Writes Salon's David Sirota:
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.This is just about exactly the opposite of what Rush Limbaugh was saying yesterday.
पोस्ट्स
१७९ टिप्पण्या:
Bomb explodes - blame the bomber.
Mass school shooting - blame the gun.
Salon could use the traffic even if it's outrage.
The deliberate reversal of realty must be a fun magic trick for liberal writers. Deception for fun and profit is all we see from them anymore.
It's not easy making a buck in the marketplace of ideas.
This is just about exactly the opposite of what Rush Limbaugh was saying yesterday.
Yeah, that's because Rush Limbaugh is an idiot.
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted.
It's as if this idiot has never heard of Al Qaeda.
The deliberate reversal of realty must be a fun magic trick for liberal writers.
Except what David Sirota is asserting is exactly what happened in the aftermath of Oklahoma City and the Olympic Park bombing.
They are both right, it just depends on who you are, and what helps your agenda.
You can also just be logical, which will still looks racist to the opposite group, but what else can you do - just ignore who did it?
If it turns out to be a crazy person, which is almost certain, will we target crazy people, because that hits close to home with me.
Yeah, that's because Rush Limbaugh is an idiot.
Then you believe that what the opposite of what an idiot says must be true or have some sort of intelligent point to make? Do you hold with the author of this Salon piece?
"Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.
See what he did there?
Freder, Are you saying Oklahoma City was generally blamed on Muslims in 1995?
Doublespeak: whites can be assigned blame but white privilege prevents that. Whites are to blame because of white privilege.
It must be nice to have no self-awareness. Of course, leftists claim that it is false self-consciousness that prevents understanding the inverted logic of adherents of alienated consciousness. And, of course, once the satori of elienated self-awareness occurs, white guilt dissolves into blaming whites.
No wonder Marxism killed 60 million people. In Europe and Asia alone.
f it turns out to be a crazy person, which is almost certain, will we target crazy people, because that hits close to home with me.
Which begs the question. Are suicide bombers, a staple of the radical, militant Islam, crazy in the same clinical way we would think someone like Lanza is?
Freder Frederson said...
Except what David Sirota is asserting is exactly what happened in the aftermath of Oklahoma City and the Olympic Park bombing.
Hilarious bullshit.
Why do you come here? To beclown yourself?
Sirotta, representing the Left, is doing exactly what Limbaugh predicted.
The only thing at odds with what Limbaugh said is Sirotta's tendentious prediction of what will be the received wisdom because of "white privilege".
It's all entirely unnecessary and worthless, because I can't imagine any government policy aimed at anyone which could prevent this kind of attack. I'd like to hear what that could be.
Soon, pressure cookers will be sold only behind the counter.
You'll have to show ID to buy one.
"Are suicide bombers, a staple of the radical, militant Islam, crazy in the same clinical way we would think someone like Lanza is?"
I think yes, but they just have more friends.
Freder, Are you saying Oklahoma City was generally blamed on Muslims in 1995?
According to my unscientific recollection of the time: Yes. Until Timothy McVeigh was arrested.
Bill Ayres is white.
White Privilege in action.
This guy is what you call an intellectual, right? What the hell does that even mean? It's like thinking a 4 year old with a tin badge is a sheriff.
Are you saying Oklahoma City was generally blamed on Muslims in 1995?
Actually, a lot of right wing commentors (e.g., Paul Harvey, CBS' terrorism "expert") blamed it on Muslims without any evidence.
But that is not my point. My point is that after it was revealed that White anti-government extremists were found to be responsible, the tendency was to marginalize them and not attribute their actions to a larger movement. (which is Sirota's argument)
There is no such thing as white privilege. that's just a bunch of fairy tale Marxist bullshit.
"Freder, Are you saying Oklahoma City was generally blamed on Muslims in 1995?"
"According to my unscientific recollection of the time: Yes. Until Timothy McVeigh was arrested."
Within 90 minutes of the explosion, Timothy McVeigh was stopped by Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hanger for driving without a license plate and arrested for unlawfully carrying a weapon.[8][9] Forensic evidence quickly linked McVeigh and Terry Nichols to the attack; Nichols was arrested,[10] and within days both were charged. Michael and Lori Fortier were later identified as accomplices. McVeigh, an American militia movement sympathizer who was a Gulf War veteran...
~wikipedia
I think all of this speculation about "who" and the hope that it doesn't turn out to be someone who looks like..fill in the blank reveals a tormented psyche made raw by our ten year war. No matter who, one result will be an increase in a watchful police state.
David Sirota used to have a radio show here in Denver. His standard shtick was - all right thinking people think like me... stop interrupting! Boring.
Yes. Until Timothy McVeigh was arrested.
Yes, those whole 4 days until he was charged inflamed anti-Muslim sentiment!
There were probably lynchings too!
The only white privilege I'm aware of is better access to white women, which truly is unfair, but it's changing.
My point is that after it was revealed that White anti-government extremists were found to be responsible, the tendency was to marginalize them and not attribute their actions to a larger movement
Yeah perhaps because there is no "larger movement" of white people blowing stuff up with regularity.
Duh.
Yes, those whole 4 days until he was charged inflamed anti-Muslim sentiment!
There were probably lynchings too!
Followed by lynchings of whites!
Seriously, though - didn't YOU suspect Islamic extremists?
Correct me if I am wrong, but, Timothy McVeigh was not part of a larger movement.
I'd like an example of "white male terrorism in America" - that was/is part of a movement.
Well, consistent bad behavior by members of the group mean the group needs to start policing itself better and not whine that it's not some broader characteristic of the group that responsible.
If a sole individual or a handful of people commit a bombing, yes, we focus on the individual or that small group.
If a person or persons act in concert with many others, as part of a larger group, with a political purpose, then yes, we'll go after both the individual and the group.
And our reaction to the event will depend on whether it's the first or the second.
I mean this is grade school stuff.
