3 ms·

Fair enough. Maybe calculated or coordinated is better than stealth. Which would perhaps exclude this attack (maybe, maybe not) but include e.g. organized and i

Fair enough. Maybe calculated or coordinated is better than stealth. Which would perhaps exclude this attack (maybe, maybe not) but include e.g. organized and intentional white nationalists.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort. The KKK were terrorists. White bigots in the south were not. They were just bigots. Every stupid, angry, bigoted and violent person is not a terrorist. To me an almost classic example is that couple out in California that shot up those folks. They had planned for weeks, bought gear, posted online. They were even shooting video in order to publish of the attacks as they occurred. That's terrorism.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort. In that case, I would argue that this attack fits your definition of terrorism. The political ideology is white nationalism clothed in Islamophobic garb. The immediate political desire is, in the attacker's own words, "get out of my country!" It's hard to argue that killing someone (and by extension making people like them fear for their safety) is not a deliberate and planned way of getting "them" -- both the individual and the group that individual supposedly represents -- out of your country.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    I find this a very difficult argument to accept, but I appreciate your sharing it. I believe you are conflating "having a political desire" with "...an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further.." If a man loved Nazis in 1938 and blew himself up in Times Square? Not terrorism. There's no use of stealth in a pre-meditated way to instill fear to enact some political change. It's just some Nazi schmuck blowing himself up. Apologies if I'm responding to what I think you are saying instead of what you are, but fuck me. There's a huge difference in talking about what people feel and what they do, right? I feel a bunch of damned fool things, Never thought that this was some sort of topic for political debate.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      No, I agree this is a topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. And I agree with your example. The problem is that a bunch of disparate unorganized attacks can have the same effect as a coordinated intentional terror campaign. At that point, you have to decide whether terror is defined by intent or effect. One Nazi in times square? OK, not terror. A dozen Nazis all across America, even if uncoordinated? Terror. I default to intent but am also liberal in allowing effect to stand in for intent.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  Jim Crow was organized. When White Supremacy was the law of the land, and the police wouldn't prosecute the killing of a black man, that's organization.
- OraclesDyn388 10y ago
  There's a documented history of "just bigots" sitting around fuming, listening to a politician or local clergy disparage minorities, leading to violence against them. There's a history of government, for political reasons, peddling that message to those very people. Watch Nixon's re-election ads. Our own government is complicit in pushing these ideas. More so in the past, but the connection cannot be overlooked as to how these ideas have been peddled and then passed along, not at all dissimilar to how Islamic extremists are fed nonsense. In many cases "just bigots" believed and planned to do things they thought were in the interests of their state, based upon misinformation peddled by the authoritarian structure they live under. You're re-writing history.

Fair enough. Maybe calculated or coordinated is better than stealth. Which would perhaps exclude this attack (maybe, maybe not) but include e.g. organized and intentional white nationalists.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort. The KKK were terrorists. White bigots in the south were not. They were just bigots. Every stupid, angry, bigoted and violent person is not a terrorist. To me an almost classic example is that couple out in California that shot up those folks. They had planned for weeks, bought gear, posted online. They were even shooting video in order to publish of the attacks as they occurred. That's terrorism.

throwaway729 10y ago
> There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort. In that case, I would argue that this attack fits your definition of terrorism. The political ideology is white nationalism clothed in Islamophobic garb. The immediate political desire is, in the attacker's own words, "get out of my country!" It's hard to argue that killing someone (and by extension making people like them fear for their safety) is not a deliberate and planned way of getting "them" -- both the individual and the group that individual supposedly represents -- out of your country.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  I find this a very difficult argument to accept, but I appreciate your sharing it. I believe you are conflating "having a political desire" with "...an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further.." If a man loved Nazis in 1938 and blew himself up in Times Square? Not terrorism. There's no use of stealth in a pre-meditated way to instill fear to enact some political change. It's just some Nazi schmuck blowing himself up. Apologies if I'm responding to what I think you are saying instead of what you are, but fuck me. There's a huge difference in talking about what people feel and what they do, right? I feel a bunch of damned fool things, Never thought that this was some sort of topic for political debate.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    No, I agree this is a topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. And I agree with your example. The problem is that a bunch of disparate unorganized attacks can have the same effect as a coordinated intentional terror campaign. At that point, you have to decide whether terror is defined by intent or effect. One Nazi in times square? OK, not terror. A dozen Nazis all across America, even if uncoordinated? Terror. I default to intent but am also liberal in allowing effect to stand in for intent.
hyperpape 10y ago
Jim Crow was organized. When White Supremacy was the law of the land, and the police wouldn't prosecute the killing of a black man, that's organization.
OraclesDyn388 10y ago
There's a documented history of "just bigots" sitting around fuming, listening to a politician or local clergy disparage minorities, leading to violence against them. There's a history of government, for political reasons, peddling that message to those very people. Watch Nixon's re-election ads. Our own government is complicit in pushing these ideas. More so in the past, but the connection cannot be overlooked as to how these ideas have been peddled and then passed along, not at all dissimilar to how Islamic extremists are fed nonsense. In many cases "just bigots" believed and planned to do things they thought were in the interests of their state, based upon misinformation peddled by the authoritarian structure they live under. You're re-writing history.