Who are the Atomwaffen and what do they Represent?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

The Lunatic:

Black gangs typically lean left

Yup, the Black Gangster Disciples, Top 6, The Blood Nation, are known for their pro-feminist, pro-LGBT and anti male rhetoric...

Vrex360:
/s

Excellent, but you forgot to add in

-The KKK was founded by Democrats and Nazis were National SOCIALISTS, so the OTHER side are the racists and REAL Nazis!

ObsidianJones:

I hear you. But literally, this isn't what I went to school for. It might be what you went for school for. Or you're extremely well read. And if so, please link me to places where what you're saying has been adopted.

I make it a rule not to just blindly trust what people on the internet say. I'll keep an open mind to believe I could be wrong and then go to a source that shows me how I'm wrong.

If you're interested you might look up a book called the New York Bar Picture Book. Its an illuistrated study guide for that exam. It has examples of US case law and some discussion on obscelete case law, but realistically it is mostly a study guide for the topics of critical import for a lawyer.

If you're really interested in improving your personal understanding of US law this is a good way to do it. You won't get all the specifics of the cases you and CM are discussing, but you will have a way better understanding of how laws work and are applied in the states for better or worse. I dont have my copy beside me but I believe it does give references for case studies if you want to look up important case laws and judicial interpretations of them for yourself.

It will really help in discussions like this because, as CM pointed out, on the internet you see a lot of legal arguments where people are completely correct for the complete wrong reasons. It leads to situations where people start from a correct statement and extend it to a very wrong one because they started from the wrong point.

Smithnikov:

The Lunatic:

Black gangs typically lean left

Yup, the Black Gangster Disciples, Top 6, The Blood Nation, are known for their pro-feminist, pro-LGBT and anti male rhetoric...

Let's be perfectly frank. Even if black gangs do lean to the left, this is a borderline Hitler Ate Sugar argument. They lean to the left. Ok. How does that overlap with what they do? See, if gangsters do vote for Democrat candidates, I don't really see any overlap between this and what they do as gangsters. Joining a gang tends to be more a thing of economic necessity, as well as security. Not joining hate groups, which is much more of an political thing, since it tends to involve the person joining up to go out of their way to find the organization in question. Also gangs don't really discriminate when it comes to targets. They're shit people, but trying to connect that shitness to their leftness is asinine. Let's just remember, in right vs left, which one has elected a president that has openly advocated for violence against people who pissed him off.

Even then, you're spot on. I don't see Crips and Bloods at women marches.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

How do you suggest the problem be solved. Last I checked violent crime is one of those things we all just have to live with.

They're a group of men with a working website that meet in a specific place. A number of their members have commuted crimes resulting in murders, and they're clearly training to commit more.

The police have raided houses for less. I understand that police officers are hesitant about acting against their own but stopping this cell of neo Nazi terrorists doesn't seem like a complicated feat

So you'd be cool with police raiding the home of inner-city teenagers who are known to be involved in gang activity at the police's discretion on the assumption thag they might kill someone at some point maybe?

Police already do that pretty easily.

But then again, this entire thread can be summed up with

"There's a white neo Nazi terrorist cell linked to multiple murders that's openly recruiting and planning larger acts of terrorism. What should we do?"

"But what about black on black gang violence?"

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

They're a group of men with a working website that meet in a specific place. A number of their members have commuted crimes resulting in murders, and they're clearly training to commit more.

The police have raided houses for less. I understand that police officers are hesitant about acting against their own but stopping this cell of neo Nazi terrorists doesn't seem like a complicated feat

So you'd be cool with police raiding the home of inner-city teenagers who are known to be involved in gang activity at the police's discretion on the assumption thag they might kill someone at some point maybe?

Police already do that pretty easily.

But then again, this entire thread can be summed up with

"There's a white neo Nazi terrorist cell linked to multiple murders that's openly recruiting and planning larger acts of terrorism. What should we do?"

"But what about black on black gang violence?"

It's because they literally couldn't care less as the targets will never be them, plus shared sympathies with certain fears of the coloured outsiders and hate of progressives mean they have to find any flimsy disingenuous rebuttal or deflection to justify convincing pesky others to ignore these pure-bred home-baked terrorists

The Lunatic:

Avnger:
Well true... right-wing fascists and Nazis in particular are violent groups of people.

Maybe.

Black gangs typically lean left and they're significantly higher in terms of body count.

