Domestic Terrorism

[IUCrazy2]

You say, "We don't spend a bunch of time navel gazing on the why's for white racists, I just wish we had the same consistency for non-white racists." I am confused, we spend a lot of time on why's for non-White? You are pretty much the only one here who has done that.

This guy is racist, he should be charged with terrorism and hate crimes. If anyone abetted him, they should be charged. I am not sure that someone showing him the Anti racist book would qualify.

Benjamin Nathaniel Smith killed Ricky Byrdsong and a couple others. Matthew Hale led the "church" that preached the hatred that Smith believed. I don't think Hale was ever charged, I know he was never convicted for anything related to Smith's spree. But the FBI did infiltrate the "church" after, which led to other charges. People can be nonviolent racists. I wish there were no racists, but I suspect that is a right we have. Smith crossed the line and frankly Hale probably crossed that line.

James crossed the line Anyone advising James in a similar way as Hale should be investigated as I suspect that crosses the line.

James guy deserves a fair trial and, after a fair conviction, the book thrown at him.

Why did it take until post 77 to get to here? That is my issue. So we are in agreement that the Nation of Islam is pretty much the equivalent to Nathan Hale and that there are non-violent racists who push rhetoric that can push the crazies (Roof and this guy) over the edge.

We did the navel gazing on white racists in the past. Next to no one tries to explain what Roof did as anything but racism. You went through what, 5 or 6 posts in a 77 post thread before saying "hey yeah, this guy is racist". That's my point about navel gazing. We talked about guns. We talked about Dylan Roof and the black and white crime statistics and we had to run through all of that just to get to this point.

Now that we have agreeance that he is a racist. What was he saying that made him racist and compare and contrast it with this:

Why People of Color Need Spaces Without White People

I’m breathing deeply as I write this. What I’m writing about is charged. I feel this energy in my body. It’s a heat in my throat and a rumbling in my belly. It’s an intensity that’s frustrated that…

arrow-journal.org

Subway guy wanted separation too. When I went to school this was called segregation and it was roundly criticized as being antithetical to the type of society (melting pot) we were looking to create and maintain.

I think Subway guy would be comfortable sharing his opinion (in more scholarly and polite language) on a college campus. I don't believe Dylan Roof would. Given we both agree that they acted out of racism, don't you think that is a problem?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If they go after the guy advising him you're speaking of everybody's pal - Lois Farrakhan...

Give me a heads up when that actually happens... He's been spewing Hate Speech on Steroids for decades...

Let's just say I won't holding my breath waiting for that to occur... Wrong flavor of Hater..

Farrakhan is one of those that are smart enough not to say, "kill x" but to talk in abstracts that are hard to convict. I don't have a good solution for him, except it should be impossible for him to be mentioned by any news organization in the US for any reason.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You went through what, 5 or 6 posts in a 77 post thread before saying "hey yeah, this guy is racist"

Actually I was saying that in my first post when I was congratulating you for finding racism.

I guess I can applaud the OP for finally seeing a case of racism in America.​

​

This guy is racist, I agree with that. It goes along with something I have argued since I've been here, we didn't eliminate racism circa 1970. We want to pretend that there is only one or two racists left in America and virtually no one today is a victim of racism. That isn't so. Racism is real, racism is a problem.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Can't wait

So you can lose more? lol

 

[mcmurtry66]

So you can lose more? lol

You think the Repubs will lose more races in Nov. We can bet? Make it more fun

 

[hoot1]

Does anyone know what James is a product of ? Will we ever know?

Given this, we all can blame our pet peeves.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Should have gone to the Masters

Right?

 

[zeke4ahs]

I don’t watch FOX.

Disney World - not Disney generally - is getting canceled because they are Wokestupid. They poked the eyes attached to the hands that feed them their special tax status. And because they are science deniers about chromosomes and penises. They would move Fantasy Land to a more liberal jurisdiction, but the taxes would kill them.

Wrong. People are canceling their Disney Plus subscriptions etc. heaven forbid they make a statement on a bill they oppose. Free speech and all that? Hate cancel culture right? And what do all those names conservatives call have to do with watching Fox?

 

[zeke4ahs]

You guys are so transparent with this, which was the point of the post to begin with. Why is it so damn hard to admit the obvious? The guy had over 40 hours of youtube videos where he was ranting and raving about evil white people (that suddenly violated TOS after the guy shot a bunch of people, they were a-o-****ing-kay with the guy's content until it would be discoverable and lead to obvious conclusions being drawn by the public). His Facebook page was full of the same.

