9/11 changed the priorities on who was a bigger threat here in the U.S. In one attack, with foriegn attackers and sponsorhip, 3000 people were murdered. You also have foriegn countries supplying training, equipment and other support to radical muslim attackers. This guy was, at this point, a solo actor with a 9mm handgun. He may have been part of a belief system but it isn't on the same activity scale that Radical islam is right now. Even hassan, the fort hood killer was in contact with foreign terrorists before he killed all those people. Also, you had the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on our two African embassies, the blowing up of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the first attack on the Twin Towers led by the blind sheik, and even before all of this the take over of our embassy by the Iranians. It comes down to who the current biggest threat is. Memories are very short it seems.
Sikhs killed in shooting at Temple in Wisconson
- Thread starter Tez3
- Start date
I don't see anyone disagreeing with you. Before 9/11, we did have a big focus on domestic terror groups, from ecoterrorists to anti-abortion extremists to white supremacists to the militia movement. The assassination of Alan Berg, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the various abortion clinic bombings and assassinations, the Olympic Park bombing, Mark from Michigan, and so on, all culminating in OKC, the burning of many black churches in the south, attacks on synagogues, That's all pretty much gone by the wayside now, as we've concentrated on foreign terror threats. However, it's still around to some extent. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL helps to keep track of some of these jokers.
But there have always been domestic terrorists in the USA. Since the beginning, there have been people willing to murder others in the name of their cause and to frighten others into behaving in a way the terrorists prefer. From John Brown onwards.
Well, I can tell you that the government places a pretty high priority on domestic terrorists of all stripes-it's likely that the next really big, 9/11 type event will come from one of our internal threats-more likely than another foreign sponsored attack, though that possibility is monitored as well.
Domestic terrorism is something that has many man hours and resources devoted to it since Timothy McVeigh. Fact is, though, that the Timothy McVeigh's of the world are much like anyone else who wants to kill someone: they can stay pretty well hidden until they strike. They can think what they want, and say what they want, and there aren't the resources to monitor everyone like that. Wade was kicked out of the Army for drinking, and was known for his white supremacist contacts and ideology, but that wasn't enough to keep him from obtaining weapons and doing what he did-nor should it have been. Until the shootings in Wisconsin, he hadn't committed any crimes-at least, none worthy of excluding him from gun ownership.
The bigger, unspoken piece of all this, though, is that he was hidden by virtue of his whiteness as well-that, in our society, we can see a guy who looks like this:
or this:
View attachment $thumbnailCA6Q0B5T.jpg
as far less menacing-less of athreat-than someone who looks like this:
View attachment $thumbnailCAQ1R10Z.jpg
(and, yes, the woman on the far-right is a Sikh.)
or this:
View attachment $thumbnailCAA0IC4C.jpg
and that this guy:
looks an awful lot like some cops, never mind a guy who would shoot up a bunch of people while they were praying.
James Holmes can shoot dozens of people during Batman the Dark Knight Rises and he is not a reflection on pathological white masculinity. Instead Holmes is a less than ideal-typical case because he is "crazy" or "insane." Wade Michael Page can kill six Sikh-Americans during their worship service and he is just a "crazy" white supremacist who is automatically an outlier, one that is excluded from any conversation about what his behavior tells us about white racial identity, masculinity, violence, and hostility to the Other in the Age of Obama.
Ultimately, white people who commit wanton acts of murder and violence are individuals who just happen to be white and commit crime; people of color--especially African-Americans--who commit crime are representative of both their whole community, as well as a subculture and community in "crisis." As such, Americans tend to speak naturally and with great ease about "black crime." By comparison, and despite a white near monopoly on whole categories of criminality, the language of "white crime" does not even exist in the public discourse or collective consciousness.
On the other hand, the propaganda-fest that is the "Ten most wanted list," has been entirely white for most of its history. Just sayin'
The next attack on U.S. soil by foreign terrorists will probbably not be committed by Arabs, Yemenis, or Pakistanis. They'll probably be Chechens, or Serbs, or Croats. They'll be as white as you are-hell, they may even resemble Slovaks, like you billi. They'll speak english with near American accents, and be able to pass among all of us just as unnoticed as a McVeigh, a Wade, a Laughner or a Holmes-even with, especially with, orange hair.
Last edited:
What part of this...
Disqualifies any of this...
They could be African, Filipino, French, British, American...anyone can be a radicalized muslim extremist.
Don't worry elder, whites have the serial killer category of crime almost to themselves.
And then you have guys like hassan at fort hood who advertised his jihadi beliefs in front of other responsible people, who were afraid to take action as well.
Hmmm...and as to killing, have you seen the shooting gallery that Chicago has become, a lot of that is African American and Latino gang violence. It seems different groups take up different kinds of killing.
Disqualifies any of this...
They could be African, Filipino, French, British, American...anyone can be a radicalized muslim extremist.
Don't worry elder, whites have the serial killer category of crime almost to themselves.
And then you have guys like hassan at fort hood who advertised his jihadi beliefs in front of other responsible people, who were afraid to take action as well.
Hmmm...and as to killing, have you seen the shooting gallery that Chicago has become, a lot of that is African American and Latino gang violence. It seems different groups take up different kinds of killing.
Ya wouldn't know it for all the focus on Arabs, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranis (who can look pretty "caucasian," sometimes) and Palestinians, would ya? :lfao:
Well, the first attacks on the U.S. from radical muslim terrorists were Saudis, and various other middle eastern countries. We need to adapt as they do or they will get past our security measures.
And his merry band of monsters...
