How Come Brown People Who Kill are Terrorists and White People Who Kill are Gunmen?

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 10, 2012 7:42 PM GMT
    A very telling article called The Top Ten Differences Between White Terrorists and others
    http://www.juancole.com/2012/08/top-ten-differences-between-white-terrorists-and-others.html

    icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2012 7:48 PM GMT
    "Brown people" don't even have to kill to be called a terrorist. They just have to be brown.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2012 7:58 PM GMT
    White people control the media.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2012 8:59 PM GMT
    Like the rest of Juan Cole's writings, this is just superficial, nattering, nonsense:

    JC> 1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”

    I'm all for gun control, but to equate any American who has a HAND-gun to an AK-47 toting person in a training camp is completely silly.


    JC> 2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.

    This is like comparing organized crime to a "troubled" kid stealing a bike.
    Or comparing a serial killer to a "troubled" kid who kills one person.

    The fact of the matter is that there is a network of terrorists who are trying to recruit people, including "troubled" people, to perpetrate acts of mass murder.


    JC> 3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.

    Which is as foolish as saying that seeking a grant to study homophobia (or anti-black racism) will get you a promotion, while seeking to study why gays hate straights (or anti-white racism) will get you sidelined.

    Not to mention the idiocy that no one studies "white terrorists" - or "brown terrorists.


    JC> 4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.

    Again layers of falsehoods, For starters, the media has much more access to the families of "white terrorists" than to someone living in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Nonetheless families of terrorists have been interviewed (one comes to mind of a mother hoping that all her children will become suicide bombers / shahids).

    JC> 5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.

    Let's not forget that following 9/11, in some countries support for the attack was well over 50%. (Even while paradoxically claiming that it was an inside job, etc.)


    JC> 6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.

    Should we really talk about the numbers?


    JC> 7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.

    So Italian (Red Army) terrorists aren't white? Or Germans (Baader-Meinhoff)? Did the British not identify Irish terrorists?

    Yes, that's in the past. Which groups today would qualify?

    Consider again the contrast: we identify "white supremacists", but not "black supremacists".


    JC> 8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.

    When 80% of a society supports the terrorists, aids and abets them, do they not speak for their society?

    See:

    Who speaks for Islam?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1090374


    JC> 9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.

    This is a variation of #3.


    JC> 10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

    How odd that airport security predates "brown terrorism", but this is a rehash of #1.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2012 10:08 PM GMT
    The same reason why whites "find" food in grocery stores after a natural disaster, but brown-skinned people "loot" said grocery stores.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Aug 10, 2012 11:20 PM GMT
    A very interesting article.

    The language the media uses about individuals, groups, or countries it approves/disapproves of is fascinating. For example, a dictatorial government the media approves of/finds acceptable (Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan under General Musharaf) is simply 'government' or 'authorities' or even 'highly conservative'; disapproval (Iran, Syria) is signalled by the label 'regime'.

    In the UK, terrorism in Northern Ireland was usually referred to as 'IRA' or 'Loyalist'. Their race or religion was never mentioned; nationality, rarely.There was never any talk of 'Christian' or 'Christianist'; 'Roman Catholic' or 'Protestant' terrorism, though it all had a religious element to it, especially from the Loyalists who saw it as 'self defence' of the Protestant denomination/people of Ulster against the oppressive, creeping 'Roman Catholicization' there; to preserve and protect that Protestant/Unionist culture and way of life.

    Interestingly, although noted by the British media, the American connection with the IRA/Sin Fein was not much discussed.

    More recently, all terrorism here committed by people who call themselves Muslim is invariably along the lines of 'Islamic', 'Islamicist', 'Jihadist', or 'Muslim' terrorism ;sometimes 'Middle Eastern'. I`ve never heard it called 'Arab' or 'Arabic', etc.

    There have been some individuals here caught planning or attempting terrorism of a white/christian/fascist agenda, similar to Anders Brevik in Norway, but they are usually talked of as 'insane' , 'crazy', ' loners', 'one offs', etc. One individual was caught at a railway station by a British Transport Police officer because he was urinating in public. His bag was found to contain bomb making equipment. The report on the evening news almost portrayed the incident as humourous! It`s sometimes noted by police/security spokesmen that these people are part of a wider conspiracy of sympathetic individuals and organizations in the UK, but usually not dwelt on. There seems an unwillingness to talk of such people, their organized presence in our society, their destructive beliefs and actions.

