![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumAnd shapes popular opinion.
The most commonly shared features of terrorists in the US is that they are male, and religiously fundamentalist. They tend to be politically conservative, white and Christian.
Prior to 9/11 the most devastating... I don't know that it's the right word, but certainly the largest, most memorable attack was Timothy Mcveigh's attack in Oklahoma City. He used a truck to plant an Ammonium Nitrate and deisel bomb under the Murrah Building.
Yesterday, in Oslo a right wing, religiously conservative Christian did the same thing, and then went on to shoot at least 84, to death, at a summer camp which happened to have teens from families who belonged to a political party he didn't like.
He seems to have claimed ties to racist/fascist/rightwing groups in England.
The New York Times, today, said this/:
Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda’s brutality and multiple attacks.
“If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda,” said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington. “One lesson I take away from this is that attacks, especially in the West, are going to move to automatic weapons.”
Wow... It was done by a white christian. Who used a tactic (vehicular bomb made from ANFO, and then went on to shoot people.
This is evidence that people are emulating al Qaeda?
Because no in the West ever went to a school and shot at people. Never happened in Texas. Nope.
No one ever went to someplace where people he didn't like, whom he felt were ruining things for people like him, certainly not at, The École Polytechnique in Montreal.
I suppose the guy who crashed his Cessna into the IRS offices could be said to be imitating al Qaeda, but the FBI said that wasn't terrorism.
No, see when a Right-wing Christian does it, those are one offs. If a White Person has some strange grudge with the world that makes him (it's almost always a male) lose it and start killing people, even when he's linked to groups with agendas, he's a "lone wolf".
When a brown person does something (even when tricked into it by the FBI) they are "agents of Islam".
Meidaite has a slew of comments about how Oslo must have been perpetrated by Muslims (and how they all want to "wipe us out". Presidential candidates are saying that building mosques is an infringement of religious freedom (apparently Herman Cain thinks bigotry = religious freedom, if one is a Christian; but practicing one's faith is intolerance of others, if one isn't).
And the NY Times is buying into this. They ran an unsubstantiable claim about a hitherto unknown group (and the mediaite comments have people saying, "If they don't want to be blamed, they shouldn't take credit. Never mind that no one seems to have publicly done so).
Which colors how analysts, and esp. the public, see things. When the Eric Rudolphs, and the Scott Roeders aren't called terrorists, and the Ted Kaczynskis are, when the people who say they are are out to kill Liberals* are glossed over. Wikipedia says Adkisson was, "politically motivated" which links to the page on terrorism, but the actual article doesn't use the word. The Discussion pages says, Ironically enough, yes - it pretty much fits the standard definition. However, we should still refrain from calling it so, or calling Addkisson a terrorist
Why? Because terrorist is a"contetious, value laden word" and it requires a lot of people in "reputable sources" to justify it. So they will call Ted Kaczynski a "domestic terrorist", but not a James Adkisson.
And that bias, that sense that the, "terrorist is other" is a big problem. The Order went on a rampage in the Pacific Northwest, but no one talks about them. A kid sets off a bomb to commit suicide, "OMG the Muslmms are attacking".
But it's not. And the guy in Oslo wasn't either. Our greatest real threat is the Adkissons, the Kaczynski's, the Orders; all the people who live here, and are being so disaffected they see nothing short of purging the evil with blood.
We would do best to remember: We have met the enemy, and he is us.
*an excerpt from Askisson's Manifesto Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate, + House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the Main stream Media. But I knew these people were inaccesible to me. I couldn't get to the generals + high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence!”
The most commonly shared features of terrorists in the US is that they are male, and religiously fundamentalist. They tend to be politically conservative, white and Christian.
Prior to 9/11 the most devastating... I don't know that it's the right word, but certainly the largest, most memorable attack was Timothy Mcveigh's attack in Oklahoma City. He used a truck to plant an Ammonium Nitrate and deisel bomb under the Murrah Building.
Yesterday, in Oslo a right wing, religiously conservative Christian did the same thing, and then went on to shoot at least 84, to death, at a summer camp which happened to have teens from families who belonged to a political party he didn't like.
He seems to have claimed ties to racist/fascist/rightwing groups in England.
The New York Times, today, said this/:
Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda’s brutality and multiple attacks.
“If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda,” said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington. “One lesson I take away from this is that attacks, especially in the West, are going to move to automatic weapons.”
Wow... It was done by a white christian. Who used a tactic (vehicular bomb made from ANFO, and then went on to shoot people.
This is evidence that people are emulating al Qaeda?
Because no in the West ever went to a school and shot at people. Never happened in Texas. Nope.
No one ever went to someplace where people he didn't like, whom he felt were ruining things for people like him, certainly not at, The École Polytechnique in Montreal.
I suppose the guy who crashed his Cessna into the IRS offices could be said to be imitating al Qaeda, but the FBI said that wasn't terrorism.
No, see when a Right-wing Christian does it, those are one offs. If a White Person has some strange grudge with the world that makes him (it's almost always a male) lose it and start killing people, even when he's linked to groups with agendas, he's a "lone wolf".
When a brown person does something (even when tricked into it by the FBI) they are "agents of Islam".
Meidaite has a slew of comments about how Oslo must have been perpetrated by Muslims (and how they all want to "wipe us out". Presidential candidates are saying that building mosques is an infringement of religious freedom (apparently Herman Cain thinks bigotry = religious freedom, if one is a Christian; but practicing one's faith is intolerance of others, if one isn't).
And the NY Times is buying into this. They ran an unsubstantiable claim about a hitherto unknown group (and the mediaite comments have people saying, "If they don't want to be blamed, they shouldn't take credit. Never mind that no one seems to have publicly done so).
Which colors how analysts, and esp. the public, see things. When the Eric Rudolphs, and the Scott Roeders aren't called terrorists, and the Ted Kaczynskis are, when the people who say they are are out to kill Liberals* are glossed over. Wikipedia says Adkisson was, "politically motivated" which links to the page on terrorism, but the actual article doesn't use the word. The Discussion pages says, Ironically enough, yes - it pretty much fits the standard definition. However, we should still refrain from calling it so, or calling Addkisson a terrorist
Why? Because terrorist is a"contetious, value laden word" and it requires a lot of people in "reputable sources" to justify it. So they will call Ted Kaczynski a "domestic terrorist", but not a James Adkisson.
And that bias, that sense that the, "terrorist is other" is a big problem. The Order went on a rampage in the Pacific Northwest, but no one talks about them. A kid sets off a bomb to commit suicide, "OMG the Muslmms are attacking".
But it's not. And the guy in Oslo wasn't either. Our greatest real threat is the Adkissons, the Kaczynski's, the Orders; all the people who live here, and are being so disaffected they see nothing short of purging the evil with blood.
We would do best to remember: We have met the enemy, and he is us.
*an excerpt from Askisson's Manifesto Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate, + House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the Main stream Media. But I knew these people were inaccesible to me. I couldn't get to the generals + high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence!”