"But that is not my point. My point is that after it was revealed that White anti-government extremists were found to be responsible, the tendency was to marginalize them and not attribute their actions to a larger movement. (which is Sirota's argument)"
So, you and he would prefer it if they had not marginalized them, and did attribute their action to a larger movement, even if as it turned out that was untrue and libelous to those groups.
I think you need to get your agenda under control - it's swerving erratically in traffic.
the tendency was to marginalize them and not attribute their actions to a larger movement.
"Rightwing [sic] Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,"[30] was made public in April 2009. The report suggested several factors, including the election of the first black or mixed race President in the person of Barack Obama, perceived future gun control measures, illegal immigration, the economic downturn beginning in 2008, the abortion controversy, and disgruntled military veterans' possible vulnerability to recruitment efforts by extremist groups as potential risk factors regarding right-wing extremism recruitment.[31]
Seriously, though - didn't YOU suspect Islamic extremists?
I don't really remember.
But, given that they had attacked the WTC two years prior, you have no point.
Well, consistent bad behavior by members of the group mean the group needs to start policing itself better and not whine that it's not some broader characteristic of the group that responsible.
Do you consider yourself your brother's keeper?
Can you cite an instance in which "your people" did something bad, and you felt morally obligated to do something about it?
AprilApple said...
Correct me if I am wrong, but, Timothy McVeigh was not part of a larger movement.
Of course. But freeper and the author at Salon have to pretend otherwise do maintain a false moral equivalence and intellectual dishonesty.
I mean I assume white guys have better access to white women. Personally I have no idea; they scare the hell out of me. That there is your terrorist group.
AprilApple:
"'you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist.'
"See what he did there?"
Well, I think he's saying we should hope this because it will help liberals, and liberals are good. Is that what you mean?
I'm getting mighty sick of pretty much anyone, of any stripe, whose reaction is, I hope it turns out to be my enemy who did this, because that will prove what I've been saying. (Which, you know, is the important part.)
If it turns out to be a Muslim, a whole bunch of my fellow conservatives will say, It figures, and go on to explain how this tendency toward violence is inherent in Islam.
If it turns out to be a right-wing nutjob, a whole bunch of liberals, who would be outraged at the tarring of all Muslims by the actions of a few, will proceed to tar every conservative they can with the actions of a few, and explain how conservatism inevitably leads to this, or gives aid and comfort.
Each would be convinced that they are absolutely right to do so, whereas the other case would be outrageous.
"[I]f the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident..."
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world.
So, are all points of views already written and depending on the culprit category, ready to roll when (if) the culprits are found?
McVeigh along with a guy named Terry Nichols did the Oklahoma City bombing.
That was it.
Again: our response will be based on whether the act was done in concert with a larger group or whether it was done without any connection to a larger group.
Seriously, though - didn't YOU suspect Islamic extremists?
NOBODY expects the Islamic extremist! Their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Their TWO weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Their THREE weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Koran.... Their FOUR...no... AMONGST their weapons... Amongst their weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise...
...I'll come in again.
So, are all points of views already written and depending on the culprit category, ready to roll when (if) the culprits are found?
I think the implication is, there are a lot of people across the political spectrum with ready made agendas whose reactions tend to be pretty predictable.
McVeigh's bombing was 18 years ago. Rudolph's spree ended more than 16 years ago. There was no evidence that McVeigh and Rudolph were in any way connected, and since Rudolph's arrest there have been, to a first approximation, no high-profile bombings by "white anti-government extremists".
In other words: if it turns out that a "white anti-government extremist" perpetrated the Boston bombings, it would be entirely proper to treat such as an "isolated incident" --- because that is what it would be.
Freder Frederson said...
This is just about exactly the opposite of what Rush Limbaugh was saying yesterday.
Yeah, that's because Rush Limbaugh is an idiot.
Freder Frederson said...
The deliberate reversal of realty must be a fun magic trick for liberal writers.
Except what David Sirota is asserting is exactly what happened in the aftermath of Oklahoma City and the Olympic Park bombing.
You're embarrassing yourself.
Keep it up because it's fun to watch.
When white guys in America blow up as much stuff as Muslim guys, come talk to me. Otherwise, it is accurate to call isolated incidents just that.
God bless and keep the victims.
Trey
I hope it turns out to be some loner with crazy ideas like thinking he's Batman or The Joker or something, because we won't waste a lot of money, time, and freedom trying to prevent the next one. No matter who did this, there is no action that can prevent it, or even diminish it beyond catching the guy and executing him.
Peter said...
Soon, pressure cookers will be sold only behind the counter.
You'll have to show ID to buy one.
And *still* won't need one to vote.
"But that is not my point. My point is that after it was revealed that White anti-government extremists were found to be responsible, the tendency was to marginalize them and not attribute their actions to a larger movement. (which is Sirota's argument)"
What larger movement did McVeigh belong to ? Clinton made a lot of outrageous statements about Limbaugh and other conservatives "inciting terror." He blamed talk radio when it could still be thought unusual.
McVeigh was protesting Waco. He attacked a government building, something one would expect from a tax protester, for example.
Maybe the bomber is protesting exercise. God, you're a fool !
I think the implication is, there are a lot of people across the political spectrum with ready made agendas whose reactions tend to be pretty predictable.
That's what YOU think the implication is, but that's because you don't have hundreds of years of white privilege holding you back. I didn't ask to be born this color, but because I am, I start out, day 1, a disadvantaged kid because of all this white privilege working against me and there's not a damned thing I can do about you.
You wouldn't understand. It's a white thang.
When Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades were blowing things up in the sixties and seventies, the FBI conducted a major investigation into the group.
And the FBI went after the Klan during the same period. Et cetera, et cetera.
Yes, there's racism in America. But sometimes race simply isn't the factor. It's whether the acts are done by lone individuals or as part of a larger conspiracy.
Soon, pressure cookers will be sold only behind the counter.
Anxiously awaiting Reids anti-pressure cooker legislation.
If they're part of a larger group conspiring together, then we blame the entire friggin' group.
If they're not, then we don't.
Geezus.
This is ideologues on the left trying to distort reality to fit into their worldview.
