Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => American Politics => Topic started by: msj on February 26, 2017, 11:06:04 am
-
So, is "get out of my country" the white nationalist terrorist equivalent to "Allahu Akbar?"
I think they are substantially the same.
Background on this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/24/get-out-of-my-country-kansan-reportedly-yelled-before-shooting-2-men-from-india-killing-one/?utm_term=.81fb82d8c817
-
I met a woman when travelling in Ecuador in 2015.
She is originally from India, works for IBM, and lives in Kansas.
Fortunately her job takes her around the world - but I expect my wife will start seeing posts on FB about being detained when returning back to the US.
I hope she does okay and does not get between a white nationalist and his gun.
-
So, is "get out of my country" the white nationalist terrorist equivalent to "Allahu Akbar?"
I think they are substantially the same.
Background on this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/24/get-out-of-my-country-kansan-reportedly-yelled-before-shooting-2-men-from-india-killing-one/?utm_term=.81fb82d8c817
I think that's a fair point. Certainly both are equally deplorable, when applied as justification for such actions.
If only he had killed himself as well.
-
Just like Islamist terrorists, if only white nationalists/racists would kill themselves first and not kill anyone else period.
Preferably do so before they breed more idiots too.
-
Allahu akhbar isn't some terrorist chant any more than "to God goes the glory" is a white nationalist chant.
-
Ok, to be more specific, I am only talking about the phrase "Allahu akbar" when an Islamist is blowing himself up, flying a plane into buildings, or otherwise killing civillians.
Just as I have no problem with the British telling Trump to get out of their country (or, rather, don't come to their country) which is perfectly legitimate when it is not done with a smoking gun.
-
So basically you're asking if hate-crimes intended to scare immigrants qualify as terrorist attacks?
I think there's a reasonable argument to make that yes, they could be considered terror attacks. Much like abortion-clinic bombings/arson.
-civilian targets
-political motivation
-intended to intimidate others into a course of action.
Of course, like abortion clinic bombings, most people won't actually call this terrorism, because as far as they're concerned it's only terrorism if there's Muslims involved.
-k
-
I voted both are associated with terrorism but different.
My rationale was similar to kimmy's in that the act is intended to cause fear.
I would also add a couple of other commonalities. First is the obvious sense of apathy and the second is the element of self-sacrifice for the greater good of a uniform society. One wants everyone to look like them, the other want everyone to think like them, and both are willing to sacrifice themselves and kill in order to get there.
As a quick clarification, I know Islamic terrorism is a complex ideology and I'm not talking about revenge attacks in this comparison; merely attacks in the name of an Islamic caliphate which I see similar to white nationalism.
-
Of course, like abortion clinic bombings, most people won't actually call this terrorism, because as far as they're concerned it's only terrorism if there's Muslims involved.
-k
Oh not that old leftist cliche! There was lots of non-Muslim terrorism in the West when you were a baby and nobody ever hesitated to call it that, whether it was the FLQ here or the Baader Meinhof group in Germany or the Red Brigades in Italy or the Japanese Red Army. They committed organized, bloody violence.
The only reason people hesitate to call things like this 'terrorism' is because of the uncertainty about the motivation of the person who committed the act, and his associations or affiliation with any sort of group. What it seems like is some stupid mean drunk with a gun in the pickup who didn't like foreigners. Calling it terrorism seems like, I don't know, giving it an importance that this guy doesn't deserve. I don't think he planned anything nor was a member of any group, nor had any particular political philosophy other than a redneck dislike of anyone not like him.
Anyone who bombs an abortion clinic or shoots an abortion worker, on the other hand, is a terrorist. Why? Because those are planned and deliberate and such people are invariably imbued with the ranting and ravings of a variety of anti-abortion groups.
-
The only reason people hesitate to call things like this 'terrorism' is because of the uncertainty about the motivation of the person who committed the act, and his associations or affiliation with any sort of group. What it seems like is some stupid mean drunk with a gun in the pickup who didn't like foreigners. Calling it terrorism seems like, I don't know, giving it an importance that this guy doesn't deserve. I don't think he planned anything nor was a member of any group, nor had any particular political philosophy other than a redneck dislike of anyone not like him.
