patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,847 comments by 13,872 users - AmericanKulak, Ceffer, komputodo, Patrick online now
WHITE TERROR: bombings in Austin, Texas
invite response
2018 Mar 21, 9:30am 26,159 views 102 comments
« First « Previous Comments 9 - 48 of 102 Next » Last » Search these comments
10
justme
2018 Mar 21, 10:47am
justme
2018 Mar 21, 10:47am
CBOEtrader says
Personal much ? ;-)
BUT: I don't have a great desire to call the Austin bomber suspect (Mark Anthony Conditt) a terrorist. My post is about the lack of desire of the rightists to call the Austin bomber a terrorist, while they are very eager to call any violent Muslim and/or possibly political brown person a terrorist.
Your desire to call him a white terrorist is 100% about politicizing tragedy. It's a deplorable move
Personal much ? ;-)
BUT: I don't have a great desire to call the Austin bomber suspect (Mark Anthony Conditt) a terrorist. My post is about the lack of desire of the rightists to call the Austin bomber a terrorist, while they are very eager to call any violent Muslim and/or possibly political brown person a terrorist.
11
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 10:47am
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 10:47am
justme says
Actually they weren't. A thread was started about it a half hour before you made this thread.
http://patrick.net/post/1314605/2018-03-21-austin-bomber-blows-self-up
Is there a particular reason or point why this thread was started a half hour later?
I was wondering why the right-wing of US politics (and patnet) was so quiet about the Austin bomber.
Actually they weren't. A thread was started about it a half hour before you made this thread.
http://patrick.net/post/1314605/2018-03-21-austin-bomber-blows-self-up
Is there a particular reason or point why this thread was started a half hour later?
12
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 21, 10:49am
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 21, 10:49am
justme says
Show me anyone anywhere who classifies the 500 murders per year by blacks as black terrorism.
they are very eager to call any violent Muslim and/or possibly political brown person a terrorist.
Show me anyone anywhere who classifies the 500 murders per year by blacks as black terrorism.
13
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 21, 10:49am
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 21, 10:49am
justme says
Certainly not my intent to be personal. Apologies if it came across that way
Personal much ? ;-)
Certainly not my intent to be personal. Apologies if it came across that way
14
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 10:50am
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 10:50am
CBOEtrader says
We are now.
That's known as BLACK TERRORISM, to go along with the narrative of the OP.
Exactly no-one is defining the 500 murders per year in Chicago as terrorism.
We are now.
That's known as BLACK TERRORISM, to go along with the narrative of the OP.
15
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 11:03am
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 11:03am
justme says
@justme The answer is simply that the attributes of the majority are not a differentiating factor and therefore not a likely motive in an attack on the majority. In all countries, the majority group is not distinguished by the fact that they are part of the majority. It's simply a mathematical fact with no relevance unless it is explicitly made relevant.
To call a bomber who is not explicitly part of the Klan or some such group a 'white bomber' is like always saying 'a bird which can fly' instead of just saying 'a bird'. In most cases, there is no new information added by adding the words 'which can fly'. The distinguishing feature is the uncommon case, say a bird which cannot fly, which would be a minority, and therefore a distinguishing feature.
So if the bombing is explicitly in the name of 'whiteness' or some such, then you would have a point if this explicit motive were ignored by the press. But otherwise, it's just not relevant or important.
Muslim bombings, on the other hand, are 100% explicitly (and very loudly) in the name of Islam with the intent of harming only non-Muslims. It is the central motive for the attack. But what we have is exactly the opposite bias in the press: Islam is always downplayed even though it is always the central motive and the attackers often literally scream out loud that 'this is for Islam'.
Similarly, the 'white privilege' of being easily accepted by other white people is not a privilege at all, but the normal case in all countries at all times, in the sense that the majority is by definition the majority. The complaints about white privilege are complaints by a minority that they are not the majority, which is like arguing against mathematics.
brand violence by Muslim or brown people as terrorism, while ignoring the same acts if perpetrated by a white person
@justme The answer is simply that the attributes of the majority are not a differentiating factor and therefore not a likely motive in an attack on the majority. In all countries, the majority group is not distinguished by the fact that they are part of the majority. It's simply a mathematical fact with no relevance unless it is explicitly made relevant.
To call a bomber who is not explicitly part of the Klan or some such group a 'white bomber' is like always saying 'a bird which can fly' instead of just saying 'a bird'. In most cases, there is no new information added by adding the words 'which can fly'. The distinguishing feature is the uncommon case, say a bird which cannot fly, which would be a minority, and therefore a distinguishing feature.
So if the bombing is explicitly in the name of 'whiteness' or some such, then you would have a point if this explicit motive were ignored by the press. But otherwise, it's just not relevant or important.