Switch this guy's color, make him a White Nationalist, have him make and post over 40 hours of White Nationalist hate on YouTube (just kidding, no way in hell that is allowed to stay up long enough to accumulate almost 2 days worth of that content), have him have white nationalist memes and more on his personal social media page and then have him shoot up a Subway. Say he hits a few white people as he is very clearly just spraying bullets. Would you be making the same kind of deflections for him?

Don't bother answering that, we already know. So simple question, why do we ALWAYS make excuses when the ideology is similar but the face is black? I will tell you why, because about half of you have changed the definition for racism. Unhinged lunatics can spout this stuff, walk down the street shouting racist stuff at whites and hispanics (video of this guy doing that exists, bet you have not seen that on any of the media you frequent), and it just gets brushed under a rug. He did not have power or something so he is just a crank. Well the crank shot people. Well now he is just mentally unstable. Clearly. However, he was a mentally unstable man who was very clearly inspired by a certain ideology.

The ideology that says that these things are white (and the list can be any number of normal ass things that people of all colors do around the world, it doesn't matter), white bodies take up space and therefore do violence to black bodies, black bodies need separate spaces to decompress from the interactions with whites, whites have built an entire structure of society with the goal of holding blacks down, the entire history of the country was built on slavery and everything we all learned in school about freedom was a lie, we need to be racist in the present to atone for racism that happened in the past...you are a smart woman, you see where this is going.

That was just a joke.

 

[zeke4ahs]

He wasn't supposed to have been able to.... Thought we covered that... The FBI dropped the ball in a Big way on his background check...

Be damn glad he had a handgun (and literally clearly had no idea how to use it) because the mayhem would have been far more horrific had he gone to the gasoline ignited by fireworks as his first move inside that enclosed space...

He had a hatchet with him also... Should we ban hatchets, gasoline, and fireworks? It's not the tool it's the perpetrator that's the problem. It always is...

I submit that if just one or two of those sheep, er, people inside that subway car had a firearm of their own they might very well have solved the problem on the spot...

Or much more likely, the scene would have been more chaotic with more injuries and deaths.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Roof shot those people in a church because he hated them for their skin color. We don't spend a bunch of time navel gazing on the why's for white racists, I just wish we had the same consistency for non-white racists. The double standards don't do much to help anyone.

Actually go back and look at our Roof thread and you'll see no double standard. It starts just like your thread, with a "Are we going to talk about this or what?" post. And then we quickly devolve into arguments about the whys and other barely related things. There was no focus at all on Roof being a racist, as if that was the end of the story. The thread was almost all "navel-gazing."

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

He wasn't supposed to have been able to.... Thought we covered that... The FBI dropped the ball in a Big way on his background check...

Be damn glad he had a handgun (and literally clearly had no idea how to use it) because the mayhem would have been far more horrific had he gone to the gasoline ignited by fireworks as his first move inside that enclosed space...

He had a hatchet with him also... Should we ban hatchets, gasoline, and fireworks? It's not the tool it's the perpetrator that's the problem. It always is...

I submit that if just one or two of those sheep, er, people inside that subway car had a firearm of their own they might very well have solved the problem on the spot...

I wonder how many people, facing a bad guy that is shooting at them, would tell another person with a gun, "DON'T shoot at him, you might injure someone else, I'll just take my chances"?
It is always nice to see these people always thinking of others instead of themselves. Truly heart warming.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

And 2 or three armed people may have panicked and added 20 people to the casualty list. There is an assumption that anyone armed will act perfectly in combat. I think history shows that isn't always true. Friendly fire happens.

The odds that someone legally armed would add 20 casualties to the incident are pretty remote.

And I’d rather take that chance than be completely unarmed and defenseless in that scenario.

 

[Crayfish57]

The odds that someone legally armed would add 20 casualties to the incident are pretty remote.

And I’d rather take that chance than be completely unarmed and defenseless in that scenario.

The shooter is shooting randomly, anyone legally armed would be focused on one person. Could something bad happen sure but Id rather have someone actively trying to stop him than just be helpless

 

[76-1]

And 2 or three armed people may have panicked and added 20 people to the casualty list. There is an assumption that anyone armed will act perfectly in combat. I think history shows that isn't always true. Friendly fire happens.

I hope you don't really believe that...

The boys I shoot with would have simply stepped up on one of the side benches and identified and engaged the perpetrator until he was no longer a threat (without any thought to their own safety)...

Most (nearly all) firearm owners and especially Concealed Carry Permit types aren't the wild eyed moronic would be gunslinger types the left would have you believe...