Do they get a thread next?

I would love to see some evidence supporting this. Although we both know you don't have any.

Feel free to make a thread about gang violence though. Last I checked, no one would stop you. Unless, of course, you don't actually care and are just playing whataboutism...

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

How do you suggest the problem be solved. Last I checked violent crime is one of those things we all just have to live with.

They're a group of men with a working website that meet in a specific place. A number of their members have commuted crimes resulting in murders, and they're clearly training to commit more.

The police have raided houses for less. I understand that police officers are hesitant about acting against their own but stopping this cell of neo Nazi terrorists doesn't seem like a complicated feat

So you'd be cool with police raiding the home of inner-city teenagers who are known to be involved in gang activity at the police's discretion on the assumption thag they might kill someone at some point maybe?

This literally happens daily in the US. A lot of the time, the police do so shooting first and asking questions after particularly in the inner-city. It's common enough in major US cities that it's barely newsworthy unless something seriously goes wrong or a cop is shot in the process.

CM156:

For the first one? Here's a good link. Try starting here. Popehat is in general a good blog for first amendment issues. Try the second trope here for your specific point. Here.

Here's a link to the Court's decision in Miller v California. Link.. I'll TL;DR it for you: The court threw out Roth v. United States and other cases which determine obscenity. The Miller test is very difficult to deal with for pro-censorship folks and most cases brought before the court have been struck down due to one of its prongs.

Edited. Thank you for the info.

EvilRoy:

ObsidianJones:

I hear you. But literally, this isn't what I went to school for. It might be what you went for school for. Or you're extremely well read. And if so, please link me to places where what you're saying has been adopted.

I make it a rule not to just blindly trust what people on the internet say. I'll keep an open mind to believe I could be wrong and then go to a source that shows me how I'm wrong.

If you're interested you might look up a book called the New York Bar Picture Book. Its an illuistrated study guide for that exam. It has examples of US case law and some discussion on obscelete case law, but realistically it is mostly a study guide for the topics of critical import for a lawyer.

If you're really interested in improving your personal understanding of US law this is a good way to do it. You won't get all the specifics of the cases you and CM are discussing, but you will have a way better understanding of how laws work and are applied in the states for better or worse. I dont have my copy beside me but I believe it does give references for case studies if you want to look up important case laws and judicial interpretations of them for yourself.

It will really help in discussions like this because, as CM pointed out, on the internet you see a lot of legal arguments where people are completely correct for the complete wrong reasons. It leads to situations where people start from a correct statement and extend it to a very wrong one because they started from the wrong point.

Added to Amazon.

The Lunatic:

Maybe.

Black gangs typically lean left and they're significantly higher in terms of body count.

Do they get a thread next?

Actually. Speaking as someone who's known gang members? Not many of them are current with politics. Why? One of the fundamental reasons that people join a gang is that they don't see a way to survive the block other than joining a gang. School System failed them in their minds. Job opportunities failed them in their mind. Family failed them in their minds.

With most things failing them... do you really think they have Crip meetings about who they are going to support in the upcoming midterm elections?

Look. I know you got called out about this idea a lot in this thread. As much as you would like to equate black gangs to terrorists, you can not. In truth, Black Gangs have more in common with those bankers who defrauded the system and got bailed out. Bankers are higher on the list because what they stole, they harmed all of America, not just the region they are in. But in essence, the Bankers and the Gangs are in it for themselves. Steal, hurt, who cares? As long as they get theirs.

And both do not deserve to be brought up in a conversation about terrorism.

Gangs and Bankers don't have an agenda other than making life better for themselves. Terrorists aren't common criminals. They are madmen who convinced themselves that harming others will benefit the world. They have political agendas. They have causes. They are zealots. Gangs aren't looking to blow up power plants because it will cause the most devastation. That's what Terrorists do. So they don't belong in the same conversation.

For this reason, it strikes that you just thought of what could be considered the black equilivaent to white terrorists. And that could only be terrorists. And believe me. If there were black terrorist who went under the Government radar...

I can't even type out the rest of this statement earnestly. They made "Black Lives Matter" into more of a terrorist group than they do white nationals who plan out attacks. It would never happen the same way it would for white terrorists.

