How Come It's Not Terrorism When a White Guy from the South Does It? | Alternet

In late May, a threatening letter laced with the deadly chemical ricin was sent from Shreveport, Louisiana, to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a response to the mayor’s outspoken support for stricter gun control laws. Two identical letters, also containing the lethal substance, were addressed to both President Barack Obama and the head of the Washington D.C. lobbying group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is managed and funded by Bloomberg himself.

The contents of the letters are clearly the work of a right-wing gun nut and readas follows: “You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional, god-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die. What’s in this letter is nothing compared to what I’ve got planned for you.”

Despite lethally targeting civilians and non-military officials far from any active battlefield, no one is referring to these acts as terrorism. Not the press, not political pundits, not the intended victims. No one.

In fact, Bloomberg himself was nonplussed by the whole ordeal, telling reporters on May 30, “I’m not angry. There are people who I would argue do things that may be irrational, do things that are wrong, but it’s a very complex world out there and we just have to deal with that.”

Yes, Mike, it is a very complex world. This world is so complex, in fact, that an easily identifiable act of terrorism isn’t considered terrorism for one simple reason: it probably wasn’t committed by a Muslim, but rather by some white guy in the South.

(cont.)

Discuss.

Jesus. fucking. christ. This again?

I might as well post the articles here too.

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil | Washington's Blog

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 99.6% that Aren't | loonwatch.com

the illinformed blog you posted wrote:

Looking at all people killed by terrorist attacks in Europe and North America during the last 10 years, 97% was committed by Muslim terrorist, or 4703 of 4873 killed. Most of this is September 11 alone.

Still, even if we exclude the September 11 attacks, the share of casualties due to Muslim terror is 91%.

Close to 3000 people died in the September 11 attacks. The share of casualties due to Muslim terror is still 91%?

Sooooo I'm just going to go ahead and assume that the blogger is talking out of their ass and truly has no clue what they are talking about. But I shall continue to read it and continue to call out all the blatant bullllshit none the less just for shits and giggles.

The worst terror attack ever committed on American soil was committed by Muslim terrorists. In the pie chart that the blogger posts in the darkest green section it says "United States, Muslim 3000". So according to that chart ALL of the people who died from Muslim Terrorist attacks in the United States died on 9/11. Meaning that is the only terrorist attack executed by muslims that resulted in death on American soil (which would be completely inaccurate... meaning, once again, that your blogger's entire post is most likely just bull shit).

You would think that the RDWTI (the database that the blogger claims they used for their research) would have a more accurate number than "3000", but hey. That's on them.

The biggest red flag I guess, is that when you go to search anything on RDWTI the ability to distinguish between the religions of the terrorists isn't actually an available selection at all... Hmm. Go figure. There are a lot of things you can search specifically for though:

The continent where the attack took place
The country where the attack took place
The group that claimed responsibility for it
The "tactic" (options include Armed Attack, Arson, Assassination etc.)
The weapon of choice
The target of the attack (Diplomats, food or water supply, military etc.)
Whether or not it was a suicide attack
Whether or not it took place in a country different from the country of origin of the terrorist
Whether or not the attack was claimed at all
The number of fatalities
and the number of people injured.

However of all the things you can make pie charts for, religion isn't one of them. In fact if you select a specific event it doesn't even tell you the religious preference of any of the organizations that carried out the attacks. Weirrrrrd. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 01:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 AM ----------

Ari Gold wrote:

>alternet

Fuck off, OP.

You are literally the only person I've ever encountered that immediately casts off an article based solely on the publication. I used to think you were intelligent, but intelligence more often than not implies an open mind, of which you truly seem to lack... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But that's still inaccurate. So your blogger.

so you don't have to click any links wrote:

"Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security."

Well, that is exactly what he did. In the RAND database it isn't said if the terrorists were Muslim or not, so he scanned every attack, and determined by its characteristics if it was perpetuated by Muslims or not. if he wasn't sure, he classified it as non-Muslim. That pie chart is his work, not RAND's.

So what you're telling me is that this man went through every single one of the
2000+ (not 4000 as stated in the blog, meaning that it's probably bull shit) incidents that happened in North America and Western Europe and then googled every single specific organization involved with every single incident and just completely ignored Eastern Europe (which is also within search parameters)... hmm seems a little too fishy to me.

Also, those articles you brought aren't completely free of manipulations themselves.

So rather than posting pull shit blog posts that are obviously bull shit, and could literally be nothing else but bull shit... you should have just mentioned those.