I'd like an example of "white male terrorism in America" - that was/is part of a movement.
Gee, how about the KKK?
Mr. Buddwing:
"Can you cite an instance in which 'your people' did something bad, and you felt morally obligated to do something about it?"
No, no, you don't understand. When one of mine does something awful, it's a one-off, absolutely unrepresentative.
When someone I oppose does something terrible, it just goes to show.
Didn't Clinton warn about a network of militia movements in America that wanted to overthrow the government? Did anything come out of this?
At least with 9/11, Al Qaeda had an actual hierarchy.
Gee, how about the KKK?
You're really reaching. How often do they take credit for blowing shit up? I mean in THIS century.
Any sentence regarding the Boston Bombing that starts with the word If is not worth reading.
ScottM hits nail on head right off the bat. (Blame the bat!)
Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.
Some people will say whatever advances their agenda regardless of the distance from reality, and apparently this divorce from reality is considered a feature when seeking employment at Salon.
In fact if the killer turns out to be a white anti-government extremist we'll never hear the end of it.
JPS - I'm not happy no matter who or what did this. It's mindless senseless killing and maiming. Children are dead and many have lost limbs.
And why?
We have a very resent history of radical Muslim terrorism on US soil. 9/11 - the death of 3,000 people in a most gruesome manner. The Fort Hood murders - a slap in the face because the man yelled out "Allah Akbar" or whatever and he was on the inside. We welcomed him in.
I wont' take delight if this is Islamic terrorism. We are obviously powerless to stop it.
I feel nothing but depression and anguish.
The left will take delight this is a tax-day-angry-white-dude act of terror. They are already salivating.
Fredder
The KKK? The KKK are so completely marginalized - you do realize that, right? Or are you really stupid?
When was the last time the KKK bombed a large group of people?
Or did anything of significance?
Of course, Ft Hood was "workplace violence".
That's because the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.
Scott M said...
Bomb explodes - blame the bomber.
Mass school shooting - blame the gun
To wit.
Geoff Matthews said...
Didn't Clinton warn about a network of militia movements in America that wanted to overthrow the government?
Willie shamelessly (does he do it any other way?) demagogues the OK bombings to discredit the militia movement, even though it had nothing to do with it.
I'd like an example of "white male terrorism in America" - that was/is part of a movement.
The weather underground.
But somehow, they aren't viewed by the establishment with the contempt that they deserve.
My point is that after it was revealed that White anti-government extremists were found to be responsible, the tendency was to marginalize them and not attribute their actions to a larger movement. (which is Sirota's argument)
That's because they are marginalized elements. What larger movement of white extremists are there? Unlike Muslim terrorists, white extremists tend to be lone wolf operators like McVeigh whose 'ideology' was closer to anarchism than anything else. On the other hand Islamic terrorism tends to enjoy a fair amount if local support if not indifference in order for it to be as effective as it is.
Freder Frederson said...
Gee, how about the KKK?
So McVeigh was in the KKK?
Since Bill Ayers is white, and wanted to bomb things, he's in the KKK to?
You realize how silly and coherent you are, right?
AprilApple:
"I'm not happy no matter who or what did this."
And I hope you know I wasn't referring to you. It was the Sirota quote you highlighted that brought on my rant.
I think Sirota's argument is proceding from mistaken assumptions. "White privilege" has no explanatory force in this context. There have been at least two Korean-American mass murderers in recent years (Cho Seung-hee in 2007 and Go Won-il aka One L Goh in 2012). That's vastly out of proportion with the Korean-American share of the population. Has "Korean-privilege" protected Korean-Americans from widespread suspicion that they're mass murders waiting to happen? There were fears in the Korean-American community that a backlash might come after Cho Seung-hee, but it totally did not.
Correct me if I am wrong, but, Timothy McVeigh was not part of a larger movement.
John Doe #2 was unavailable for comment.
If you look at the past couple decades, how many violent, fatal attacks have been committed by right wing extremist groups versus Muslim terrorist groups? I'm not talking about a deranged individual acting on their own without any sort of support structure, that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with political ideology and more to do with mental health.
"Can you cite an instance in which 'your people' did something bad, and you felt morally obligated to do something about it?"
Yea, the L.A. Riots in 92. I wasn't Black, even back then, and I didn't know anyone who rioted, but it was my city, and a lot of people got destroyed, so my family went down to the devastation and helped clean up. A lot of people did, and many seemed to be from the suburbs like us. People felt shame about their fellow citizens who rioted and felt responsible to help those hurt.
Over the years I think my compassion for the area has waned. The people there refuse to what's needed to fix up the place, which mostly involves just simply welcoming outsiders without trying to shake them down. After two decades, the place is not much better, except like everywhere else, the crime rate is down.
It would be portrayed as an isolated incident because it would be an isolated incident. At least in terms of who committed the act.
More importantly. We need pressure cooker control and background checks on everyone buying pressure cookers, including at flea markets and yard sales.
Freder said -
"Gee, How about the KKK?"
Gee, how about something in your lifetime? Scratch that, how about something in mine?
"No, no, you don't understand. When one of mine does something awful, it's a one-off, absolutely unrepresentative.
"When someone I oppose does something terrible, it just goes to show."
Absolutely spot on political, psychological and cultural analysis.
"Gee, how about the KKK?"
Hey Beave, Lumpy's having a party Friday!
A phrase like "white privilege" is just the bullshit terminology that crack-brained ideologues start spewing when they lack the facts and logic to persuade reasonable people of the merit of their beloved "narrative". (Or they're just trying to to keep up the funding for their phoney-baloney jobs.)
It's use is the equivalent of a toddler tantrum. If we weren't already 'round the bend this infantile crap would be laughed out of the public square.
AprilApple: See what he did there?
JPS missed it, but I think the rest of us spotted it.
RE: AprilApple:
I'd like an example of "white male terrorism in America" - that was/is part of a movement.
Sure -- as mentioned above, KKK, the Weather Underground (bomber Bill Ayers), the "Earth Liberation Front" (arsonist Daniel McGowan, arsonist Tre Arrow, and Eric McDavid), Red Cloud Thunder (arsonist Jeff Luers).