You know I only brought up gangs as a comparison because it's another group of violent men with weapons whose numbers far exceed the 80 LARPers we should all be deathly afraid of apparently. I accused OP and the media in general of scare-mongering. How many of you are legitimatly terrified of inner city gangs? Probably no one. Yet there are far more of them but these 80 people out of 323 million are THE REAL threat. Be scared because the big scarey neo nazis are gonna getchu and they're infiltrating nuclear power stations with their SAS training and AR-15s with chainsaw bayonettes and they're gonna turn Florida into a nuclear wasteland. Fuck sake.

I also never said that it should be compared exclusivly to black people either. I just used the Crips as a comparison in terms of scale of a problem but you all decided that now its about black people by yourselves.

But hey, this is the Escapist, why talk about my actual point when you can take one part of a post out of and make the whole argument about that?

Here Comes Tomorrow:
You know I only brought up gangs as a comparison because it's another group of violent men with weapons whose numbers far exceed the 80 LARPers we should all be deathly afraid of apparently. I accused OP and the media in general of scare-mongering. How many of you are legitimatly terrified of inner city gangs? Probably no one. Yet there are far more of them but these 80 people out of 323 million are THE REAL threat. Be scared because the big scarey neo nazis are gonna getchu and they're infiltrating nuclear power stations with their SAS training and AR-15s with chainsaw bayonettes and they're gonna turn Florida into a nuclear wasteland. Fuck sake.

Perhaps it's because gang violence is near exclusively an occurrence in gang-infested neighborhoods? The average American has little to nothing to fear from being caught in gang violence unless they travel to specific areas that are largely confined within the poorest sections of inner-cities.

On the other hand, the average American could, at almost any time, be in an area that is targeted by a right-wing terrorist. These 80 people as you seem to caught up on are merely one group in hundreds that infest every area of the US ranging from the Alaskan wilderness to downtown LA to rural upstate New York. I find it rather interesting how dismissive you are of the threat of right-wing extremists considering all of the data that proves you objectively wrong.

Department of Homeland Security memo: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3924852-White-Supremacist-Extremism-JIB.html
PBS analysis including data points: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/analysis-deadly-threat-far-right-extremists-overshadowed-fear-islamic-terrorism
Political analysis of domestic terrorism: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-domestic-terrorism-and-whos-behind-it/
Article detailing homegrown terrorist incidents from 2009 to 2016: https://apps.revealnews.org/homegrown-terror/

I'm sorry that your personal politics cause you to dismiss the reality of US domestic terrorism, but, in the real world, right-wing extremists are the largest homegrown threat to the average American.

ObsidianJones:

CM156:

For the first one? Here's a good link. Try starting here. Popehat is in general a good blog for first amendment issues. Try the second trope here for your specific point. Here.

Here's a link to the Court's decision in Miller v California. Link.. I'll TL;DR it for you: The court threw out Roth v. United States and other cases which determine obscenity. The Miller test is very difficult to deal with for pro-censorship folks and most cases brought before the court have been struck down due to one of its prongs.

Edited. Thank you for the info.

I just wanted to second that recommendation of Popehat. It's a great resource and as close as you're going to find for unbiased legal information.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
You know I only brought up gangs as a comparison because it's another group of violent men with weapons whose numbers far exceed the 80 LARPers we should all be deathly afraid of apparently. I accused OP and the media in general of scare-mongering. How many of you are legitimatly terrified of inner city gangs? Probably no one. Yet there are far more of them but these 80 people out of 323 million are THE REAL threat. Be scared because the big scarey neo nazis are gonna getchu and they're infiltrating nuclear power stations with their SAS training and AR-15s with chainsaw bayonettes and they're gonna turn Florida into a nuclear wasteland. Fuck sake.

"Only 80 people out of 323 million"

dude, I mean there's probably less than 80 ISIS members in the United States, and the number of planes crashed from attacks can be counted on one hand

but I still have to take off my shoes when I get on a plane.

r u really gonna ignore 80 dudes who say they wanted to kill a lot of people just because they don't look like the other 80 dudes who say they want to kill a lot of people because they dont fit the stereotype of Terrorist?

Timothy McVeigh was 79 dudes short but he still managed to kill almost 170 people and hurt 700 more

not to mention that one guy in Las Vegas

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:
You know I only brought up gangs as a comparison because it's another group of violent men with weapons whose numbers far exceed the 80 LARPers we should all be deathly afraid of apparently. I accused OP and the media in general of scare-mongering. How many of you are legitimatly terrified of inner city gangs? Probably no one. Yet there are far more of them but these 80 people out of 323 million are THE REAL threat. Be scared because the big scarey neo nazis are gonna getchu and they're infiltrating nuclear power stations with their SAS training and AR-15s with chainsaw bayonettes and they're gonna turn Florida into a nuclear wasteland. Fuck sake.