    When Christians do bad things against others or other denominations, etc. there`s no demanding of all Christians to condemn this minority for their actions, even though they often share very similar theologies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2012 11:51 PM GMT

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/06/my-take-sikh-temple-shooting-is-act-of-terrorism/?iref=allsearchImagine that you woke up on a beautiful Sunday morning to hear the news of a brown, bearded, gun-wielding madman who stormed into a Wisconsin church full of blond-haired parishioners and killed six innocent people.

    If that scenario did occur, would most Americans have any problem calling that an act of "terrorism"?

    Of course not.

    Now imagine that the shooter was a white man and the innocent victims were bearded brown men and head-covered women. Suddenly, the discussion of "terrorism" gets a lot more complicated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2012 11:55 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 said
    JC> 3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.

    Which is as foolish as saying that seeking a grant to study homophobia (or anti-black racism) will get you a promotion, while seeking to study why gays hate straights (or anti-white racism) will get you sidelined.

    Not to mention the idiocy that no one studies "white terrorists" - or "brown terrorists.


    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/07/645421/right-wing-extremism/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2012 4:26 AM GMT
    Yes, but that report confirms what I said:
    DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts..

    When a "madman" picks up a weapon and fires at a house of worship (or an abortion clinic or gay bar!) there simply aren't many potential points of interdiction and prevention (unfortunately there are enough "madmen" who could teeter over the edge and go postal)..

    Compare to an organized cell of people which has either come from abroad or gone there for training, perhaps even receiving money and weapons, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2012 5:07 AM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidYes, but that report confirms what I said:
    DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.


    Lone wolf or not, call them by the right name: terrorist. And yes, sometimes they do get support from domestic terrorist groups which can be informal.

    And for interdiction, until this country comes to its senses about restricting who should be able to own a gun and what kind of guns, you'll continue to see massacres intermittently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2012 6:24 AM GMT
    While gun availability is an integral part of the system, I think it is independent of what we define as terrorism.

    Is a kid shooting up his school a terrorist?
    Is a disgruntled employee shooting up his office a terrorist?
    Is a guy randomly shooting up a theater a terrorist?
    Is a guy attacking a house of worship a terrorist?

    Where does a domestic crime cross-over from being a "hate crime" and become "terrorism"?
    Don't these vary across states (or does the FBI have some standard)?

    At the level of international law, attacks generally aren't "terrorism" unless they have an international component to them. Consider Article 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings:
    This Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the alleged offender and the victims are nationals of that State, the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State and no other State has a basis under article 6, paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, of this Convention to exercise jurisdiction, except that the provisions of articles 10 to 15 shall, as appropriate, apply in those cases.


    In this particular case, even if some congressmen were angered, unless the authors were "sidelined" then Juan Cole's point is wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2012 10:43 AM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidLike the rest of Juan Cole's writings, this is just superficial, nattering, nonsense:

    JC> 1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”

    I'm all for gun control, but to equate any American who has a HAND-gun to an AK-47 toting person in a training camp is completely silly.


    JC> 2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.

    This is like comparing organized crime to a "troubled" kid stealing a bike.
    Or comparing a serial killer to a "troubled" kid who kills one person.

    The fact of the matter is that there is a network of terrorists who are trying to recruit people, including "troubled" people, to perpetrate acts of mass murder.


    JC> 3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.

    Which is as foolish as saying that seeking a grant to study homophobia (or anti-black racism) will get you a promotion, while seeking to study why gays hate straights (or anti-white racism) will get you sidelined.

    Not to mention the idiocy that no one studies "white terrorists" - or "brown terrorists.


    JC> 4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.

    Again layers of falsehoods, For starters, the media has much more access to the families of "white terrorists" than to someone living in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Nonetheless families of terrorists have been interviewed (one comes to mind of a mother hoping that all her children will become suicide bombers / shahids).

    JC> 5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.

    Let's not forget that following 9/11, in some countries support for the attack was well over 50%. (Even while paradoxically claiming that it was an inside job, etc.)


    JC> 6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.

    Should we really talk about the numbers?


    JC> 7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.

    So Italian (Red Army) terrorists aren't white? Or Germans (Baader-Meinhoff)? Did the British not identify Irish terrorists?

    Yes, that's in the past. Which groups today would qualify?

    Consider again the contrast: we identify "white supremacists", but not "black supremacists".


    JC> 8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.

    When 80% of a society supports the terrorists, aids and abets them, do they not speak for their society?

    See:

    Who speaks for Islam?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1090374


    JC> 9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.

    This is a variation of #3.