Mostly nowadays the political violence committed by white males is eco-terrorism, I think. They're mostly pretty pathetic, though, as you'd expect from that lot, which is probably why the threat from militias is (to my mind, rightly) taken much more seriously.
Will the Salon writers feel the same when the evidence points to William Ayres and Beradine Dorn?
So, Frederson is saying that since 5 members of OWS attempted to bomb a bridge in Cleveland, we should not consider these people as an isolated incident, but instead crack down hard on OWS?
OK, the Left's logic demands it, thus I will support their superior thinking.
So if we are guessing, then the likeliest white folks are the privileged Occupy Wall Street types.
They believe in bringing down the existing power structure with a boom just to show off.
And who wear Guy Fawkes masks? And what did Guy Fawkes do?
Guy planted several tons of gunpowder in the Parliament Building and set it to go off when King James visited.
If his plot had not been derailed, we would have missed out on the literary masterpiece called the King James Bible.
Only Catholics got blamed for that one.
When white males commit these awful acts they are universally condemned by white Americans. Including by members of these crazy militia groups. The only person of note that defended Timothy McVeigh was Gore Vidal.
Their actions are not excused, not explained as somehow justified, not overlooked.
Unfortunately, when followers of radical Islam commit these acts there are not small groups of fellow Muslims who defend their actions.
Look, there's racism in America (and every other country that is racially mixed). And there has been a double standard over the decades when it comes to actions by different races. That's a historic fact.
But race is simply not a factor here.
The KKK may be quiescent today--although they still exist--they have certainly caused more real terror over a longer time to more Americans (and killed probably more, too) than any Muslim terrorists.
In the lifetimes of probably most commenters here, white citizens and law enforcement officials in the south participated in prolonged campaigns of violence, oppression and terrorism against black citizens.
David Sirota is currently the subject of ridicule on Twitter for a profile photo; ladies and gentlemen of the Althouse blog, let me draw your attention to siroting.
Stupidity should be painful. If it were, we'd have less of it. I wish someone would walk up to David Sirota and punch in in the face, citing his article as the reason.
John Doe #2 was unavailable for comment.
So three people - McVeigh, Nichols and #2 - constitute a "larger movement"?
In any case, McVeigh was universally condemned. Nichols is in prison for decades. And #2 doesn't exist.
No one defended their actions.
If white males commit acts as part of a larger group which defends and support those actions, then we need to take more aggressive action against that entire group.
But just because a white person commits a terror atttack no more implicates all of white people than a an attack by a Muslim implicates all Muslims.
It just implicates those Muslims who either defend the act or actively work with them.
Robert Cook said...
The KKK may be quiescent today--although they still exist--they have certainly caused more real terror over a longer time to more Americans (and killed probably more, too) than any Muslim terrorists.
No, no one caused more terror to more Americans than the Indians.
In the lifetimes of probably most commenters here, white citizens and law enforcement officials in the south participated in prolonged campaigns of violence, oppression and terrorism against black citizens.
As always, Cook gets his facts from the morgue of the Daily Worker.
Except for the 20s, Klan membership was pretty restricted - in the 50s and 60s, the running gag was there were more FBI agents in the Klan than anybody else.
Colonel Angus: What larger movement of white extremists are there?
Geez, colonel, are you blind? There are 10s of millions of white people out there who didn't vote for Obama, who support the 2nd Amendment, who don't support affirmative action, who think immigration is out of control, a good many of them are Christians, and the SPLC has it on good authority that almost half of them are male.
And even as we speak, the KKK is hiding in the dust bunnies under Freder's bed.
So stop with the denial, White Privilege Boy.
Aaron said...
So, Frederson is saying that since 5 members of OWS attempted to bomb a bridge in Cleveland
And they were all white too.
So McVeigh = KKK
Unibomber = KKK
Weather Underground = KKK
OWS Cleveland = KKK
Very coherent, right?
The KKK may be quiescent today--although they still exist--they have certainly caused more real terror over a longer time to more Americans (and killed probably more, too) than any Muslim terrorists.
True, but I'm more concerned about the most likely trajectory.
When was the last time the KKK perpetrated such violence in a city like Boston?
Freder Frederson,
Gee, how about the KKK?
There were a lot of women in the KKK, you know. Cf. this.
So, not really a "white male" organization.
Except for the 20s, Klan membership was pretty restricted - in the 50s and 60s, the running gag was there were more FBI agents in the Klan than anybody else.
And iirc from the history channel special, the last major Klan activity occurred in the midwest.
None of that stuff you mentioned has been happening in my lifetime.
Freder Frederson said...
The deliberate reversal of realty must be a fun magic trick for liberal writers.
Except what David Sirota is asserting is exactly what happened in the aftermath of Oklahoma City and the Olympic Park bombing.
Right, no one blamed anti-government militias for OKC. It's amazing how the left draws such idiotic conclusions.
You can see the difference between left and right in how they treat those advocating violence. After McVeigh militia membership dropped 90% because even though they weren't supporting violence they were so horrified they didn't want to be even tangentially associated. On the other hand the left makes excuses for those who kill, blaming America rather than murderers.
When will white-privileged Robert Cook voluntarily relinquish his job to a qualified African-American?
One wonders.
If he doesn't, can we blame that on the KKK too?
Robert Cooks thesis seems to be "hey, stop looking at all those muslims attacking people all over the world RIGHT NOW (including the US)! Don't you realize some bad stuff happened here in the US 30/40/50/100/200/300 (back to European white guys) 400/500/1000/2000/3000 years ago??!!!"
Balfegor- Thank you.
Those are actual examples.
"The KKK may be quiescent today--although they still exist--they have certainly caused more real terror over a longer time to more Americans (and killed probably more, too) than any Muslim terrorists."
Indians killed quite a few, and we must never drop our guard with those murderous British Redcoats.
Shanna said...
Except for the 20s, Klan membership was pretty restricted - in the 50s and 60s, the running gag was there were more FBI agents in the Klan than anybody else.