"Only 80 people out of 323 million"

dude, I mean there's probably less than 80 ISIS members in the United States, and the number of planes crashed from attacks can be counted on one hand

but I still have to take off my shoes when I get on a plane.

r u really gonna ignore 80 dudes who say they wanted to kill a lot of people just because they don't look like the other 80 dudes who say they want to kill a lot of people because they dont fit the stereotype of Terrorist?

Timothy McVeigh was 79 dudes short but he still managed to kill almost 170 people and hurt 700 more

not to mention that one guy in Las Vegas

You know there's a reason we refer to society as "post 9/11". I don't know how old you are but the world was a very different place before it and after it. How terrorism was treated then is very different to how it is treated now.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

You know there's a reason we refer to society as "post 9/11". I don't know how old you are but the world was a very different place before it and after it. How terrorism was treated then is very different to how it is treated now.

Seems the same to me, only more hypocritical. And I somewhat (think) I remember the wall coming down.

After all, the biggest terrorism threat in Australia was a Japanese death cult who had a weapons lab mnaking sarin and VX gas they tested on some livestock in the Australian interior. We fined them for fraudulent customs paperwork and forced them and their obvious chemical weapons laboratory that was obvious to take onboard an animal welfare agent.

Then they took what they learnt making weaponized gases here, bombed a subway line in Tokyo ... you might of heard of it.

True enough, they'll probably put a bullet in your brain via an insertion of SASR now... but it's not merely our relationship to terrorism has changed. More terrorism in the 60's and 70s. Comparatively speaking, the 00's and 10's has been pissweak compared to the Western terrorism you'd get back in the post-War period.

Australians did not give a shit in the 90s ... because we'd never faced a domestic terror threat since WW2 and the systemic attacks by Japanese subgroups against civilian sea-faring in contravention of Geneva. There were no laws about making chemical weapons in your backyard. Incredibly laissez-faire attitude towards whatever the fuck you did in the privacy of your cattle station, so long as it didn't break environmental treatises or attract civil complaints ...

But all I ever fucking hear about on the news is this nebulous Muslim threat that has never materialized, now. How somehow whatever nebulous, shadowy, omnipresent, everpresent Islamist threat that might be there in the shadows is somehow as worse as that obvious death cult that is obvious making chemical weapons was ...

What happened to the U.S.'s FBI and ATF willing to risk a Waco to put down some white nationalists and other lunatics with guns? More of them now than ever, and yet it seems like all they care about is if you're brown.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

You know there's a reason we refer to society as "post 9/11". I don't know how old you are but the world was a very different place before it and after it. How terrorism was treated then is very different to how it is treated now.

Seems the same to me, only more hypocritical. And I somewhat (think) I remember the wall coming down.

After all, the biggest terrorism threat in Australia was a Japanese death cult who had a weapons lab mnaking sarin and VX gas they tested on some livestock in the Australian interior. We fined them for fraudulent customs paperwork and forced them and their obvious chemical weapons laboratory that was obvious to take onboard an animal welfare agent.

Then they took what they learnt making weaponized gases here, bombed a subway line in Tokyo ... you might of heard of it.

True enough, they'll probably put a bullet in your brain via an insertion of SASR now... but it's not merely our relationship to terrorism has changed. More terrorism in the 60's and 70s. Comparatively speaking, the 00's and 10's has been pissweak compared to the Western terrorism you'd get back in the post-War period.

Australians did not give a shit in the 90s ... because we'd never faced a domestic terror threat since WW2 and the systemic attacks by Japanese subgroups against civilian sea-faring in contravention of Geneva. There were no laws about making chemical weapons in your backyard. Incredibly laissez-faire attitude towards whatever the fuck you did in the privacy of your cattle station, so long as it didn't break environmental treatises or attract civil complaints ...

But all I ever fucking hear about on the news is this nebulous Muslim threat that has never materialized, now. How somehow whatever nebulous, shadowy, omnipresent, everpresent Islamist threat that might be there in the shadows is somehow as worse as that obvious death cult that is obvious making chemical weapons was ...