If I ever find myself in a situation like that subway car where for some reason I'm unarmed I'm praying for someone else on site who is...

 

[76-1]

Or much more likely, the scene would have been more chaotic with more injuries and deaths.

You're wrong. Again...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The odds that someone legally armed would add 20 casualties to the incident are pretty remote.

And I’d rather take that chance than be completely unarmed and defenseless in that scenario.

Yep, it would be unlikely but people will be running, clear shots might be hard to come by, and the more people with guns the harder it will be to tell who the original perp is. Maybe not in this case given his dress.

We know in the Texas Tower shooting in '66 that 2 people were hit by crossfire, so it can happen. In that case Whitman was alone in a giant tower.

Frankly, I don't care if law-abiding people are armed. I know a lot of people that carry. But every single one is certain they would be a great hero if in a situation like this. I'm skeptical, we don't have close to 100% heroes in our military. Some will run anyway, some will freeze, some will hide behind their seat and spray hoping to hit the bad guy*. And yes, some will take time, acquire their target, and take a well-placed shot.

* I recall watching a firefight somewhere in the Middle East near Israel on TV many years ago. The PLO or whoever were just putting their AKs over a wall and blindly firing. We aren't being honest if we don't think there are people here that would do exactly that. And who knows who they will hit. I don't know what percentage that is. But not everyone in America is going to go by the book in a stressful situation like this.

Again, we KNOW we have friendly fire in the military, they are trained. It isn't a new invention, Marines on Okinawa were killed coming back from the latrine in friendly fire. It's like the old story about the Civil War, after battles they would find guns with many rounds loaded in but never fired. In battle, trained soldiers would load and load and load but forget to fire.

I have no idea what the percentages are, but not everyone handles combat perfectly.

 

[Crayfish57]

Or much more likely, the scene would have been more chaotic with more injuries and deaths.

OMG ! You are on here telling us about your superior intellect and you post that. Ignorance is bliss !

 

[76-1]

Yep, it would be unlikely but people will be running, clear shots might be hard to come by, and the more people with guns the harder it will be to tell who the original perp is. Maybe not in this case given his dress.

We know in the Texas Tower shooting in '66 that 2 people were hit by crossfire, so it can happen. In that case Whitman was alone in a giant tower.

Frankly, I don't care if law-abiding people are armed. I know a lot of people that carry. But every single one is certain they would be a great hero if in a situation like this. I'm skeptical, we don't have close to 100% heroes in our military. Some will run anyway, some will freeze, some will hide behind their seat and spray hoping to hit the bad guy*. And yes, some will take time, acquire their target, and take a well-placed shot.

* I recall watching a firefight somewhere in the Middle East near Israel on TV many years ago. The PLO or whoever were just putting their AKs over a wall and blindly firing. We aren't being honest if we don't think there are people here that would do exactly that. And who knows who they will hit. I don't know what percentage that is. But not everyone in America is going to go by the book in a stressful situation like this.

Again, we KNOW we have friendly fire in the military, they are trained. It isn't a new invention, Marines on Okinawa were killed coming back from the latrine in friendly fire. It's like the old story about the Civil War, after battles they would find guns with many rounds loaded in but never fired. In battle, trained soldiers would load and load and load but forget to fire.

I have no idea what the percentages are, but not everyone handles combat perfectly.

If they were killed coming back from the latrine it was because it was at night and they didn't stay in their holes...

The World War 2 Marines I knew were among the best shots on the planet.. If someone got out of their hole at night and moved around they where automatically assumed to be a Jap... That was on them, not the shooter... They didn't miss em did they?

I'll give you a tip if you're ever stuck in a situation where everyone about you is panicking...: Take a deep breath, let out half of it and count to 2, 3 if you can bring yourself to do it..., then assess the situation as best you can and Act accordingly... Allowing yourself to panic simply adds to the problem and does nothing to solve it and will most likely get you or someone near you killed or injured...

The people I hang with Act after assessing the situation, they don't panic...

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

In your view, is hate speech protected free speech?

I believe there is a line somewhere, but where it exactly is seems tough to pin down. People have gotten smarter, they know "kill X" is a legal problem for them, but saying "kill X" in abstract terms isn't.

Most of it, yes.

Sadly, a punch in the mouth response is almost always illegal.

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

No. Free rides was only part of it. Safety was also part of it. From the Times:

The overall number of violent crimes has decreased so far this year compared with last year. But certain crimes, like robberies, are on the rise and some regular riders have complained that they feel less safe riding subways outside of rush hours than they have in recent years.