And iirc from the history channel special, the last major Klan activity occurred in the midwest.
None of that stuff you mentioned has been happening in my lifetime.
That was in the 20s again.
I think our Lefties are confusing the Klan with the murders of people like Viola Liuzzo and Medgar Evers back in the 60s which, if memory serves, were carried out by small groups of unaffiliated racists.
Every now and again, the Klansters will burn a cross in someplace like bucks County PA (chi-chi area north of Philadelphia and home to the Wyeths, among others) or stage a march, but that's about it.
Jay,
So McVeigh = KKK
Unabomber = KKK
Weather Underground = KKK
OWS Cleveland = KKK
And then there was David Koresh, who killed all those ... oh, wait.
What about the even more recent OWS crowd? Will Sirota recognize that as the ultimate in "White Privilege"? Or is OWS simply the self-absorbed angry hipster group - who happen to be white?
The bomber will more likely be a Muslim than a Mormon. That's just the way things are. If he turns out to be white, he will more likely be a lone loon than a member of any organized group......The only ready example of white privilege that I can think of are the members of the Weather Underground. They get teaching appointments and sympathetic movies. At the time of D W Griffith this was also true of the KKK, but they haven't gotten much love in recent generations.......Islamic terrorists and their left wing counterparts have actually succeeded in winning control of many states so their terrorism can be considered more purpose driven than nihilistic.
And just so this can really be all about him, the Secret Service says a letter to Barry had a "suspicious substance" on it.
This on the heels of the ricin-laced letter sent to Sen Roger Wicker (R-MS).
Starting to feel like the days after 9/11, don't it?
"No, no one caused more terror to more Americans than the Indians."
Actually, the Americans committed centuries of terror, oppression, and genocide against the American Indians, many of whom still live in the de facto concentration camps created for them after we murdered them and drove them from where they lived.
Hey Freeper, this article contains photos of the OWS White Bombers.
They are just like the OKC bombers, right?
You have now said OWS represents a terrorist movement, correct?
William: "The only ready example of white privilege that I can think of are the members of the Weather Underground."
Quite true.
I find it highly unlikely that Cookie would even be responsive to your mentioning the Weather Underground (or Baader-Meinhofs', or Red Army Faction or Red Brigades, etc) since those were all leftists right down to the last.
Ah Cooktard, the self loathing is strong with you. You poor poor white privileged lilly what motherfucker. You must feel so guilty. You know that if you kill yourself you will be absolved of your white privilege right?
Do it.
The Boston bombing hit a little too close to home for me, and I am disgusted by the premature attempts to drag politics into the investigation. Both sides are not blameless, but I see a lot more from the left.
Cook: " ...concentration camps ..."
What kind of "concentration camp" is it when the "inmates" are allowed to run the camp and are exempted from many of the laws in the rest of country as well as being provided lots of cash directly to the tribal chiefs?
Something tells me that cookies heroes in N. Korea or the former Soviet Union or in Vietnam or in Cambodia or in Laos or in Cuba would set up their "concentration camps" with such sunny leniency.
The Indian reservations are not concentration camps. The people who live on the reservations are free to leave. With high unemployment, alcoholism and dysfunction, they should leave. Not one of our finer ideas.
I've met an Native American artist who did leave. Long story short - he is much happier on the outside.
President Mom-Jeans: "Both sides are not blameless, but I see a lot more from the left."
I think that's a fair comment.
Personally, I immediately (within hours) thought this was more likely not an Islamic or jihadist group simply because they did not claim responsibility for the action right away.
Something they tend to do.
That doesn't mean that one of the many jihadist groups did not do this, it just means that thus far it doesn't fit the GENERAL pattern.
What I really expected and braced myself for is what we typically see from the left: A wholesale impugning of all things white, male, western etc.
Case in point: Cookie.
roesch/voltaire said...
I think all of this speculation about "who" and the hope that it doesn't turn out to be someone who looks like..fill in the blank reveals a tormented psyche made raw by our ten year war. No matter who, one result will be an increase in a watchful police state.
A big plus for your side!
Don't right wing extremists typically target government facilities?
I think unless the perp(s) start blabbing, this trail may run cold. It was dumb luck that they caught McVeigh.
Mr. Cooke,
My father and both of his parents were member of the White Earth Band of Chippewa (Ojibwe) Indians. They left, and I'm damned glad that they did.
RE: KKK
You can find out how to get the [King's] film on his website, www.mothersofnotomorrow.com.
King, 35, is lucky he hasn’t been lynched – not by the Klan, but by angry black people – because he put on a Klan robe and mask and stood on a street corner in Philadelphia recently. The stunt was designed, he said, to shake people from their apathy and complacency toward the genocide occurring every day.
In addition to wearing a white robe and pointy-headed hood, he held aloft a sign that pointed out that the KKK killed 3,446 blacks in 86 years.
. . .
More blacks than that are murdered every six months – usually by other blacks, his sign read.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/12/2672728/saunders-its-not-the-klan-but.html#storylink=cpy
Robert Cook said...
No, no one caused more terror to more Americans than the Indians.
Actually, the Americans committed centuries of terror, oppression, and genocide against the American Indians, many of whom still live in the de facto concentration camps created for them after we murdered them and drove them from where they lived.
Spare me. Most tribes were on land they had just stolen from someone else when the white man showed up (Coronado, as an example, encountered the Apaches not in TX or AZ, but KS).
And the Indians probably visited more centuries of terror, oppression, and genocide against other American Indians, not to mention white men (French and Indian Wars lasted a century, as did the Comanche wars) than otherwise.
If you were attacked by the Indians, there were no reservations where you were fed, clothed, and sheltered.
If Cook wants an education (God knows he needs it), he ought to look up Thomas Jefferson's original intent for the reservation system, not to mention the Indian Intercourse Acts.
No matter who, one result will be an increase in a watchful police state.