What happened to the U.S.'s FBI and ATF willing to risk a Waco to put down some white nationalists and other lunatics with guns? More of them now than ever, and yet it seems like all they care about is if you're brown.

But I wasn't talking about terrorism in Australia. I'm talking about America's attitude towards it. One of the main talking points immediatly following 9/11 was HOW it was able to happen and the general consensus (at least in British media) was that it was due to America generally considering itself immune to terrorism so it didn't put a lot if effort into tracking potential threats.

If you told people born after say 1995 what society was like back in the 80s and 90s they probably wouldn't believe you because things tend to be so blown out of proportion and the sense of scale is lost due to the internet echo chamber. 25 years ago no one would bother their arse talking about 80 neo-nazis playing soldiers in the woods, but the media loves scaring people these days and even better is if they can scare them over something they can portray as a seig-heiling cartoon villain like neo-nazis.

Back when my brain soaked up information like a sponge instead of cheap toilet paper my main memories of scare-mongering back then was the IRA and even then they weren't really played up as a major threat, more like "yeah they're still at it".

My issue isn't so much from a position of "poor white men stop picking on them" so much as "why is the media blowing this so out of proportion?". They are a group known to the authorities, they know where they meet, what they talk about and who they are. So why are you trying to make them sound so scary?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
because we'd never faced a domestic terror threat since WW2

Hilton bombing?

Though, yeah, by comparison, West Germany was woefully unprepared for the Munich Olympics. Just because something hasn't happened here yet, doesn't mean it's only going to happen elsewhere in the future. Fortunately the UK took the hint and got the SAS ready for that.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
What happened to the U.S.'s FBI and ATF willing to risk a Waco to put down some white nationalists and other lunatics with guns? More of them now than ever, and yet it seems like all they care about is if you're brown.

The ATF and FBI works for white nationalists nowdays. But yeah, spend all that money on fighting terror or whatever, need someone to justify, look there's a terrorist! He's got a manifesto and is waving an AK and everything. Sure, he might be white, but your tax dollars are at work keeping the US safe from him.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
But I wasn't talking about terrorism in Australia. I'm talking about America's attitude towards it. One of the main talking points immediatly following 9/11 was HOW it was able to happen and the general consensus (at least in British media) was that it was due to America generally considering itself immune to terrorism so it didn't put a lot if effort into tracking potential threats.

If you told people born after say 1995 what society was like back in the 80s and 90s they probably wouldn't believe you because things tend to be so blown out of proportion and the sense of scale is lost due to the internet echo chamber. 25 years ago no one would bother their arse talking about 80 neo-nazis playing soldiers in the woods, but the media loves scaring people these days and even better is if they can scare them over something they can portray as a seig-heiling cartoon villain like neo-nazis.

Back when my brain soaked up information like a sponge instead of cheap toilet paper my main memories of scare-mongering back then was the IRA and even then they weren't really played up as a major threat, more like "yeah they're still at it".

My issue isn't so much from a position of "poor white men stop picking on them" so much as "why is the media blowing this so out of proportion?". They are a group known to the authorities, they know where they meet, what they talk about and who they are. So why are you trying to make them sound so scary?

To be fair, We are dealing with a different world that those times.

Say, prior to 1998, if you wanted to block what would be considered dangerous people (Read as: Muslim Radicals) from being a threat, all you had to do we prevent them from entering the country. After all, people who already live here couldn't hate America, could they?

But now, we're dealing with the internet age. Where people can be recruited, trained, and set off to commit horrible crimes against humanity because they were depressed one day and clicked on a certain website.

As you say, people declare we live in a Post 9/11 world. And it only took 19 people to create that world. 19 people. Affected and changed the world for billions over 17 years ago.

Why is 80 so small? If 19 people came together and did an act so grievous that it created an actual new timeline of human collective consciousness. Is it because you can't picture something as massive as planes flying into buildings? I think people feel the same. I mean, we have active shooters and we as a people acclimated to that. I think groups like the Atomwaffen thought about that when they didn't plan another shooting, but when they planned to bomb a power plant.

Again, I don't think it would have ever gone off as a nuclear bomb or something. There are too many failsafes for that. But at the very, VERY worse, it could become a defacto dirty bomb if there was ever severe enough meltdown to create radiation leakage.

