So I thought I would choose the last couple years as a test case. Look. I'm out for now. I've got lesson plans to write. Cheers. Fair enough. Maybe someone will find one in the meantime. Using the link you posted earlier (https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/part-i-overview-terrorism-cases-2001-today/) as source, and only checking the sources provided in said data (except when link was dead, where I made the effort to find an alternative link from same publication if available), I found 2 cases that were labeled as terrorism (with white perpretrators): 2011 FEAR Militia 2012 St. John's Parish Police Ambush IIRC One of those two had the same publication as source twice so a little bit of double counting but was 4/5 sources labelling them as such. Dylann Roof was described as a terrorist in 2/4 sources so I guess he's 50/50 as well. Not a whole lot, especially the 2012 Sikh Temple Shooting you'd expect to be labeled as domestic terrorism, and a quick google search shows a lot of sources calling it exactly that (check sources used for its wikipedia page for instance). I hope this was what you meant so I didn't waste my time looking through all those links (waste it even more than usual that is). I have to admit that I didn't go through every event on that particular list (there are others), but best I could tell none of those listed by you here did CNN (for example) use "terror__" to describe any of them. I think I saw one reference in one article about the Sikh attack, but it was in a "story highlight" not in the article itself. So I'd say we're coming up pretty dry. For FEAR, 3/3 sources of that list used 'terror' and for the St.John shooting, 4/5. However 2 out of 33 is kind of low. I'm willing to bet if I had the energy to go through all the links for the Jihadist part the ratio would be a lot higher. For Sikh one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting as 'source of sources': https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/05/wisconsin-sikh-temple-domestic-terrorismhttp://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-oak-creek-wisconsin-officials-white-supremacist/story?id=16933779http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/05/breaking-reports-of-shooting-at-sikh-temple/?hpt=hp_t1Anyhow, the point feels strong enough either way. Oh, and the FEAR thing, the main incident had them described as terrorists but one of them went and killed his wife later and there were no mentions of terror in those articles iirc. So yeah.
I suppose it's a bit different from your perspective but it's a bit complicated.
On the Sikh one for example it was announced that they were investigating it as domestic terrorism, and so you see reports of it being announced that way, but you won't find later reports referencing it that way in most cases.
The point there was also to denote them as terrorist attacks so it would make sense to source them as such. However, (this may be hard without using a US proxy) when looking around at general US coverage you'll find a lack of references in such ways. You'll also note it's practically never in the headlines.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 06 2017 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 17:30 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 06 2017 17:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 17:07 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 06 2017 16:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:40 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 15:08 Falling wrote:On November 06 2017 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 13:17 Falling wrote:[quote] 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. 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. 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. 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. (These are drawn from the prevented category.) There are so many of these + Show Spoiler +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. 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. 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. [quote] 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. Me: "Post 9/11" You: "So the last two years? No, let me try to make this tangential point instead" Try again please. Frick dude. I'm not going to go through all 246 cases. I'm just not. I've already spent more hours than I care to scanning through this badly formatted document, trying to inform myself with the different attack and attempted attacks. So I thought I would choose the last couple years as a test case. Look. I'm out for now. I've got lesson plans to write. Cheers. Fair enough. Maybe someone will find one in the meantime. Using the link you posted earlier (https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/part-i-overview-terrorism-cases-2001-today/) as source, and only checking the sources provided in said data (except when link was dead, where I made the effort to find an alternative link from same publication if available), I found 2 cases that were labeled as terrorism (with white perpretrators): 2011 FEAR Militia 2012 St. John's Parish Police Ambush IIRC One of those two had the same publication as source twice so a little bit of double counting but was 4/5 sources labelling them as such. Dylann Roof was described as a terrorist in 2/4 sources so I guess he's 50/50 as well. Not a whole lot, especially the 2012 Sikh Temple Shooting you'd expect to be labeled as domestic terrorism, and a quick google search shows a lot of sources calling it exactly that (check sources used for its wikipedia page for instance). I hope this was what you meant so I didn't waste my time looking through all those links (waste it even more than usual that is). I have to admit that I didn't go through every event on that particular list (there are others), but best I could tell none of those listed by you here did CNN (for example) use "terror__" to describe any of them. I think I saw one reference in one article about the Sikh attack, but it was in a "story highlight" not in the article itself. So I'd say we're coming up pretty dry. For FEAR, 3/3 sources of that list used 'terror' and for the St.John shooting, 4/5. However 2 out of 33 is kind of low. I'm willing to bet if I had the energy to go through all the links for the Jihadist part the ratio would be a lot higher. For Sikh one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting as 'source of sources': https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/05/wisconsin-sikh-temple-domestic-terrorismhttp://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-oak-creek-wisconsin-officials-white-supremacist/story?id=16933779http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/05/breaking-reports-of-shooting-at-sikh-temple/?hpt=hp_t1Anyhow, the point feels strong enough either way. Oh, and the FEAR thing, the main incident had them described as terrorists but one of them went and killed his wife later and there were no mentions of terror in those articles iirc. So yeah. I suppose it's a bit different from your perspective but it's a bit complicated. On the Sikh one for example it was announced that they were investigating it as domestic terrorism, and so you see reports of it being announced that way, but you won't find later reports referencing it that way in most cases. The point there was also to denote them as terrorist attacks so it would make sense to source them as such. However, (this may be hard without using a US proxy) when looking around at general US coverage you'll find a lack of references in such ways. You'll also note it's practically never in the headlines.