Bear in mind that state is typically preceded by the confiscation of civilian firearms, a goal fervently cheered on by leftists.
why can't anybody say the obvious? This was an act of war, and there will be more. Sure we should try to find the bomber, same as we tried to kill the bombers in their planes in WWII, but this is war, a response to our drone war, and we had better get used to it.
Spare me. Most tribes were on land they had just stolen from someone else when the white man showed up (Coronado, as an example, encountered the Apaches not in TX or AZ, but KS).
Mr. Cook is spot on with his assessment of our treatment of the natives but its not particularly unique to human history. History is replete with numerous examples of ethnic cleansing in the formation of the nation-state so the actions of our forefathers in the early development of the country was par for the course. It was made a bit easier when an 'advanced' society was faced with a stone age tribal one.
Of course it wasn't limited to evil white Europeans either. Islamic hordes routinely invaded Europe after the fall of Byzantium subjecting the natives to their oppression.
Whaaaat, Dust Bunny is hiding under Freder's bed?!
And the Colonel is a white boy?! Oh my gosh I always pegged him for a Jamaican..
Paranoid cults that targeted Jews, or Catholics, or or Communist Fellow travelers (such as MLK in their eyes) did exist once.
Bombingham was a real event at Condolisa Rice's church.
But when the community leaders turned against them these shrank to a few weirdos here and there.
Today's paranoid cults are the Enviro-Nazi Malthusian Cults such as the UN Warmist Hoaxers and Barack Obama.
Those guys do not plan to shrink away soon. That is why they are arming the Federal Government, disarming citizens and constructing Concentration Camps to deal with civil unrest when they announce the Martial law after the dollar ceases to buy food.
But the KKK sure is a big threat today...well a big distraction.
Remember: Radical White Leftists and their various victimology groups don't count, and in fact are celebrated by the wealthy white cultural elite leftists of Hollywood.
Radical rightwing groups like - tax payers - are guilty until proven guilty, and are guilty bastards no matter what anyway.
simply because they did not claim responsibility for the action right away
"Credit" is only taken immediately when a cell is captured or killed. If they get away, they can do more in the future. Better to have American authorities looking for everybody.
The Left's real fear: if it's a foreign Muslim extremist organization, it will be harder to slash the Pentagon's budget. If it's domestic and white and anti-government, then public support might grow for sweeping new legislation to accumulate federal power, seize weapons and stifle dissent. That's the hope.
The left is in full shrieking hysteria mode on Twitter (the NRA is a terrorist organization) because Toomey/Manchin is apparently going down in flames.
And the Colonel is a white boy?! Oh my gosh I always pegged him for a Jamaican..
Your powers of observation are impeccable, as usual.
If the bomber is a Muslim, I wouldn't be surprised if he were unconnected to a formal group.
But there will be a number of Muslims who are sympathetic, or supportive, of his actions. And there will be a number of Muslims who will unconditionally condemn his actions.
This is what happened with the gunpowder plot in Britain. It was a Catholic who alerted British authorities to the plot. But it was also Catholics who bore the brunt of the backlash.
When you are fighting for survival, fairness is a luxury that will be discarded. At this time, I don't believe we are fighting for survival. But we are descending towards that point.
The Left's real fear: if it's a foreign Muslim extremist organization, it will be harder to slash the Pentagon's budget.
Why? The attack took place in Downtown Boston. Last time I checked, domestic law enforcement does not fall under the purview of the Pentagon.
Your second point is relevant whether it was a white skinned right wing extremist or brown skinned Muslim freedom fighter seeking retribution.
My point is that after it was revealed that White anti-government extremists were found to be responsible, the tendency was to marginalize them and not attribute their actions to a larger movement. (which is Sirota's argument)
Provided one ignores Clinton blaming talk radio and Rush in particular for it.
Or the whole brouhahaha over "militias" that popped up then as well.
White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
Yeah. Like, after 9/11 the way the government branded Arabs and Muslims as targets, invaded Saudi Arabia, and bombed Mecca.
Oh, wait.
That never happened.
Mr. Wise is - evidently - so deeply invested in "white privilege" that he doesn't seem to realize that his examples, combined with recent history, disprove his thesis.
(This continues the nigh-perfect track record of my heuristic of "if someone talks about 'privilege' they're talking a load of excrement".)
Why? The attack took place in Downtown Boston. Last time I checked, domestic law enforcement does not fall under the purview of the Pentagon.
Your second point is relevant whether it was a white skinned right wing extremist or brown skinned Muslim freedom fighter seeking retribution.
No. After 9/11, which occurred on American soil, the Pentagon's budget skyrocketed. We fought them over there so we didn't to fight them over here, remember? It's easier to slash the Pentagon's budget if the threat of international Muslim terrorism has subsided.
Iowahawk spots 4chan solving the attack pics.
The supposed perps look sort of dark skinned.
Though I don't follow the picture narrative very well.
lmao. Salon is a sick joke. Following OK city and Olympic Park, Hilary Clinton starts ranting about a "vast right wing conspiracy" and her husband starts attacking religious compounds for no reason and blwoing people away.
Fucking leftists. Sick subhuman savages.
Yes, because white privilege worked out so well for the Nazis.
That post is a crazy insular.
Add to this, "white privilege" is something I only hear from people who have lots of privileges and influence and power. Academics, journalists, and such.
Everyone has to have an Other to hate.
That white privilege thing sure worked for Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Or was that that other privilege--the white leftist terrorist privilege?
"the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came"
Yeah, just like how, after the Beltway Snipers were caught, and they turned out to be black, we totally bombed the crap out of their hometowns (Baton Rouge and Kingston, Jamaica).
I do find this whole thing ridiculous. The only thing that I think that we can say so far is that it probably wasn't al Qaeda, since they would likely have taken credit for it already.
Statistically, I think the betting would be on radical leftists of some stripe. A goodly number of the mass murders, etc. over the last couple of decades have involved some sort of leftist radicalism. Now, the perps often sound almost incoherent, but their often rambling, incoherent, philosophies are invariably closer to those of Bill Ayers and Angela Davis than Timothy McVey.