Is membership in some kind of group a requirement? I thought that "lone wolf terrorism" was now a thing. People were ok with calling Omar Mateen a terrorist, because even though he had no connection with any formal terror group, he was apparently inspired by ISIS or something.
If there were an effort to publish this message-- "foreigners get out of America!" -- to a broader audience in connection with the attack, would that make it a terror attack?
Anyone who bombs an abortion clinic or shoots an abortion worker, on the other hand, is a terrorist. Why? Because those are planned and deliberate and such people are invariably imbued with the ranting and ravings of a variety of anti-abortion groups.
And yet you never hear any government official or security official describe those things as terrorism. If attacks on abortion clinics were considered terrorism they'd be the runaway leader in terror attacks on US soil, by a wide margin. Even when that guy went on a shooting rampage in Colorado Springs he was a "pro-life extremist", not a terrorist.
-k
-
Is membership in some kind of group a requirement? I thought that "lone wolf terrorism" was now a thing. People were ok with calling Omar Mateen a terrorist, because even though he had no connection with any formal terror group, he was apparently inspired by ISIS or something.
Because ISIS sets out to inspire their followers to do this sort of thing, calls on them to do it, sends instructions in how to do it, and gives out approving press releases when they happen. Did anyone or group call in this guy to shoot a couple of foreigners? Did any group in America celebrate what he'd done? Did the KKK or some other group release a triumphant video or something?
This was just a stupid, mean drunk, unfortunately not entirely unlike many, many, many such we've seen in the US, who, upon being ejected for his shitty attitude, goes to the car, gets a gun, and comes back shooting.
And yet you never hear any government official or security official describe those things as terrorism. If attacks on abortion clinics were considered terrorism they'd be the runaway leader in terror attacks on US soil, by a wide margin. Even when that guy went on a shooting rampage in Colorado Springs he was a "pro-life extremist", not a terrorist.
-k
And why is it that whenever a Muslim terrorist is arrested some people rush to claim that he was really just mentally unbalanced - usually with no evidence. Meanwhile, this guy was found to be mentally unbalanced by a psychiatrist and confined to a mental institution, but you still want to call him a terrorist?
Abortion violence is intermittent, and not something most ordinary people fear. There have been less than a dozen deaths in history, seven in the last twenty five years, and hasn't roused the public's anxiety level. 9/11 raised the bar on what people fear, and targeted it at Muslims. And the Muslim world has done nothing since then, given more than 30,000 terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, to change that.
-
And the Muslim world has done nothing since then, given more than 30,000 terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, to change that.
I wonder how many civilians have been killed by western military forces since 9/11? 32,000? 200,000? Two million? Who knows, nobody is keeping track. Why haven't the people of the US, Canada, UK, Australia, Russia done something to prevent those deaths? Surely, we do not accept that it's ok to have 10s or 100s of thousands of innocent and non-military people killed to 'protect' our countries, which aren't even under attack in any real sense.
On the other hand, research tells us that US citizens are more accepting of 'collateral damage', aka dead civilians, than are Muslims around the world. Perhaps our habit of killing innocent people dwarfs that of Islamic terrorists, but we don't care.
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx
-
I wonder how many civilians have been killed by western military forces since 9/11? 32,000? 200,000? Two million?
Most of them killed by Muslims. I mean, the US conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq was quick and caused few civilian deaths. What caused so many deaths was the brutality of the terrorist forces which attacked them without regard to collateral damage, and attacked each other. Most of those who died in Afghanistan and Iraq were killed by Muslims, not western military forces.
I've said it before. The West has no interest in the middle east other than to ensure a level of stability which allows the importation (at great cost) of oil. How they order themselves there is irrelevant to us over here as long as it doesn't interfere with oil exports. Western intervention is always a result of violence and chaos there caused by Muslims. A stable government able to police its own territory and which doesn't attack others is not going to have any trouble from the West.
-
Most of them killed by Muslims. I mean, the US conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq was quick and caused few civilian deaths. attack others is not going to have any trouble from the West.
That is such BS, but then you probably weren't there as I was. And if the US conquered Iraq and Afghanistan, why then are they both still in so much turmoil, and what do you suppose begat ISIS?
-
Here we find another old white guy trying to set fire to a convenience store to "run the Arabs out...."