I believe you on this one, I'm not a massive consumer of US news but I remember the milita armed takeover of some wild-life refuge last year and being sort of confused about how it wasn't described as terrorism.
EDIT: To clarify, maybe it's good that it went as.. relatively smoothly as it did, I just can't imagine the reaction being so tame if it was a bunch of muslim extremists.
Mostly just thought it was interesting to see if I could find a single case that TECHNICALLY fit the criteria.
|
On November 06 2017 15:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 13:45 xDaunt wrote: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.
I don't think that you're wrong here. In fact, I would broaden the link the from "economic freedom" to "individual freedom." And more to the point, I think that this emphasis upon individual freedom (nice job distilling its philosophical etiology, btw) is the root of the American Right's struggle to effectively respond coherently to the culture wars of the past few generations. Traditional American conservatism lacks the framework and vocabulary to deal with such issues.
|
American conservatism to my view is antithetical to individual freedom. It seeks to control, to deny sexual and religious freedom, against the rights of women, against rights of non-whites, and the rights of those who aren't politically aligned with them. So I don't see how you can say that the American right, or American conservatism has any emphasis upon individual freedom.
____
Before Trump, the Republic Party was for neo-liberalism. To be against regulation, for free markets, for globalisation. Donald Trump is not. He is for subsidizing various industries and for protectionalism.
|
On November 06 2017 22:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 15:06 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 13:45 xDaunt wrote: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. I don't think that you're wrong here. In fact, I would broaden the link the from "economic freedom" to "individual freedom." And more to the point, I think that this emphasis upon individual freedom (nice job distilling its philosophical etiology, btw) is the root of the American Right's struggle to effectively respond coherently to the culture wars of the past few generations. Traditional American conservatism lacks the framework and vocabulary to deal with such issues.
Republicans, all about individual freedom.
Except when it involves a black man peacefully protesting over having his freedom taken away
Or a flag
Or what gender someone is allowed to love
Or ...
|
On November 06 2017 22:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
American conservatism to my view is antithetical to individual freedom. It seeks to control, to deny sexual and religious freedom, against the rights of women, against rights of non-whites, and the rights of those who aren't politically aligned with them. So I don't see how you can say that the American right, or American conservatism has any emphasis upon individual freedom.
____
Before Trump, the Republic Party was for neo-liberalism. To be against regulation, for free markets, for globalisation. Donald Trump is not. He is for subsidizing various industries and for protectionalism.
That's part of the message.
It was never truly about "freedom", that's how it was just marketed. If it was about "freedom", the social conservatives wouldn't be in the party, since everything they push for runs counter to freedom. When you package that message and constantly tell your constituents that negative freedoms are the only ones that matter while actually only working for the interests of the business class, you end up where we are.
|
On November 06 2017 13:10 bigmetazltank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 12:58 LegalLord wrote:On November 06 2017 12:56 Karis Vas Ryaar 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.
17k retweets for an out of context image. Trump simply was following suit. It's actually infuriating that these minor things get blown up so heavily.
Even if you don't support the man try not to fall for these baits.
|
Norway28714 Posts
I see people make fun of his pants and I have no idea why. Agreed that this is ridiculous.
|
Yeah, making fun of his kids, his wife, his lips that look like a puckered asshole or the orange weave etc. just feel desperate. There's so much you could make fun of, and you choose his physique?
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Everyone is out to mislead for their own gain.
It's enough to make a man weep.
|
either i’m missing context or y’all are just confused. nobody is (at least in this page) criticizing his appearance.
unless y’all are seeing this in some other medium and i’m just not, which is plausible. i don’t see any critiques of his physique aside from his orange-ness. which i mean, he is pretty orange.
but yea the deliberate lying on the media’s behalf is sad. we already have enough people deliberately lying to us. sad times.
lol my favorite ‘trump under fire for improper fish feeding technique.’ awesome. slow news day i guess.
|
On November 06 2017 22:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 22:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
American conservatism to my view is antithetical to individual freedom. It seeks to control, to deny sexual and religious freedom, against the rights of women, against rights of non-whites, and the rights of those who aren't politically aligned with them. So I don't see how you can say that the American right, or American conservatism has any emphasis upon individual freedom.
____
Before Trump, the Republic Party was for neo-liberalism. To be against regulation, for free markets, for globalisation. Donald Trump is not. He is for subsidizing various industries and for protectionalism. That's part of the message. It was never truly about "freedom", that's how it was just marketed. If it was about "freedom", the social conservatives wouldn't be in the party, since everything they push for runs counter to freedom. When you package that message and constantly tell your constituents that negative freedoms are the only ones that matter while actually only working for the interests of the business class, you end up where we are.
There's something very Orwellian about what you just wrote.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Sorry couldn't resist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/VdVpmqZ.jpg)