The other thing to keep in mind when predicting the political leanings of the perp or perps here is that if the attack were from the right, it most likely would have been aimed against government facilities or government personnel, not against innocent bystanders, like the OKC bombing was. And, not just against a government target, but rather, against an offending government target like the IRS, ATF, FBI, Congress, the White House, etc. But probably not against unoffensive agencies like Census or NOAA.
"Why do you come here? To beclown yourself? "
Duh. I'm sure it's not all that fun trying to beclown yourself at home alone--you need an audience for the proper effect.
No. After 9/11, which occurred on American soil, the Pentagon's budget skyrocketed. We fought them over there so we didn't to fight them over here, remember?
Yeah that worked out well. I had no problem going to Afghanistan and operating a punitive mission but we didn't need to triple the defense budget to do that. Right now we are spending billions trying to civilize a nation of barbarians.
Fact is we are over there, as you say, and we still have to deal with Islamist attacks and attempts here.
It's easier to slash the Pentagon's budget if the threat of international Muslim terrorism has subsided.
I doubt that is ever going to happen. At least not in this lifetime particularly when the so called Arab Spring has done nothing more than cultivate more Islamist governments. I suspect it will get far worse before it gets better.
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
John King just said on CNN that the suspect in this case is a "Dark Skinned Male"
Of course CNN quickly apologized, but we all know where this is going...
Christ, Clinton was reelected because of the OKC bombing. Not because he gave some heartfelt speech, but because he effectively linked the small goverment right with anti-government loons.
rhhardin,
Great link. Everyone should take a look and see if you recognize them. They made not be involved but they should be spoken to by the FBI. Just to repeat--
http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA
Just looked at the link, my first thought was why would the bomber stand next to a cop? My first hunch was correct.
CNN describes suspect as "dark skinned male" and the left is going ballistic on Twitter...
The target of the attacks - innocent civilian/bystanders/onlookers at a marathon - certainly seems to be something a radical right/anti-government type wouldn't do.
What do they represent? They're just Americans. They don't symbolize the government.
And it seems to a lesser extent to clear a radical left group.
This was designed to just kill a bunch of Americans. No larger purpose.
OTOH, Eric Rudolph bombed a park in Atlanta during the Olympics. But he viewed the Olympics as sort of a socialist/one-world symbol. So attacking an event sponsored by it "made sense" in a twisted sort of way.
So, what does the Boston Marathon represent or symbolize?
My first hunch was correct
You cleared them already? Wow! That's faster than they do in London. If you have a bomb on your back you try and act calm and natural regardless of who winds up standing next to you. If you see a cop and you go out of your way to avoid them, that attracts suspicion.
My guess would be the Occupy Wall Street type. Targeting the 1%. The 1% that can run a long distance and those that follow them.
Sirota is a leftist/progressive ignoramus...but I repeat myself.
I think speculating at this point until the photos are released is premature.
There is supposed to be a briefing at 5:00 PM eastern time, but i bet the photo leaks earlier than that.
Hopefully it leads to a quick capture of the person or persons responsible.
Darrell,
Nope, I'm pretty much agreeing with blog owner. Also in the movies it would be cool for the bomber to be gutsy enough to stand next to the cop, in real life I bet the suspects stayed far away as possible.
Meanwhile, CNN has just quoted a law enforcement official that they have identified from videotape a "dark-skinned" individual placing the bomb. He sounded very apologetic about having to say it too. An arrest is supposedly imminent.
Inga, better remember your spy school lessons. What would Elizabeth on The Americans say?
I don't remember people jumping to the conclusion that the Olympic bombing was done by dark skinned individuals.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
I think speculating at this point until the photos are released is premature.
Check the link at 12:28.
Are those the lord and taylor photos though?
It sounds like things are moving fast, I'm holding off until something beyond 4 Chan comes out.
Inga said...
Just looked at the link, my first thought was why would the bomber stand next to a cop?
Because running away from one makes you look guilty of something?
This is Boston, a place filled with radical, murderous left-wingers all protected by universities. Skip Gates calls Cambridge home. Where Occutards jumped on people's cars and the news reporters did nothing to report it.
The bombers were the sons and daughters of Bill Ayers and Bernedette Dohrns and Jeremiah Wright and the Black Panthers. You know--Obama's friends.
Which is, btw, why it's taking "so long" to find the bombers. Obama's trying to cover up his sympathizers involvement.
Enjoy the decline, savages!
This has been a bad week for the left.
On the day a "victim of abuse" at GITMO writes an op-ed, a terrorist attack takes place in an American city. (Note: that lefty dimwit blog troll "phx" assured us the "adults" are in charge in Washington, re: War & terrorism not 20 mins before the bombing)
On the day a silly, barely coherent leftist takes to Salon to write this drivel, the FBI identifies a "dark skinned male" as a suspect in the Boston terror attack.
Bonus #1: The Gossnell abortion murder trial gets NYT & Wash Post coverage, finally.
Bonus #2: Assault Weapons Ban and Toomey/Manchin killed in the Senate.
It really has to suck to be a leftist.
Running away, no. Strolling away nonchalantly, yes.
A goodly number of the mass murders, etc. over the last couple of decades have involved some sort of leftist radicalism.
Really, can you provide examples because I sure can't think of any. Earthfirst, which definitely had a leftist agenda, caused a lot of property damage but didn't kill anyone (and they specifically acted to avoid casualties). Unless I am mistaken, most of the acts of domestic terrorism over the last couple of decades have mainly involved right wing radicalism (from Oklahoma City to the numerous abortion clinic bombings and murder of abortion providers).
If you act like you own the place and go about your business, no one usually bothers you. Let the cop leave when he has to. Leaving and coming back--when there is no reason for it like a bathroom or cigarette break--attracts attention.
Following OK city and Olympic Park, Hilary Clinton starts ranting about a "vast right wing conspiracy" and her husband starts attacking religious compounds for no reason and blwoing people away.
I know I shouldn't engage you but this is just astounding. I assume you are talking about Ruby Ridge and Waco. They of course were part of the motivation for the OK city bombing. The Olympic Park bombing occurred in 1996, again after the other three events.