Muslim bombings, on the other hand, are 100% explicitly (and very loudly) in the name of Islam with the intent of harming only non-Muslims. It is the central motive for the attack. But what we have is exactly the opposite bias in the press: Islam is always downplayed even though it is always the central motive and the attackers often literally scream out loud that 'this is for Islam'.
Similarly, the 'white privilege' of being easily accepted by other white people is not a privilege at all, but the normal case in all countries at all times, in the sense that the majority is by definition the majority. The complaints about white privilege are complaints by a minority that they are not the majority, which is like arguing against mathematics.
16
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 11:13am
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 11:13am
justme says
Seems accurate to me:
justme says
???
CBOEtrader saysYour desire to call him a white terrorist is 100% about politicizing tragedy. It's a deplorable move
Personal much ? ;-)
Seems accurate to me:
justme says
Is it terrorism? Is it WHITE TERROR?
???
17
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 11:33am
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 11:33am
FortWayne says
Come on, let's keep it about the point.
The point is that being part of the majority is not a plausible motive for an attack on the majority.
Justme is racist who hates white people. His posts are Leftwing Terror.
Come on, let's keep it about the point.
The point is that being part of the majority is not a plausible motive for an attack on the majority.
18
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 21, 11:35am
Quigley says
Moderators let this one go?
FortWayne says
And this one?
Ah, your first mistake.
Thinking you could come to a relevant (never correct) conclusion based on nothing but your powers of reasoning!
Everything after that was just mental masturbation.
Moderators let this one go?
FortWayne says
We can turn it around rather simply...
Justme is racist who hates white people. His posts are Leftwing Terror.
And this one?
19
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 21, 11:36am
The funny part was Sarah Sanders claiming this wasn't terrorism.
What exactly is the Administration's definition of terrorism then?
What exactly is the Administration's definition of terrorism then?
20
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 11:44am
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 11:44am
HappyGilmore says
Fake news and the Liberal media. They terrorize more people than young white guys could ever do.
What exactly is the Administration's definition of terrorism then?
Fake news and the Liberal media. They terrorize more people than young white guys could ever do.
24
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 1:15pm
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 1:15pm
HappyGilmore says
Deleted now.
Please use the 'personal' link to report personal comments.
Quigley saysAh, your first mistake.
Thinking you could come to a relevant (never correct) conclusion based on nothing but your powers of reasoning!
Everything after that was just mental masturbation.
Moderators let this one go?
FortWayne saysWe can turn it around rather simply...
Justme is racist who hates white people. His posts are Leftwing Terror.
And this one?
Deleted now.
Please use the 'personal' link to report personal comments.
25
Shaman
2018 Mar 21, 1:17pm
Shaman
2018 Mar 21, 1:17pm
HappyGilmore says
Thanks for making the NRA’s point!
What difference would that make? Criminals don't follow laws.
Thanks for making the NRA’s point!
27
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 1:34pm
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 1:34pm
HappyGilmore says
Actually, no, that was the truth, not sarcasm.
Thanks for finally admitting it.
Quigley saysThanks for making the NRA’s point!
(it's called sarcasm)
Actually, no, that was the truth, not sarcasm.
Thanks for finally admitting it.
29
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 1:38pm
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 1:38pm
HappyGilmore says
If we just had a few more "common sense laws", then they would, right?
deepcgi saysbombs should be illegal.
What difference would that make? Criminals don't follow laws.
If we just had a few more "common sense laws", then they would, right?
31
HeadSet
2018 Mar 21, 1:45pm
HeadSet
2018 Mar 21, 1:45pm
HappyGilmore says
Would that be like denying the Ft Hood shooting that killed 13 and wounded 30 was terrorism, even though done by an Islamic extremist yelling "Allah u Akbar?" The Obama administration and their allies were explicitly against labeling that this Ft Hood massacre as terrorism, but instead called it "work place violence."
The funny part was Sarah Sanders claiming this wasn't terrorism.
What exactly is the Administration's definition of terrorism then?
Would that be like denying the Ft Hood shooting that killed 13 and wounded 30 was terrorism, even though done by an Islamic extremist yelling "Allah u Akbar?" The Obama administration and their allies were explicitly against labeling that this Ft Hood massacre as terrorism, but instead called it "work place violence."
32
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 21, 1:49pm
Quigley says
Wow.. You can't make this stuff up. Take a second and think about what someone is saying when they say "criminals don't follow laws, so why make more of them"
That is basically arguing for zero laws. Rapists don't follow laws, so why make it illegal?
Is that really what gun nuts want? Complete anarchy. No laws?
Hahaha pwned by his own fingers! An unnamed happy person loses!
Wow.. You can't make this stuff up. Take a second and think about what someone is saying when they say "criminals don't follow laws, so why make more of them"
That is basically arguing for zero laws. Rapists don't follow laws, so why make it illegal?