“Folks who are saying we don’t need more police should imagine making that argument to one of the three people who were raped or to the people who were groped on the subway this year,” said Sarah E. Feinberg, an M.T.A. board member. “If they are thinking about it from this perspective, they wouldn’t say it isn’t worth investing in protecting people or preventing the next assault.”

Mr. Cuomo has repeatedly defended the need for more police officers, arguing that riders will be leery of riding the trains, no matter how good service is, if they perceive them to be dangerous.

“The trains have to run on time and they have to be safe,” the governor said recently. “You have to accomplish both. It is not one or the other.”

either way....she lost and they enacted more police and this still happened. So how does this letter have anything to do with this terrorist act? Where's the relevancy?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Most of it, yes.

Sadly, a punch in the mouth response is almost always illegal.

Some states still give dogs one free bite. Same should go for punches

 

[mcmurtry66]

either way....she lost and they enacted more police and this still happened. So how does this letter have anything to do with this terrorist act? Where's the relevancy?

The relevancy is Adams still wants a greater police presence. In keeping with common sense, of which AOC has none. More cops on trains is a good thing, and only a good thing

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

It would be interesting to test something like that. Put up essential identical post by a black and a white and see if both remain up. Also test liberal verses conservative. I'm surprised that nobody has ever tested that (maybe they have and I don't know it). If I was a congress person and thought I was gonna be bringing in FB, Google, etc for questioning about their practices I would definitely hire some people to do something like that.

This has been demonstrated for years.
The posts with words or phrases changed to so-called 'triggers' of the algorithm are deleted, often within minutes..

Lot's of examples out there..

 

[zeke4ahs]

I hope you don't really believe that...

The boys I shoot with would have simply stepped up on one of the side benches and identified and engaged the perpetrator until he was no longer a threat (without any thought to their own safety)...

Most (nearly all) firearm owners and especially Concealed Carry Permit types aren't the wild eyed moronic would be gunslinger types the left would have you believe...

If I ever find myself in a situation like that subway car where for some reason I'm unarmed I'm praying for someone else on site who is...

I’ll go with statistics as to what you THINK you would do in an emergency. Even trained police officers sometimes make bad decisions. Just because you shoot at a range doesn’t mean you would make good decisions in an emergency situation. Not saying you would or wouldn’t. But you can’t know until it’s upon you.

 

[zeke4ahs]

You're wrong. Again...

And you can prove this how? Oh right. You have no idea. Again.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Should armed civilians intervene as 'good Samaritans' in active shootings? The issue divides experts

The death of Johnny Hurley, who police say shot an Arvada gunman before falling to mistaken police gunfire, has divided experts on how and when civilians should intervene in crisis

denvergazette.com

Just one example. And when the actual police arrive, how do they know who is the good guy with the gun?

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

This has been demonstrated for years.
The posts with words or phrases changed to so-called 'triggers' of the algorithm are deleted, often within minutes..

Lot's of examples out there..

Reminds me of an experiment I did on Facebook back before I dumped it. I shared a post that was taken down, and bam, mine was also taken down. I then, posted all of the same content as an original post instead of sharing it. BAM taken down again. I then got tricky (in my very adolescent vindictive mind) and typed all of it out in Pig Latin.
As far as I know, it's still up.. muahahahaha

 

[hookyIU1990]

Should armed civilians intervene as 'good Samaritans' in active shootings? The issue divides experts

The death of Johnny Hurley, who police say shot an Arvada gunman before falling to mistaken police gunfire, has divided experts on how and when civilians should intervene in crisis

denvergazette.com

Just one example. And when the actual police arrive, how do they know who is the good guy with the gun?

He picked up the rifle of the bad guy he shot. Cops were looking for a guy with a rifle who was shooting people and saw him. Dumb move on his part and after saving lives.

I'll take my chances with a good samaritan or two shooting back.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Should armed civilians intervene as 'good Samaritans' in active shootings? The issue divides experts

The death of Johnny Hurley, who police say shot an Arvada gunman before falling to mistaken police gunfire, has divided experts on how and when civilians should intervene in crisis

denvergazette.com

Just one example. And when the actual police arrive, how do they know who is the good guy with the gun?

Sure, bad things can happen and things can get murky.

But on the whole, I’d much rather be in a situation where I or someone around me is armed if I’m confronted with an active shooter. That’s just common sense.

What you’re doing is extrapolating the worst case scenario and applying it to every situation.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

He picked up the rifle of the bad guy he shot. Cops were looking for a guy with a rifle who was shooting people and saw him. Dumb move on his part and after saving lives.

I'll take my chances with a good samaritan or two shooting back.