Yet another idiot terrorist who is too stupid to understand that Quik E Marts are run by people from India. ;D :o
The only way to send this twit back to where he came from is to send him to buttf^ck Florida.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/11/us/muslim-florida-store-fire/index.html?sr=twCNN031217muslim-florida-store-fire0716PMVODtopLink&linkId=35399874
-
That is such BS, but then you probably weren't there as I was.
Riiiight. Do you even know which side of a gun shoots the little lead thing?
And if the US conquered Iraq and Afghanistan, why then are they both still in so much turmoil, and what do you suppose begat ISIS?
They won the wars and lost the peace. In both places they wound up with a corrupt, incompetent local administration, and in neither were there sufficient security forces, in part due to their own incompetence in firing all the Iraqi cops and disbanding the military. Even the UN says most civilian deaths were due to 'insurgents'.
-
Riiiight. Do you even know which side of a gun shoots the little lead thing?
They won the wars and lost the peace. In both places they wound up with a corrupt, incompetent local administration, and in neither were there sufficient security forces, in part due to their own incompetence in firing all the Iraqi cops and disbanding the military. Even the UN says most civilian deaths were due to 'insurgents'.
"Won the wars"? surely you jest. They won nothing as both countries are in worse shape than they were prior to the invasions. In Iraq's case, (what was the reason for that one anyway)? they put in place a puppet government that was Shia and they in turn fired all Saddam's people who actually kept the lights on etc., in the country, because they were Sunni. A lot of them didn't like being kicked out of work, especially when they were much more confident that their replacements, and ended up having access to a lot of military hardware the US left behind. Voila, ISIS.
And perhaps you meant to say which END of the gun shoots the little lead thing. Blackwater is very good at explaining such things I'll fill you in some time if you like.
-
"Won the wars"? surely you jest. They won nothing as both countries are in worse shape than they were prior to the invasions. In Iraq's case, (what was the reason for that one anyway)? they put in place a puppet government that was Shia and they in turn fired all Saddam's people who actually kept the lights on etc
Were you in favour of the apartheid like government before that, where the minority Suunis controlled everything and the majority Shia had no power?
I'll grant you the US screwed things up. They had this childishly naïve attitude about bringing in democratic rule. Democratic rule in the middle east doesn't work. Democracy requires compromise and Arabs don't do compromise very well, especially with those who have a different set of religious beliefs. So the government that got elected immediately started screwing over everyone else while raking in the cash for everything they possibly could, and appointing buddies with no military or police experience to high positions in the police and military.
How did ISIS take over so much of Iraq? Simple. The Iraq military, which was much bigger and better equipped, refused to fight. They broke and ran from far, far smaller groups, leaving behind all their equipment. If I recall right they lost Mosul when something like 10,000 Iraqi soldiers equipped with tanks, artillery and armored cars fled from a couple of hundred guys in jeeps and pickup trucks, leaving everything but their soiled underwear behind.
To a certain extent, they had the same problem in Afghanistan, stuck with a local president and his cronies who had little interest in ruling beyond self-enrichment. They should have found a suitable strongman for these jobs, put him in place, and let him clamp down on those who disagreed as he chose. There would have been far less blood in the end.
-
Were you in favour of the apartheid like government before that, where the minority Suunis controlled everything and the majority Shia had no power?
Allowing that system to be totally reversed was one of the dumbest things the US could have done there, ( of course beyond the actual invasion)especially since the Shia had no experience at that level. As to having a strong man in power to control things, they had one, but as Tommy Franks pointed out during an interview in congress after his deployment there, "we had such a man but we pulled his head off". They might have been better to control Saddam as opposed to killing him immediately. Prior to the invasion Baghdad was a peaceful place to walk around and explore, day or night, and you could get a glass of wine with dinner. Granted if you were a local and said bad things about Saddam he might have you thrown through a leaf chipper, but the trains ran on time. Afghanistan is a totally different animal. They don't want anything like a central government, I suggest at least in part due to strong tribal sentiments and an extreme lack of education. Oh well, the US did do a lot of road repairs so I guess one outcome of the war will be an enhanced poppy trade.
-
Were you in favour of the apartheid like government before that, where the minority Suunis controlled everything and the majority Shia had no power?
Competently allowing that situation to be reversed was one of the dumbest things the US stood back and allowed to happen, especially when the Shia had no experience at that level.