    JC> 10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

    How odd that airport security predates "brown terrorism", but this is a rehash of #1.


    This entire diatribe of yours would be reminiscent of someone denying the existence of the holocaust. Shame on you. You go on these long diatribes of persecution and suffering yet you discount the pain of others. I'm surprised you would present yourself in such a narrow minded manner.. It's like you assume there only exists one kind of "terrorism" because others have not felt your own personal suffering. Let's call a duck a duck, terrorism doesn't only manifest on foreign soil... If you remember correctly the Taj Mahal Hotel was raided by terrorists only a few years ago and the perps were not local.. The same can be said in North America... This land doesn't belong to one ethnic origin.. Otherwise the white man owes a lot of unpaid rent to the aboriginese.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2012 12:44 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 said
    At the level of international law, attacks generally aren't "terrorism" unless they have an international component to them. Consider Article 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings:
    This Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the alleged offender and the victims are nationals of that State, the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State and no other State has a basis under article 6, paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, of this Convention to exercise jurisdiction, except that the provisions of articles 10 to 15 shall, as appropriate, apply in those cases.


    In this particular case, even if some congressmen were angered, unless the authors were "sidelined" then Juan Cole's point is wrong.


    That's like saying domestic terrorism doesn't exist because an international convention governing international terrorism doesn't apply to it.
    My orthopedic textbook says nothing about kidney disease (well, almost nothing).icon_lol.gif
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Aug 11, 2012 2:51 PM GMT
    I think if you look back in history almost anyone who didn`t play by the rules written by the powerful have been called something pejorative, 'barbarian', etc. and thus dismissed. 'Terrorist' is the latest of these labels.

    The power of language to define and control people is not to be underestimated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2012 1:59 AM GMT
    Lincsbear saidI think if you look back in history almost anyone who didn`t play by the rules written by the powerful have been called something pejorative, 'barbarian', etc. and thus dismissed. 'Terrorist' is the latest of these labels.

    Sorry, but that is a sophomoric argument. Rules exist for a reason (in this and other cases to protect civilians) and calling someone by a name describing their crime (be it terrorism, murder or child abuse) is appropriate. Otherwise you could make the same defense for Jerry Sandusky or Jeffrey Dahmer (who wrote the rule that you can't eat your date... the "powerful"?).

    The mistake is using the "power of language" to cushion them.
    To apply Orwellian "doublespeak" to soften their crimes.
    (They're not terrorists but "militants" engaged in "resistance", etc.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2012 12:47 PM GMT
    At the level of international law, attacks generally aren't "terrorism" unless they have an international component to them.

    q1w2e3> That's like saying domestic terrorism doesn't exist because an international convention governing international terrorism doesn't apply to it.

    Why ignore my previous paragraph?

    Where does a domestic crime cross-over from being a "hate crime" and become "terrorism"?
    Don't these vary across states (or does the FBI have some standard)?


    We can look at the FBI's definition for TERRORISM (from the Code of Federal Regulations):
    the unlawful use [or threatened use] of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives

    In contrast, Congress has defined a HATE CRIME as:
    criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.


    My larger point stands, too:

    In this particular case, even if some congressmen were angered, unless the authors were "sidelined" then Juan Cole's point [#3] is wrong [like the other 9].
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2012 4:33 PM GMT
    if a white guy kills with a bat instead of a gun, would he be a bludgeonman?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2012 5:50 PM GMT
    SSJTrunks saidWhite people control the media.


    White liberals control the media actually.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Aug 13, 2012 8:14 PM GMT
    Wolverine4, my point was who writes these rules, and what particular values/ideology/agenda/interests to they bring to this writing?

    Why is it that convicted criminals here with a white/Christian/fascist agenda to threaten and coerce the democratic politicians(and wider society) into changing to ways they approve of-and are part of an organized conspiracy of other groups and individuals-are so rarely and reluctantly called for what others would invariably be ie 'terrorist'?

    A multitude of other, softer, less demeaning words are found to fit their case; to lessen their crimes, as you say?

    The double standards and hypocrisy are so blatant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2012 5:30 AM GMT
    Lincsbear saidWhy is it that convicted criminals here with a white/Christian/fascist agenda to threaten and coerce the democratic politicians(and wider society) into changing to ways they approve of-and are part of an organized conspiracy of other groups and individuals-are so rarely and reluctantly called for what others would invariably be ie 'terrorist'?

    You mean like Eric Rudolph?
    Yet the FBI categorized him as a terrorist.

    Who are you thinking of that should be but isn't categorized as a terrorist?