I was wrong when I wrote that Muslims are those who perpetuate the vast majority of terror attacks in the Western world, I should've written "fatal terror attacks". The Islamic terrorists are maybe not the majority ot terrorists, but they're definitely presenting the biggest [b]threat, so no wonder why they're being treated as such.[/B]

In the blog post you posted (after the guy spouts his bull shit facts he gives his shockingly valid opinion) it LITERALLY says:

the lame ass blog your posted wrote:

Unlike Neo-cons, I do not believe that radical Islamism is a threat to our civilization the same way Nazism or Communism ever was. The reason is that militant Islamism is too disorganized.

Lack of organization makes it hard to eradicate militant Islamism, as is no center of power you can knock out to end the war. However it also means Islamists are unable to concentrate the force required to really threaten us. At worst, they can kill a few thousand innocent civilians, which is of course horrible, but hardly on the same civilization-threatening level as Nazis exterminating millions or Communists threatening to eradicate Europe with nukes.

Second, unlike Communism and Fascism, militant Islamism has little attraction as an ideology in the West. During the cold war communist sympathizers infiltrated governments and other key institutions in the United States and Western Europe. Communist American scientists stole U.S military technology and helped Stalin build nuclear weapons. The same will not happen with regards to radical Islam. Today there are very few American scientists who are True Believers (Useful Idiots) and likely to steal nuclear secrets and give them to Bin Laden.

Do you even read the things you post? I agree they are the biggest threat though. The biggest threat they pose to us is that they're so small they're unpredictable.

Ari Gold wrote:

What if I posted a political article from Fox News about Obama? Would you even bother to consider that?

Yeah actually I would, I always read the sources people present to me. Even if it's from a disreputable source. Accurate until proven otherwise.

The definition of a Terror Attack as defined by the free dictionary "a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims". Soooooo a mass shooting that is politically motivated would be considered a terror attack... I fail to see how it couldn't be seen as a terror attack. What would it be considered if not a "real terror attack". What is the difference between a real terror attack and a fake terror attack? :confused:

Also, who made you the one who gets to decide what is considered a terror attack or not? Stop defining the argument with bull shit claims like "it's not considered a real terror attack". I mean wasn't the definition of terrorism kind of what this entire thread was about in the first place? So you telling me what the "true definition" of terrorism is is what is truly irrelevant in the situation.

Well, yeah. That what he said in the first paragraph (you did read the article, didn't you?), that's not a very hard thing to do, assuming you have enough time and determination. Actually he explained pretty well what his methodology was so you should just read the beginning of the page again.

how is this such obviously bullshit but yet you have failed to prove even one thing wrong in it?

It's impossible to prove anything he said wrong because you are forced to assume at the beginning that he's right and that he's telling the whole truth. The best way to go about figuring out if a writer can be trusted is checking the accuracy of the details he posts. He claims he went through 4000+ incidents and looked up every single organization that carried out every single terror attack in Western Europe and in the United States... yet when you go to use the database he used there aren't even 2,500 incidents in those regions in the timeframe he mentioned, nevermind 2,500 incidents that resulted in death in the timeframe he mentioned. He also says "when RAND does not provide information on likely or confirmed perpetrators and we have no strong suspicions, I assume they were non-Muslim". Key word "when". (RAND doesn't provide that kind of information about any of the terrorist groups...) Key phrase "no strong suspicions" implying that they often guessed... He also talks about state department data claiming there have been 10,000 politically motivated deaths yearly caused my islamic extremists in the last decade in other parts of the world (which could be totally accurate)... but then doesn't link to it.

So I don't know, there are way too many things working against this post factually for me to automatically trust him just because you do. The research I've been presenting to you is peer-reviewed and fact checked. This blog isn't...

Wait, so i must agree with everything he writes just because i used some of his research to prove something? Gimme a fucking break.

His very valid opinion is very valid though. *shrug* It's just slightly ironic was all, I don't think I implied that you HAVE to agree with everything the guy believes, sorry if that's how it sounded. :blush:

So in the end, you actually agree with my original statement. Nice.

False, in the end I don't think you're COMPLETELY wrong. That doesn't mean I agree, there is a difference. :wink: Just because they're the biggest threat doesn't mean they're entirely viable or that we should be spending trillions in our efforts to thwart them. Billions, maybe, but certainly not trillions. I think that's kind of what they want us to do don't you think?

Ari Gold wrote:

shut up pussy

you're so boring now Rob.