It's a little like this. You shouldn't fear every man who walks down the street if you're a survivor of rape. But if you come across a facebook page of a man who declares he loves Rape, will rape at any chance he can get, brags about a mistrial from his latest case, and just happened to say that your exact body type is what gets you going.... you're not being a fear monger if you see him walking towards you down the street and you tell your friend (who has the same exact body type as what he proclaims gets him going) that you need to get out of here. You don't not owe him the benefit of the doubt to understand if he's joking, try to understand his point of view, or whatever.

If someone declares themselves a threat and shows them training to make good on that threat, no one is trying to make them scary but themselves. They are announcing their intentions. We luckily caught one 'cell' because of a really silly turn of events. They HAD the explosive device and were plotting it out. No one is 'making them scary' as much as 'reporting on things that are occurring'.

The 'it's only 80 people' reasoning is weird, for this reason:

On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured.

And that's just one guy.

Baffle2:
The 'it's only 80 people' reasoning is weird, for this reason:

On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured.

And that's just one guy.

Don't forget the Oklahoma city bombing, which killed three times as many and injured over a thousand. By one guy.

undeadsuitor:

Baffle2:
The 'it's only 80 people' reasoning is weird, for this reason:

On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured.

And that's just one guy.

Don't forget the Oklahoma city bombing, which killed three times as many and injured over a thousand. By one guy.

And the Pulse Nightclub shooting, which killed 49 and wounded 58, again, by one guy.
A much smaller attack than either the Vegas shooting or the Oklahoma City Bombing, but 107 people killed/injured in a single attack by a single assailant is not an insignificant number. Pulse is considered the most lethal terrorist attack since 9/11, and was the most lethal mass shooting until Vegas.

In just 10 minutes, one man shot 909 people, killing 58, wounding 851.
In one instant, two men killed 168 and injured 680+ people.
That's approximately 1,757 victims in just two attacks, 1,864 victims if we include Pulse.

If one or two people can cause that much damage - to people and infrastructure, in the case of the OK bombing -, how much damage would 80 people be able to cause? And let's not forget that the Oklahoma City bombers are domestic terrorists, born and raised in the US, and they aren't brown, same with the Vegas shooter.

In the past it was still considered Not Cool to espouse white supremacist beliefs and be overtly racist, but public opinion has changed in the wake of 9/11, largely due to these groups capitalizing on the anger, fear, and grief from that attack. With an openly discriminatory - to put it lightly - presidential administration, these people have become emboldened enough to come out of hiding and we have been forced to come to the realization that this isn't anything particularly new, they've always been here, we just overlooked or ignored them. But now they're Out and Proud and we have to figure out a way to fight them, and that fight isn't going to take place on the stage of good-natured, honest debate.

The difference is that one private looney is a lot harder to pin down than an organised group who makes themselves known publically.

The distinction isn't really that difficult to understand unless you're being willfully ignorant.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
The difference is that one private looney is a lot harder to pin down than an organised group who makes themselves known publically.

The distinction isn't really that difficult to understand unless you're being willfully ignorant.

So... you think we should ignore people who clearly indicate their intentions but be very careful about people who don't (i.e. everyone else)? It's a shame that bin Laden bloke never mentioned how much he hated the US before 9/11. (For clarity, he did.)

Thaluikhain:

Hilton bombing?

Though, yeah, by comparison, West Germany was woefully unprepared for the Munich Olympics. Just because something hasn't happened here yet, doesn't mean it's only going to happen elsewhere in the future. Fortunately the UK took the hint and got the SAS ready for that.

Yeah, but that was targetting politicians, not innocent people, so it doesn't count. Moreover, just one incidence. And certainly doesn't rank as high as Aum Shinrikyo's shady shit in the desert. We still don't have a clear idea of what they got up to... and we had intelligence they were trying to make a dirty nuclear explosive and were trying to purchase a tactical battlefield nuclear device on the black market with th e break up of the Soviet Union.

The only more deserving politicians of biting down on some shrapnel at the time is Queensland's hillbilly tyrant himself, Joh-Bjelke Petersen and his cronies. And nobody would have called it 'terrorism', they would have called it a civil service.

Secondly, we're not just talking West Germany. The IRA, Basque Liberation, communist sympathiser groups, PLO, militia groups, religious wingnuttery ... the 60s and 70s just simply had more Western terrorism. Which is a pretty big deal given the population has doubled since then.