Just STOP... It's a time honored and proven fact, she does not understand real life and that everything doesn't fit into one little shoe box.

 

[hookyIU1990]

Just STOP... It's a time honored and proven fact, she does not understand real life and that everything doesn't fit into one little shoe box.

I guess I just don't understand the mindset that you'd rather chance getting shot by someone who is purposely shooting at innocent people, than chance getting shot accidentally by someone shooting at an active shooter.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I guess I just don't understand the mindset that you'd rather chance getting shot by someone who is purposely shooting at innocent people, than chance getting shot accidentally by someone shooting at an active shooter.

I don't either. But you were arguing with a turnip. ... Who apparently is ok getting shot as long as it is from a bad guy, not someone attempting to help... For that matter, she is ok with ANYONE getting shot as long as it is a bad guy, not a good guy trying to help.

I'm actually starting to think that she is a bot just like Cosmic, with the links she quickly pulls up to support her cause. The only difference, Cosmic isn't on a timer... She is. It's the only logical explanation for her strict adherence to make believe land.

 

[Crayfish57]

I don't either. But you were arguing with a turnip. ... Who apparently is ok getting shot as long as it is from a bad guy, not someone attempting to help... For that matter, she is ok with ANYONE getting shot as long as it is a bad guy, not a good guy trying to help.

I'm actually starting to think that she is a bot just like Cosmic, with the links she quickly pulls up to support her cause. The only difference, Cosmic isn't on a timer... She is. It's the only logical explanation for her strict adherence to make believe land.

She thinks she is the last word on everything. She likes to go on about how loved she is but I bet truth be told people that work around her hate her

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

She thinks she is the last word on everything. She likes to go on about how loved she is but I bet truth be told people that work around her hate her

Honestly I kind of get it, she is staunch in her beliefs. Since I changed my prescription, I am a LITTLE more understanding of her/ there/ them type. They are so hard coded into what they think it is an impossible position to change, they can't see past their own nose. It's also so programmed that the mere utterance of anything even mildly neutral of trump or a conservative's idea or common sense makes them feel they are playing against their own team.
Don't blame the algorithm, blame the programmer.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

She thinks she is the last word on everything. She likes to go on about how loved she is but I bet truth be told people that work around her hate her

OHHHHHHH The other thing that I glossed over.
Ok, so she feels loved and wants to talk us into it, that is a good thing (if she were real). Pride, self appreciation...
May be true, may not. But if in the real life, if it makes her perform better (than here) then it's a good thing, whether true or not.
But it does seem a little Narcissistic, similar to someone she so vehemently hates. ... Who could that person be? hmmmm

 

[76-1]

And you can prove this how? Oh right. You have no idea. Again.

Says the grown woman who gets her news from Rolling Stone and actually believes it's accurate...

Let me guess, your other go to hard news source is Saturday Night Live... 🙄

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Says the grown woman who gets her news from Rolling Stone and actually believes it's accurate...

Let me guess, your other go to hard news source is Saturday Night Live... 🙄

OH when the feminist movement get exactly what they asked for, to be men. If we men can bit slap our brother when they deserve it. It only seems fitting that we can our sisters too.
See, there is a bright side to everything.

God I love equality.

 

[GuyDatHoo]

Wrong. People are canceling their Disney Plus subscriptions etc. heaven forbid they make a statement on a bill they oppose. Free speech and all that? Hate cancel culture right? And what do all those names conservatives call have to do with watching Fox?

What exactly is your gripe here? Disney chose to wade into politics and they’re feeling the blowback. It should be a lesson for other companies that want to put virtue signaling ahead of profit. Lord knows there are a litany of examples of the reverse, boycott Tuckers advertisers, boycott Hobby Lobby, move the MLB all star game, etc.

The right has generally been much more hesitant to use it’s market power against companies that counter their ideology, now you’re mad that some are starting to exercise it? Why? Do you believe they shouldn’t be allowed to?

Or are you just complaining?

 

[Bloom.]

View embedded media

View embedded media

What do you do when simply existing in the same space as others is considered violent? This guy said we should be separate and decided to shoot a bunch of people over it.

This is just as connected as any crazy person who listens to white supremacist messaging and runs out to do violence to minorities.

Well, if I was a crazy black man and heard a bunch of crazy white men wishing me dead or gone, I'd probably start killing people too.

Either that or we have to start thinking White Supremacy is steeped in CRT's deeper calls to action. Irony.

What do you do when simply existing in the same space as others is considered violent? I don't know, start a hate group bent in ridding 'yourselves' of people who match the description of the people 'you' hate?