And combine the numbers don’t justify the massive domestic spying programs from the NSA and others.
2 Likes
Interesting article. Not the first time we’ve seen anti-black sentiment arising from claims of being “redpilled” by the media’s attempts to sculpt the Trayvon Martin incident into a black vs. white narrative (initially casting Zimmerman as “white”, claims of media photoshopping Zimmerman’s skin color to be lighter, NBC editing Zimmerman’s call to police to make it appear that he volunteered Martin’s race, etc.).
What’s most sad is that people interpret this as a call to arms, rather than as a call to develop more media savvy.
1 Like
It probably shouldn’t be - actual deaths occur from slow things and systemic things. Heart disease. Cancer. These are news articles in part BECAUSE they don’t happen very often. Also because freak-outs drive ratings and it’s hard to freak out about slow, creeping deaths. Also because it serves certain vested interests to sell us protection from things that we aren’t at major risk for.
2 Likes
Perhaps the US government should start droning a few redneck weddings then instead …
You mean white supremacists. Stereotyping is wrong. Not all red necks are racists.
Personally, I don’t think more state-sanctioned murder is an acceptable answer to state-sanctioned murder.
7 Likes
I think the problem is the lone wolves, and not whichever clothes they dress themselves in.
Perhaps the US public needs to get a taste of their own medicine to stop using it on others? But it seems US law enforcement is already working towards that goal …
I call these mutts “YeeHawdists” (using my Buck Owens voice).
8 Likes
I’m part of that US public, and I openly oppose killing of people on the other side of the planet for whatever BS reasons oil and defense industry companies tell our politicians to utter.
Domestic police forces committing murder is still state-sanctioned murder, and I am opposed to it. Wouldn’t take much reading between the lines to figure that out from my first comment in this thread.
8 Likes
Well, I guess the issue is whether a man who has Arab roots can be violent for any reason other than terrorism.
In the Ft. Hood shootings it was hard to tell what his real motivation was, particularly in the immediate aftermath. The Department of Defense labelled it “workplace violence”, the Senate described it as a terrorist act. It could have been a combination of both. There isn’t evidence he was receiving orders from any terrorist group (which would rule out the traditional idea of what constitutes terrorism), but does the fact that he shouted “Allah U Akbar” mean he was acting out of religious extremism, or just that he thought he was about to die (the phrase isn’t only used by terrorists.) It’s not clear he had any political goal like the liberation of Palestine, he was just under extreme stress and was morally confused about his place in the army, and one day just snapped like any mailman.
So I don’t I don’t know. If we take out the Ft. Hood shooting the non-jihadists are still way ahead, but maybe every instance needs to be dissected (and we need a clear definition of what constitutes terrorism) for this graph to mean anything salient.
1 Like
Yeah, this post is odd. Why exclude 9/11? “I ate pizza every day last week. But this week I’ve only eaten pizza one time yet I’ve had broccoli three times. I eat healthy three times as often as not.”
That kind of comparison doesn’t really mean much, at least to me.
USA! USA! USA! Take that, you Muslim terrorists! USA!
And not all Middle-Eastern wedding guests are terrorists, but that hasn’t stopped the US Government from indiscriminately droning them.
2 Likes
I don’t believe the are indiscriminately bombing weddings. They target specific people, though they allow possible innocents to get hurt/killed in the process. Collateral damage.
The way you phrase it makes it sound like they’re firing directly at their targets and some innocents might be killed in the crossfire, but the reality, at least when we’re talking about the wedding incident, was that a wedding party consisting entirely of innocents was bombed under the assumption that is was an Al-Quaida convoy.
So yes, they were “targeting specific people” if by “targeting” you mean “intending to kill” and by “specific people” you mean “Al Qaida members,” but to accomplish this, they “indiscriminately” (meaning “lacking in care, judgement, or selectivity”) bombed a fucking wedding.
8 Likes
The U.S. government has very different standards for what constitutes an acceptable level of “collateral damage” when the victims are brown-skinned Muslims. They wipe out a wedding party or two (often in countries we aren’t even officially at war with) and call it an “unfortunate mistake” in the name of fighting terrorism.
Can you imagine the repercussions if the U.S. launched a drone strike that killed dozens of innocent men, women and children in, say, northern Ireland?
6 Likes
Even a stopped calendar will be 9/11 once per year.
No silly, it means we need more TSA.
1 Like
OK. Well. . . if we include 9/11, then is that a proper starting point, or should we go back to the Oklahoma City bombing? Or maybe the first World Trade Center bombing. Should we go back farther? We could include every KKK lynching as well, since those can easily be described as terrorism (an organized secretive group using violence and murder to achieve a political goal.)
I understand your point, but I wouldn’t call the graph completely meaningless. At the very least it might make people realize that terrorism isn’t something only Muslims are capable of (an idea I’ve heard from conservative friends, typically with the phrase “not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.”)
6 Likes
