Add to that list Paradise Now…
1 Like
Always when such activities are those of, or which can be seen to represent, OTHER groups. The same activities done by their own group are put forth as perfectly respectable.
2 Likes
It goes back to that speech that Haile Salassie gave to the UN in 1963…
I think the point there is that they are going against the grain of mainstream, white society, hence are no longer welcome to the protections of whiteness…
I quibble with this. That might be their framework, but to assume it’s just motivated by “Islam” is just inaccurate. It’s part of the post-colonial/neo-colonial effect.
Yes, this is an important point, that there is a history of French/European anti-Semitism, too. But until recently, the Arabs and Jews had a long history of shared discrimination in Europe, which brought them together more than it drove them apart. And of course, there is Lassana Bathily. There is probably far more to fear from the European right wing than the immigrant Muslim population, taken historically.
We should all hope that… it’s sad that it needs to be said.
I respectfully disagree. Using post-colonial/neo-colonial as a reason for Islamic terror is exactly the point I raised about buying into Soviet era fig leaf cover propaganda. Indeed early forms of 20th Century Political Islam were motivated by anti-colonialsim, but the situation has changed dramatically. As an over simplified example, consider that the idea of restoring the Califphate with the goal of the creation of the umma. This view is not limited to IS or Al Qaeda yet they are the best known recent examples. My other concern with using colonialism as an excuse is it effectively absolves those who commit terror in the name of Islam from accountability.
In the 20th Century maybe so but here in the 21st, the problem in France for Jews is the Islamists. Its not the right wing that is killing us in cold blood in France. The concern about this situation is not limited to those such as myself. even the current French PM considers it a problem. This is not to say that the problem is all French Arab/Muslims at all, see here for example.
EDIT:
It goes back to that speech that Haile Salassie gave to the UN in 1963
The irony is that the picture there is of a Yemenite Jewish bride.
Thank you! 
I always like to talk to people who I disagree with and still be treated with respect… I try to do the same.
But there is still a problem with uneven distribution of power in the middle east, though (and in the rest of the Islamic world). Not all Islamists are terrorist either. I’m not trying to excuse violent acts, but to contextualize them in a way that doesn’t make it an us/them thing, that puts Muslims on one side and the rest of us on the other. It’s not helpful.
Also, the concept of the umma is already in effect - it means all Muslims as a collective. And again, let’s not forget that the vast majority of victims of Islamic violence here are indeed muslims. It isn’t connected necessarily with the notion of the caliphate. But this whole discussion (about political islam and the modern state) really does illustrate the limitations of our concept of self-determination - all through the Arab Spring the most upsetting thing was the lack of support for democratic voices from the US in part driven by fears of Islamist parliamentary victories. By continuing to back the regimes across the region, I fear we’ve exacerbated these problems and created a worse situation which made the region ripe for the picking for the violent groups like IS and Al Qaeda. Once again, we showed that we really don’t care about backing meaningful democratic reform, but are more interested in regional “stability”, which is only going to cause instability. Democracy as a process doesn’t have to mean looking exactly like the US or Europe. It means (or should mean) self-determination. We should have whole-heartedly backed the Arab street, and worked to moderate the more radical political parties through that…
No, but I’d suspect that’s because the Jewish question was solved by the founding of Israel in 48 (the Jews can now go be in their “correct” place, in their mind) - I’m sure if you had a stronger right in power in places like France, that might change. It’s the Muslim question now. I think most right wingers would turn on their Jewish populations if the focus wasn’t on the Muslims. But neither should be subject to violence, of course.
Neat! I don’t think it’s ironic at all… Maybe a sad expression of how the region’s diversity has been damaged by power politics of the 20th century…
1 Like
The problems in Dar al-Islam are its own, my concern is with the problems in Dar al-Amn (to use the respective Arabic terms). When this is the new normal for the Jews of France, I’m concerned.
Of course I’m glad to see some protection at a school but thats not something the kids in that picture should grow up with in France.
You are right, I used the wrong word and have spent far too long trying to find the right Arabic word which means the (eventual according to Islamic theology) complete world wide submission of Mankind to Allah.
I dont deny that but again, the problems in Dar al-Islam are its own. As far as who the West has backed, thats lose/lose. Backing the establishment gets us criticized for imposing our will/values on Dar al-Islam and doing nothing gets us criticized for doing nothing.
But again, thats is not my concern. My concern is how will the Muslims of France deal with the problem in Dar al-Amn?
Context Operation Magic Carpet (Yemen) - Wikipedia See also why the problem isn’t about the 20th Century.
1 Like
Oh, come on. Have any of you tried googling on “white terrorist”? If those images aren’t from news stories, where are they from?
