At 7/5/06 05:12 PM, Hannetz wrote:
At 7/4/06 03:34 PM, Cartman678 wrote:
Similarities:
1. Hatred of the Jews
2. Right-wing politics
3. For the most part, they are both Aryan/Caucasian (Have you seen Ali Khameini? He looks white! And the same thing for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)
4. Elements of intolerance
5. Dislike of Western Culture (Hollywood, violent video games, etc.)
This may be over simplifying, but I would like to hear your opinions on this subject.
I'm a bit worried about the fact that Terrorist to you automatically means arab/muslim terrorist.
Fuck, I was getting bothered because no one pointed this out sooner. I thought I was going to lose it.
At 7/5/06 06:23 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:
White supremacists are just homegrown terrorists waiting to happen. At least we can screen out some of the foreign terrorists.
Again, this is the same problem. Terrorism is terrorism; a "homegrown" terrorist is no less of a terrorist than a "foreign" terrorist. There methods will be the same.
The word terrorism was coined by some British asshole to label what happened during/after the French Revolution: The Reign of Terror. This was state-terrorism. The original terrorism was a tool of the state, and state terrorism has killed more people than the group terrorism that has our attention.
To take the focus away from state-terrorism is bullshit. Hell, adding state to the beginning even subtracts from the word and adds a shit-load of connotation to terrorism itself.
I'll give you an example. There was a pizza shop somewhere in Nova Scotia called Grumpy's. Grumpy was the owner. He had pictures of women on the walls of the shop, and they were called the Grumpettes. Grumpy was the main person, where as the Grumpettes were somehow lesser than Grumpy. The suffix ette is a diminutive -- it takes away from the word.
If there was any justice, terrorism as we are using it would be called group terrorism; and the term state-terrorism would be redundant. Unfortunately adding state might make it seem less important, less relevant, less likely than "terrorism" (group terrorism).
---
By the standards of definitions that actually want to discuss terrorism and not sell you something, white supremacists are terrorists (those who use violence against civilians for political objectives).
So, nice save:
At 7/7/06 03:09 PM, Cartman678 wrote:
ANYWAY, just to clarify, I meant to title this thread "White Supremacy and Radical Islam", but there was not enough room to write this out.
It's too bad you allowed the rest of the post to slip through your fingers.
And yes, I am aware that there are still Timothy McVeigh's and Ted Kacynzki's out there, but radical Islam is a much larger threat than these guys. They have a common cause, plenty of young men willing to die for their cause, whereas these "homegrown" terrorists are actually much easier to catch. And to clarify, I am against racial profiling, which is why I pointed out that hypothetical situation.
Timothy McVeigh was associated with a Christian extremist group whose name escapes me at the moment. If you can find out the name of the book McVeigh carried around with him and its author's name, you can probably find out more about the group. It's not the only group, though. And some of these groups exist in fortified compounds within the United States. I'm 100% certain the government knows where they are, what their goals are, and how far they're willing to go to achieve them.
The US government doesn't care about terrorism.