So you had a first attempt on the World Trade Center, which killed 6 and failed to bring the towers down, and then others came back and succeeded, it upped the threat level...
You could try blaming rap for the criminal behavior of African Americans in the cities, not too many regular white people glorify white supremacist rock music or think it is a legitimate part of "white" culture...
The first attack on the Twin Towers was by an Egyptian...for those who have completely forgotten the first attempt on the Towers...
And his merry band of monsters...
So you had a first attempt on the World Trade Center, which killed 6 and failed to bring the towers down, and then others came back and succeeded, it upped the threat level...
You could try blaming rap for the criminal behavior of African Americans in the cities, not too many regular white people glorify white supremacist rock music or think it is a legitimate part of "white" culture...
Last edited:
Wo Fat
Purple Belt
So it's really about numbers with you. The *real* terrorists yield a high body count. Everybody else is just practicing their own inherent brand of cultural criminality. Or, just being law-abiding citizens enjoying "white power" rock while philosophizing and circumspecting about tyranny and freedom and all that.
Again, the families of the slain victims of those white power philosopher types might not be so sympathetic.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
The problem is a guy in a white power rock band and has no other criminal record he's not going to be towards the top of any watch list.only people suspected of crimes make watch lists. Had he been linked with some other crime prior to this other then liking crappy music we may have know about him. Trust me when I tell you everyday I cone to work I get BOLOs and intelligence notifications about all these groups the white supremacy groups sovereign citizens black supremacy groups milita groups we do the best we can but a lone gunman acting alone is almost impossible to stop.
No, it is the most dangerous threat at the time. For example, the 9/11 terrorists and their buddies have access to lots of cash, and the potential of weapons of mass destruction and have shown a serious determination to use them. Show me where an organized white power, black power, vegetarian power group has inflicted the amount of damage to this country that the radical muslim terrorists have, and who currently still has the most potential, with foreign backing, training, money equipment, and then I'm sure the law enforcement resources will be realocated to deal with that threat.
WC_lun
Senior Master
Actually he was on a watch list for the FBI, but he had not committed a crime, so there was nothing anyone could do to limit his possession of firearms.
I think a large part of what is being said is the perception of terrorist. You say the word terrorist and most think of a brown skinned man, dressed in Middle Eastern garb. That is not a good thing. Not necesarily because it eboldens bigots to take actions against those who match that look, but because if you are looking at the innocent guy dressed in a certain way, that you might miss the white guy right beside you with the bomb or gun. Doesn't matter a wit if that guy is Muslim, Christian, white power, etc. What matters is his intent. That is why this arguement about which is more dangerous is kind of silly to me. Both are terrorist and both need to be stopped to the upmost of our abilities.
I think a large part of what is being said is the perception of terrorist. You say the word terrorist and most think of a brown skinned man, dressed in Middle Eastern garb. That is not a good thing. Not necesarily because it eboldens bigots to take actions against those who match that look, but because if you are looking at the innocent guy dressed in a certain way, that you might miss the white guy right beside you with the bomb or gun. Doesn't matter a wit if that guy is Muslim, Christian, white power, etc. What matters is his intent. That is why this arguement about which is more dangerous is kind of silly to me. Both are terrorist and both need to be stopped to the upmost of our abilities.
Wo Fat
Purple Belt
I agree with you in the many Americans still can bring themselves to see a terrorist as anyone other than a brown man in Middle Eastern clothing. You also raise an interest point:
If someone is on a watch list, but has never *technically* committed a crime, can they legally purchase firearms?
This is where our history differs from yours. Over the years we've had to deal with various terrorist groups, from Greece just after the last war, to Cyprus, Kenya, Malaya, Oman, India, Palestine and of course Northern Ireland. Even a few Welsh terrorists who used to burn holiday cottages. Even with the radical Islamic terrorists our main danger is Northern Ireland still, many people think it's over, it's not, in fact it may be about to get far worse as there's rumours that the dissident IRA groups are joining up for a big campaign.
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
well, the 'history' is really only a decade old.
Everybody who came before was lily white!
All those Eco terrorists are white. And - like your Irish hot spots - just because they are not in the news does not mean it's not happening (although somebody on MT suggested because something wasn't in the NY Times it was proof it didn't happen! :lol
Yes, as long as they can (otherwise) legally purchase firearms.
Wo Fat
Purple Belt
If a man is on a Terrorist Watch List and declares publicly--"I am al qaeda"--he is still legally allowed to purchase the same kind of weaponry as the Aurora, CO killer.
Stunning.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
If he has not committed a crime why shouldn't he. Its not a crime to say I'm al qaeda. I think if he started buy a lot of guns he would make his way up the watch list some and they would dig deeper into his activities
Wo Fat
Purple Belt
And that's where celebrating the 2nd amendment becomes zealotry. When we would allow avowed enemies of the state to purchase guns in order to eventually kill us, we have lost our way. We have lost our damned minds.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Which is fine but remember a few hundred years ago all Americans were enemies of the state. That's the point of the 2nd amendment
Wo Fat
Purple Belt
I think we've come far enough where a "short list" of enemies is pretty reasonable. Al Qaeda, Taliban, Aryan Nation (and their spin-offs) are quite sufficient.
Yes, unless the law is changed. However, many on the watch lists are not aware they are on the watch lists, and the FBI or other entities putting them there don't want them to know. Somehow, being told "Sorry, you're not allowed to buy a gun. You're not a felon, you're not blocked by domestic violence charges, you're not crazy... but you can't buy a gun" would probably kind of defeat that...