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1067&bih=517&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=white+terrorist&oq=white+terrorist&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i5i30l2j0i8i30l6.17707.20855.0.21679.11.10.1.0.0.0.56.509.10.10.0…0…1c.1.64.img…6.5.213.uP288yreIaw
Did you look at your own search? Many of the point out the exact thing that @actionabe is commenting on (that we don’t call what white men do terrorism, more often than not)… the rest of are either Arabs or Americans and Europeans who have become radicalized… the only exception I see there is McVeigh, and it’s rather hard to counter the terrorism narrative there. Even with that, the first things people were saying was that it was a Jihadist attack. [ETA] Let’s not forget the links to groups like “white national front” pointing out the “evil” deeds of Nelson Mandela against apartheid…
Welcome to BB, BTW… 
1 Like
So, we’re judging by effectiveness and clarity of message?
Yes, I saw the attempted proof by repetition. Repeating it doesn’t make it
true.
You aren’t implying that repeating a bad analysis makes it true, are you? Did you go past all the white terrorists google found and only notice the ones that repeated the lie? Go back and, instead, look at all the white faces depicted in news stories as terrorists.
A terrorist, the way we use the word, has terror as his goal not his means. Otherwise, any violent person is also a terrorist, in which case the word is being used so broadly as to lose any meaning.
You can be a white terrorist; but it takes serious effort(and, even if you do, you still get more due process than ‘real’ terrorists, even the ones that the CIA thinks are innocent): Timothy McVeigh is probably the best example; but he’s both a fairly lonely example and somebody who did genuinely above average work, combined with having a clear anti-government manifesto.
Aside from being overtly anti-government (and killing enough people, ideally including children) that the ‘respectable’ right wing antifederalists won’t bristle too much when the state notes that domestic right wingers can be pretty scary(which they otherwise can and will); your best shot at ‘terrorist’ if white is to do something that shocks the sensibilities of the economic powers that be. “Eco-terrorists” get that term even if they aren’t the relatively scary ones actively threatening and/or attempting to kill researchers; because He Who is Against Suburbia is Against America!; and opponents(on both sides of the border) of the Keystone XL pipeline got the ‘hydrocarbons are necessary to the state, ergo anti-petrochemical-extremists are a terroristic threat to state security!’ logic pretty quickly. Occupy Wall Street(both by virtue of being relatively peaceful, and by virtue of being relatively feckless) made a pretty lousy choice for being called ‘terrorists’ in breathless pundit diatribes; but in terms of police response, federal coordination, etc. they got a pretty substantial percentage of the logistical response that a real terrorist might get, by virtue of offenses to the dignity of capitalism.
The big difference seems to be that persons of the colored persuasion, heathenish muslims, and the like are presumptively enemies of the state, society, and all we hold dear; though more liberal illiberals may concede that some of them are quiet and harmless about their fundamentally alien hatred of all that is good; and only some break out into violence; but any who do don’t have to work too hard to prove their ‘terrorist’ bona fides because it’s largely assumed that they want to overthrow us. If you are a presumptively respectable white guy(even, somewhat amazingly, an economic undesirable, like the Charleston shooter); you have to go to a fair bit of effort to prove that you are seeking to violently overthrow something, rather than just doing a bit of spree killing, boys will be boys and all that.
3 Likes
I might be getting more jaded but in the US Media terrorism seems to be defined as anyone who kills more then one person and either:
[ ] Is not white and christian
-and/or-
[ ] Used a bomb (caused an explosion)
The more traditional pre 911 definition was anyone who used an act of violence or threat of violence to instigate an act of terror, aka psychological warfare, to further an agenda against a larger more powerful entity. Typically there was the threat of further acts that would be committed unless certain demands were met.
Lone bombers wouldn’t qualify, lone gunmen wouldn’t qualify, etc. unless they were acting on behalf of a group with an agenda.
Of course the T word has been made almost meaningless these days because it has been the plaything of political agendas, the justification for wars and huge government budgets, and is now just a tool to be used wherever it serves the purpose of the user. ~sighs~
3 Likes
I’m saying that one had no explicit message. Maybe it was intended as an act of terror, but it was outside of office hours and didn’t seem to have the potential to do much harm in comparison with the attacks in Paris. Given the history of attacks against groups like the NAACP, it’s quite plausible that racist ideology was behind it. Given the fact that what we knew was very little, it makes sense not to fill in the blanks with everything we think must have been the case. In the Charlie Hebdo attacks, it was a lot more obvious why the offices were being attacked. The same applies to the IRA and other terrorist groups. The NAACP are right to take this seriously and terrorism may well have been a motive, but like others I’d rather stick to the more traditional definition rather than bringing the word out every time violence or intimidation of any kind takes place.
Where’s Johnny Adair? Billy Wright? Michael Stone? Or any of the other people on these two lists?
The only white terrorists I saw on that search were Timothy McVey, Anders Brevik, Ted Kaczynski and Samantha Lewthwaite. Eventually, after going down several pages I saw a picture of Gerry Adams.
I’m unconvinced by your argument
1 Like
Welp, as long as one single white dude has been called a terrorist, the entire subject of this thread is clearly a lie. /s
3 Likes
I’m not entirely sure I consider Ted Kaczynski a terrorist. I’ve always defined the word as an attempt to force political change through targeted violence against civilians- He had a manifesto, but it always seemed to me that his attacks were more driven by personal vengeance than a desire to change things.
He called himself a terrorist.
The FBI agreed.
2 Likes