Is that really what gun nuts want? Complete anarchy. No laws?
33
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 21, 1:50pm
HeadSet says
I don't know. I'm just looking for what the rationale could be when declaring that someone planting bombs designed to kill people isn't terrorism?
Would that be like denying the Ft Hood shooting that killed 13 and wounded 30 was terrorism, even though done by an Islamic extremist yelling "Allah u Akbar?" The Obama administration and their allies were explicitly against labeling that this Ft Hood massacre as terrorism, but instead called it "work place violence."
I don't know. I'm just looking for what the rationale could be when declaring that someone planting bombs designed to kill people isn't terrorism?
34
mell
2018 Mar 21, 1:50pm
Yeah so it was likely was (domestic) terrorism, no problem with the assessment if you leave skin color out of it cause it has nothing to do with it, still dwarfs imported terrorism so much that the thread becomes insignificant.
35
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 21, 1:51pm
mell says
Yes, let's call it Christian terrorism.
Yeah so it was likely was (domestic) terrorism, no problem with the assessment if you leave skin color out of it cause it has nothing to do with it, still dwarfs imported terrorism so much that the thread becomes insignificant.
Yes, let's call it Christian terrorism.
36
deepcgi
2018 Mar 21, 1:55pm
deepcgi
2018 Mar 21, 1:55pm
Ah...sarcasm. I think you’ll find that bombs are already illegal. Apparently didn’t matter did it?
37
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 21, 1:58pm
deepcgi says
Again--so the solution is to get rid of all laws then?
Last I checked, people are still getting raped, so rape laws don't matter.
People are still getting murdered, so murder laws don't matter.
Ah...sarcasm. I think you’ll find that bombs are already illegal. Apparently didn’t matter did it?
Again--so the solution is to get rid of all laws then?
Last I checked, people are still getting raped, so rape laws don't matter.
People are still getting murdered, so murder laws don't matter.
38
mell
2018 Mar 21, 2:10pm
HappyGilmore says
No that would be a clear lie since there are no Christian motives at all.
mell saysYeah so it was likely was (domestic) terrorism, no problem with the assessment if you leave skin color out of it cause it has nothing to do with it, still dwarfs imported terrorism so much that the thread becomes insignificant.
Yes, let's call it Christian terrorism.
No that would be a clear lie since there are no Christian motives at all.
39
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 21, 2:18pm
mell says
Source? I've seen nothing saying there was no Christian motive. I have seen sources stating he was Christian.
Pretty sure most here would assume it was Islamic terrorism if he was Muslim.
No that would be a clear lie since there are no Christian motives at all.
Source? I've seen nothing saying there was no Christian motive. I have seen sources stating he was Christian.
Pretty sure most here would assume it was Islamic terrorism if he was Muslim.
41
mell
2018 Mar 21, 2:24pm
HappyGilmore says
No. Every other cultural/religious terror act classified as such has had a clear message/cultural or religious justification by the perpetrator. That's why they have been classified as such.This is a non starter. Domestic is the only attribute assignable here.
mell says
No that would be a clear lie since there are no Christian motives at all.
Source? I've seen nothing saying there was no Christian motive. I have seen sources stating he was Christian.
Pretty sure most here would assume it was Islamic terrorism if he was Muslim.
No. Every other cultural/religious terror act classified as such has had a clear message/cultural or religious justification by the perpetrator. That's why they have been classified as such.This is a non starter. Domestic is the only attribute assignable here.
42
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 21, 2:25pm
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Pretty much every article states it.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/austin-bombing-suspect-identified/story?id=53902601
“The family is a normal Christian family. There was nothing going on with Mark when I knew him, I knew him as a teenager. He reminded me of every teenage boy, it was hard to get a smile out of him," the friend said. "
https://www.christianpost.com/news/austin-bomber-was-christian-homeschooled-opposed-gay-marriage-abortion-221869/
"The man suspected of being behind a series of deadly package bombs in Austin, Texas, was a Christian who was homeschooled and advocated for socially conservative views."
I could post 10 more, but I think this gives the picture.
I doubt it. Link?
Pretty much every article states it.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/austin-bombing-suspect-identified/story?id=53902601
“The family is a normal Christian family. There was nothing going on with Mark when I knew him, I knew him as a teenager. He reminded me of every teenage boy, it was hard to get a smile out of him," the friend said. "
https://www.christianpost.com/news/austin-bomber-was-christian-homeschooled-opposed-gay-marriage-abortion-221869/
"The man suspected of being behind a series of deadly package bombs in Austin, Texas, was a Christian who was homeschooled and advocated for socially conservative views."
I could post 10 more, but I think this gives the picture.