As I was saying, the world seems the same to me ... just more hypocritical.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

The ATF and FBI works for white nationalists nowdays. But yeah, spend all that money on fighting terror or whatever, need someone to justify, look there's a terrorist! He's got a manifesto and is waving an AK and everything. Sure, he might be white, but your tax dollars are at work keeping the US safe from him.

As I was saying ... regardless of where you are in the West ... less terrorism (and less pursuing actual terrorists), and just vague hypocrisy in its place. Plenty of people that you could legitimately call a terrorist group and the government would squareaway nice and tight with a few federal agents. Whether in a box or a prison. Yet so many white nationalist groups and miitias geta free pass nowadays.

What gives?

If neo-Nazi scumbags pulled the same stunt of marching, armed and in tac gear, on U.S. streets ala Charlottesville, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts a federal agency taskforce would have in the past interceded and put them in a box.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

My issue isn't so much from a position of "poor white men stop picking on them" so much as "why is the media blowing this so out of proportion?". They are a group known to the authorities, they know where they meet, what they talk about and who they are. So why are you trying to make them sound so scary?

The one question I want to ask is how come the ATF and FBI don't just raid this meeting place and throw them in prison like they would in the past? If terrorism is such a big deal, why do these militia groups get a free pass compared to the past when they would have stormed that place back in the 80s and 90s...?

People keep defending how law enforcement have a tough job, and defending gross examples of bad gun discipline resulting in innocent casualties that would get a soldier canned, and yet they seem to be less inclined to doing their actual jobs. Yeah, I get it .... busting down white nationalist terrorist groups doesn't pay the bills as much as a drug bust ... but then again, priorities.

Republican party worried about losing their base?

Baffle2:

Here Comes Tomorrow:
The difference is that one private looney is a lot harder to pin down than an organised group who makes themselves known publically.

The distinction isn't really that difficult to understand unless you're being willfully ignorant.

So... you think we should ignore people who clearly indicate their intentions but be very careful about people who don't (i.e. everyone else)? It's a shame that bin Laden bloke never mentioned how much he hated the US before 9/11. (For clarity, he did.)

This is such a massive misrepresentation of what I said I don't even know how to respond to it. You may as well have said "So you're saying terrorists are lobsters?".

Also, I'm curious, can you guess what the difference between Bin Laden (or just any international terrorist groups really) and domestic terrorists are in terms of investigation and arrest? Take your time.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

Also, I'm curious, can you guess what the difference between Bin Laden (or just any international terrorist groups really) and domestic terrorists are in terms of investigation and arrest? Take your time.

It's easier to just shoot international terrorists and call it done?

Baffle2:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

Also, I'm curious, can you guess what the difference between Bin Laden (or just any international terrorist groups really) and domestic terrorists are in terms of investigation and arrest? Take your time.

It's easier to just shoot international terrorists and call it done?

Oh is it that easy? I could have sworn things like laws and borders and international politics got in the way of that kind if thing. Sure, I guess theres nothing stopping Governments from traipsing around the world shooting anyone they see as a threat in the face then. I wonder why this North Korean situation has gone on for so long if Trump could just fly over, shoot some people and be home in time for McDonalds in bed.

You probably should have told George Bush that before he started an 17 year long international incident in order to catch Bin Laden.

Lamest name ever.

I wonder if these guys watch anime and cuddle body pillows too like their more introverted political allies.

Baffle2:
The 'it's only 80 people' reasoning is weird, for this reason:

It's not really, when you consider that there are thousands of radicalised nutjobs of varying flavour across the world at the minute. And the vast majority don't actually act on it. You get little splinter off-shoots going crazy and opening fire, but by and large these groups just sit around in their clubhouses drinking beer / smoking shisha and talking shit.

Sure, you could get one hard-core, properly militarised group that could cause untold devastation. But from the linked articles in the OP, these seem to be a bunch of internet generation angry kids without the required organisation to hold a LAN party.

I mean, their "plans" to date seem to run along these lines:
"Err, let's create a Fourth Reich..."
"Okay, Kevin, how do we do that?"
"Err, I dunno. Let's bomb something"
"How'll that start a Fourth Reich, Kevin?"
"Err, because we'll bomb something really big. Like a nuclear power plant. It'll be all like Fallout and everything."

It's not the group per say you have to worry about. It's the unstable kid that listens to the group and actually does something crazy.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Secondly, we're not just talking West Germany. The IRA, Basque Liberation, communist sympathiser groups, PLO, militia groups, religious wingnuttery ... the 60s and 70s just simply had more Western terrorism. Which is a pretty big deal given the population has doubled since then.

