patrick.net

Already guessed some would be twisting themselves in knots trying to find a racial or political reason:

http://patrick.net/post/1314605/2018-03-21-austin-bomber-blows-self-up#comment-1492488

Yeah, blog posts he had to write for a comm college class that represent fairly milquetoast views of about half the population including many who voted Lamb (D) in PA18 = proof positive his random bombings of all races and two completely different businesses were some kind of racial/political act.

Had a Dossier just waiting to be released within just a few hours of him being discovered, found and killed. Funny how they know all about him now isn't it?

When a Muslim blows up, runs over people, shoots and kills they say motive unknown and never describe the perpetrator ever.

The Truth will come out it always does dahlings!

(Sarc), when I white guy spreads terror by murdering random(?) people, it is not religious or political , and therefore not terror.

When the US kills or causes the death of millions of people, mostly Muslims, in the Middle East, it is not a religious or political act. We are just trying to HELP them, don't you know?

I have a new phrase for this, too: WASHINGTON TERROR

WASHINGTON TERROR is WHITE TERROR.

From the pattern and method, my guess was that he was white. I feel relatively safe calling it terrorism, only because I don't know if there was a specific political or social goal. I consider myself to be generally conservative leaning. Is there anything controversial in this post?

justme says

I was wondering why the right-wing of US politics (and patnet) was so quiet about the Austin bomber. Then I realized why: They had a hunch, and correctly so, that the bomber was a white guy. Hence, they did not do the usual thing and demand that the bombings be declared as TERRORISM.

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 act 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.

Who said the guy wasn't a Muslim?

justme says

(Sarc), when I white guy spreads terror by murdering random(?) people, it is not religious or political , and therefore not terror.

Or, he's just nuts. Which explains why he bombed random people of all races and bombed both a Goodwill and a FedEx, and never left any messages for authorities claiming he was acting in the name of Whatever.

When a Muslim shoots up a nightclub and calls the police to say he did it in the name of Allah and ISIS, and has a history of going on Third Worlder Left/Muslim rants with several people at work, that's obviously terrorism.

justme says

They had a hunch, and correctly so, that the bomber was a white guy.

It's not a hunch. The dude is white.

justme says

Is it terrorism? Is it WHITE TERROR?

If there were a politically ambitious group whose defining cause or group identity is "white" then yes. Since there is no such group, nor has this man identified himself as being part of this fictitiousgroup, then no.

Your desire to call him a white terrorist is 100% about politicizing tragedy. It's a deplorable move.

justme says

Then the public should relentlessly hound rightist politicians and blog jockeys why why WHY have they not denounced the act as a cowardly act of terrorism.

Lol, it's not exactly difficult to denounce murder.

justme says

the rightists always want to brand violence by Muslim or brown people as terrorism

Exactly no-one is defining the 500 murders per year in Chicago as terrorism.

http://patrick.net/post/1314561/2018-03-19-why-is-it-difficult-for-leftists-to-make-points-w-o-attacking-others

And the trend continues...

CBOEtrader says

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.

justme says

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?

justme says

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.

justme says

Personal much ? ;-)

Certainly not my intent to be personal. Apologies if it came across that way

CBOEtrader says

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.

justme says

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.

justme says

CBOEtrader says

Your 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?

???

FortWayne says

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.

Quigley says

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?

The funny part was Sarah Sanders claiming this wasn't terrorism.

What exactly is the Administration's definition of terrorism then?

HappyGilmore says

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.

bombs should be illegal.

deepcgi says

bombs should be illegal.

What difference would that make? Criminals don't follow laws.

I'm just glad he blew himself up. I hate feeding criminals.

HappyGilmore says

Quigley says

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?

Deleted now.

Please use the 'personal' link to report personal comments.

HappyGilmore says

What difference would that make? Criminals don't follow laws.

Thanks for making the NRA’s point!

Quigley says

Thanks for making the NRA’s point!

(it's called sarcasm)

HappyGilmore says

Quigley says

Thanks for making the NRA’s point!

(it's called sarcasm)

Actually, no, that was the truth, not sarcasm.

Thanks for finally admitting it.

Hahaha pwned by his own fingers! An unnamed happy person loses!

HappyGilmore says

deepcgi says

bombs 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?

justme says

Is it terrorism? Is it WHITE TERROR?

This would be:

HappyGilmore says

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."

Quigley says

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?

HeadSet 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."

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?

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.

mell says

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.

Ah...sarcasm. I think you’ll find that bombs are already illegal. Apparently didn’t matter did it?

deepcgi says

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.

HappyGilmore says

mell says

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.

No that would be a clear lie since there are no Christian motives at all.

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.

HappyGilmore says

I have seen sources stating he was Christian.

I doubt it. Link?