43
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 21, 2:25pm
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 21, 2:25pm
HappyGilmore says
Its called murder. This guy was indeed out to cause mayhem and terror. He was not, however, a terrorist since he has no known political or group motive. He was just a nihilistic FUCK, who wanted to murder strangers. If he was a member of a group that had a goal of overthrowing the patriarchy, for example, then there may be a case for calling this terrorism. THAT still wouldnt be WHITE TERROR unless his group identity and motivation behind this attack was somehow linked to a "WHITE" group.
OFC everything is an assumption at this point, so we really don't know.
This isnt complicated, just seems like the left cant skip a chance to shit on white men. Quite pathetic
what the rationale could be when declaring that someone planting bombs designed to kill people isn't terrorism?
Its called murder. This guy was indeed out to cause mayhem and terror. He was not, however, a terrorist since he has no known political or group motive. He was just a nihilistic FUCK, who wanted to murder strangers. If he was a member of a group that had a goal of overthrowing the patriarchy, for example, then there may be a case for calling this terrorism. THAT still wouldnt be WHITE TERROR unless his group identity and motivation behind this attack was somehow linked to a "WHITE" group.
OFC everything is an assumption at this point, so we really don't know.
This isnt complicated, just seems like the left cant skip a chance to shit on white men. Quite pathetic
44
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 2:26pm
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 2:26pm
mell says
This is true. The bomber's likely origin in the majority ethnic group and majority religion is completely irrelevant because those characteristics have nothing to do with his motive (as far as we know so far).
Islamic bombing is the opposite, where the religion is the bomber's main motive for the bombing, and the attack is very loudly proclaimed to be for Islam in pretty much every case.
No that would be a clear lie since there are no Christian motives at all.
This is true. The bomber's likely origin in the majority ethnic group and majority religion is completely irrelevant because those characteristics have nothing to do with his motive (as far as we know so far).
Islamic bombing is the opposite, where the religion is the bomber's main motive for the bombing, and the attack is very loudly proclaimed to be for Islam in pretty much every case.
45
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 21, 2:27pm
CBOEtrader says
No, it's just a chance to, once again, show the hypocrisy of the Trump supporters.
This isnt complicated, just seems like the left cant skip a chance to shit on white men. Quite pathetic
No, it's just a chance to, once again, show the hypocrisy of the Trump supporters.
46
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 2:29pm
Patrick
2018 Mar 21, 2:29pm
CBOEtrader says
The unifying theme of the NY Times and NPR is that they shit on white men every day, either explicitly, or implicitly by selecting daily coverage of and showing great sympathy for anyone who is not white and male, simply because they are not white and male.
The NY Times and NPR are nearly perfect examples of racism and sexism (and psychological projection) in daily life.
just seems like the left cant skip a chance to shit on white men
The unifying theme of the NY Times and NPR is that they shit on white men every day, either explicitly, or implicitly by selecting daily coverage of and showing great sympathy for anyone who is not white and male, simply because they are not white and male.
The NY Times and NPR are nearly perfect examples of racism and sexism (and psychological projection) in daily life.
47
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Mar 21, 2:31pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Mar 21, 2:31pm
If this is the deceased suspect, it's a refutation of the Media/DNC (but I repeat myself) line about it being "White Terror"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/reddit-user-claims-austin-bomber-compares-zodiac-article-1.3886094
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/reddit-user-claims-austin-bomber-compares-zodiac-article-1.3886094
48
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 2:33pm
MrMagic
2018 Mar 21, 2:33pm
HappyGilmore says
Please point out here who said get rid of all laws? Please link it.
What's been pointed out with the delusional Libbies is that laws already exist on the books that make these acts illegal, but the Libbies think adding NEW laws will stop future attacks.
deepcgi saysAh...sarcasm. I think you’ll find that bombs are already illegal. Apparently didn’t matter did it?
Again--so the solution is to get rid of all laws then?
Last I checked, people are still getting raped, so rape laws don't matter
Please point out here who said get rid of all laws? Please link it.
What's been pointed out with the delusional Libbies is that laws already exist on the books that make these acts illegal, but the Libbies think adding NEW laws will stop future attacks.
« First « Previous Comments 9 - 48 of 102 Next » Last » Search these comments
I think it is time to resurrect an old term that originated during the French Revolution, and has since been reused several times through the centuries:
WHITE TERROR
So from now one, if there is an act that could be viewed as possible terrorism, the public should always ask: Is it terrorism? Is it WHITE TERROR? Then the public should relentlessly hound rightist politicians and blog jockeys why why WHY have they not denounced the violence as a cowardly act of terrorism. That would only be fair, given that the rightists always want to brand violence by Muslim or brown people as terrorism, while ignoring the same acts if perpetrated by a white person.