Possibly since the Cold War was on, Reds under the Bed made fears about terrorism generally superfluous. Already got the bogeyman to justify things.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Republican party worried about losing their base?

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: While most of the GOP aren't waving swastikas and ARs, there's a massive amount of them who are broadly sympathetic to them. Them might claim not to be racist, or to support Trump, because he's saying the quiet parts loud, but they are fine with it being said and done quietly.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

I wonder why this North Korean situation has gone on for so long if Trump could just fly over, shoot some people and be home in time for McDonalds in bed.

North Korea isn't a terrorist group...

You probably should have told George Bush that before he started an 17 year long international incident in order to catch Bin Laden.

And what did they do at the end of those 17 years? Did they shoot him?

Baffle2:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

I wonder why this North Korean situation has gone on for so long if Trump could just fly over, shoot some people and be home in time for McDonalds in bed.

North Korea isn't a terrorist group...

You probably should have told George Bush that before he started an 17 year long international incident in order to catch Bin Laden.

And what did they do at the end of those 17 years? Did they shoot him?

I'm going to assume you're trolling at this point.

Thaluikhain:

Possibly since the Cold War was on, Reds under the Bed made fears about terrorism generally superfluous. Already got the bogeyman to justify things.

I'd buy that excuse if the enemy was merely communist groups in the West. But it wasn't. In fact, the big focus on Salafists and only Salafists right now is kind of weird. More money spent on 'anti-terrorism', less actual threats.

After all, once again ... Australia's biggest terrorist threat ever was a Japanese death cult.

In terms of actual attacks, the 60s and 70s were the golden age of Western terrorism. And it wasn't simply East v. West.

Terrorists back in the day were actually fun, and had reasons. None of this Salafist-War econ vicious cycles garbage. Nah, we had terrorists who started an organisation about them believing themselves to be the true Divine Emperor of Japan. And they went full SPECTRE with this shit ... trying to get their hands on nukes, making chemical weapons in secret laboratories in the middle of the outback.

It is classic James Bond material but real.

We had terrorists who were fighting for liberation against over half a millenia of suppression of their native culture. We had terrorists who were taking apart the collapsing remnants of the British Empire and its shadow. Our current terrorist threats are so fucking unimaginative.... which I suppose is good for the world, but Christ you see one person blow themselves up about God and it's passe already.

Go spike some trees or try to build a nuke already. Spice things up ... get better material.

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: While most of the GOP aren't waving swastikas and ARs, there's a massive amount of them who are broadly sympathetic to them. Them might claim not to be racist, or to support Trump, because he's saying the quiet parts loud, but they are fine with it being said and done quietly.

Pretty much, I said it mostly as a joke ... but it was humour born from a real place.

Baffle2:

The Lunatic:
Black gangs typically lean left

Do they? Genuinely curious on where you get this info.

It's something that will be a way technically true, but deliberately and dishonestly presented in order to mislead.

Most gangs are criminal or community gangs, the main functions being to make money from illegal activities and/or control neighbourhoods. Realistically, hardly any of them will have much political awareness or take part in normal political process. But to the extent they will have political views, they will most closely reflect the community they operate in. Poor, black communities tend to be left-wing.

There is, however, incredibly obviously a huge difference between your average gang out for self-enrichment or defending their turf, and gangs founded around or with explicit political aims.

Agema:

Baffle2:

The Lunatic:
Black gangs typically lean left

Do they? Genuinely curious on where you get this info.

It's something that will be a way technically true, but deliberately and dishonestly presented in order to mislead.

Most gangs are criminal or community gangs, the main functions being to make money from illegal activities and/or control neighbourhoods. Realistically, hardly any of them will have much political awareness or take part in normal political process. But to the extent they will have political views, they will most closely reflect the community they operate in. Poor, black communities tend to be left-wing.

There is, however, incredibly obviously a huge difference between your average gang out for self-enrichment or defending their turf, and gangs founded around or with explicit political aims.

The other key difference is whether their political views influence their actions. Far right terrorists murdering brown people to "MAGA" are pretty clearly right wing extremists. If a person shoots up a bank and happens to vote blue well then that's not exactly the same thing. I mean how many white collar criminals vote repub? We don't frame them as far right extremists.

Edit: and I clearly didn't read the last part of your post.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here