And lastly moron, Ruby Ridge was during the first Bush administration.
Apparently, race is very important!
Did. Not. Know. that Major Hassan Nidal was a white guy!
What we should be concerned about is how this bombing is going to undermine civil rights further. How it will be used to justify useless incursions and infringements that make the government look good and not prevent the next bombing.
Colonel Angus said...
Spare me. Most tribes were on land they had just stolen from someone else when the white man showed up (Coronado, as an example, encountered the Apaches not in TX or AZ, but KS).
Mr. Cook is spot on with his assessment of our treatment of the natives
No, he isn't.
The reservation system was intended to help Indians adjust to the white man's world; if it failed, it was largely because of the spoils system Andy Jackson established.
As for the Indian wars, we showed a Hell of a lot more forbearance to them than they showed to us.
For Cook's education, he should bone up on the history of Texas. The five civilized tribes who were relocated to Oklahoma from the southeast did get a raw deal, but plains Indians are a different matter. Their culture, especially Apaches and Comanches, was based on terrorism. Young men had to participate in deadly raids on neighboring groups to prove their manhood. Not just white settlements, any other group. This provided the tribe with horses, women and children as slaves. If a woman was too old to make a wife, she would be raped and murdered on the spot, or taken along to be tortured for fun. This after they had already killed the fighting age males of the raided group.
If they had not held on to this practice, the Apaches would still control about half the state of Texas.
A goodly number of the mass murders, etc. over the last couple of decades have involved some sort of leftist radicalism.
Looking back over the past decade (with the help of Wikipedia), the pattern that emerges to me is that there's a lot more Muslim and Middle-East-related terrorist incidents in the US every year than I had thought.
BTW, the Cherokees in Oklahoma fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War because they did not want to give up their slaves.
Sirota is a self-righteous douche.
Re: edutcher:
The reservation system was intended to help Indians adjust to the white man's world,
Eh, maybe it turned into that at some point, but back when the policy of relocating the Indians west was formally adopted in the early 19th century, it was clearly meant to open up lebensraum for the Americans. I mean, wasn't that one of the points of tension between the Colonies and the Empire -- that the British government kept putting the brakes on the colonists' Drang nach Westen into Indian territory?
While I don't care what a lefty ignoramus says, the trade off between protecting our personal liberty vs physical protection is an interesting topic.
Conservatives want to limit government power and preserve personal liberty. To me, preserving liberty is important to enough to take a somewhat increased risk of political violence. The idea is that in the long run we have far more to fear from a too powerful, dictatorial government than from random acts of terrorism.
Lefties, otoh, work strenuously to erode the constitution (take a bow, Althouse) and work relentlessly to increase the size, cost, and power of the fed gov.
Philosophically, the governing lefties are thrilled to increase fed gov surveillance as long as the surveillance is aimed at their political enemies. This is completely compatible with the many horrific lefty dictatorships that have blighted the earth.
Sad to say, too many governing (not conservative) GOP pols are more comfortable with increasing the power of the fed gov than is compatible with a conservative philosophy. The tea party is having some success primarying these guys.
In practical terms, since the left is disproportionately concentrated in large cities, it is more vulnerable to political violence. As lefties like to say: "no justice, no peace", so I predict that we will see a rise in political violence in the USA.
I can see that Freder is gleefully awaiting news that a Christian right-winger did this. He is hoping for it, praying for it.
What if it was Iran behind the bombings? Similar to some attempts abroad last year.
"So, are all points of views already written and depending on the culprit category, ready to roll when (if) the culprits are found?"
It's more like, we are easily able to predict what the "points of view" will be. So in that sense, yeah, they're already written.
In a lot of ways this may always have been with us but I think the digital age certainly has exacerbated it. Everyone's got the same talking points all the time. Except on certain "odd" issues, where "odd" allegiances form. But those typically are not very high profile.
Of course it's the power of "white privilege" which would insulate the perp if they turn out to be a white male, and ensure that the reaction to them is tied solely to them and not the group on whose behalf they are operating... and accordingly, no focus will be paid to the group.
I mean, that's exactly what happened with white males John Walker Lindh and Adam Gadahn. It was white privilege all the way.
Wait.... what?
Cue Emily Litella.
Sorry if this temporarily re-directs traffic but Ace of Spades has some hilarious publicity photos of White Privilege Dave's Zoolander moue.
Bam.
Colonel Angus said...
Spare me. Most tribes were on land they had just stolen from someone else when the white man showed up (Coronado, as an example, encountered the Apaches not in TX or AZ, but KS).
Mr. Cook is spot on with his assessment of our treatment of the natives
No. Not really.
For all intents and purposes the various tribes were much like separate countries. Their territories were always in flux due to near constant warfare with their neighbors. Stronger tribes were always pushing out weaker tribes. weak tribes were always trying to ally themselves with other tribes to dominate still other tribes. for the most part early on tribes looked at Europeans not as descending angels, but as possible allies to swing the balance of local power in their direction.
Conservatives want to limit government power and preserve personal liberty. To me, preserving liberty is important to enough to take a somewhat increased risk of political violence. The idea is that in the long run we have far more to fear from a too powerful, dictatorial government than from random acts of terrorism.
Rightly or wrongly, conservatives have traditionally been law-and-order security types, which is why the war on drugs and the border security issues have been largely conservative issues.
In the aftermath of any attack, attention turns immediately to preventing another identical attack, and the politically inclined turn the discussion towards which of their favored policies might have prevented the attack. It's human nature, but wrongheaded. We've reached the point where the level of security necessary to consistently prevent these sorts of attacks would cripple the country, both in cost and loss of freedoms.
Because... Adam Lanza.
What an idiot.
April Apple wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but, Timothy McVeigh was not part of a larger movement.
I'd like an example of "white male terrorism in America" - that was/is part of a movement.
Freder meant militias. Howeveer, as you say, even if there were white militias that hated govt, they weren't blowing shit up.
Civilis said...
"Rightly or wrongly, conservatives have traditionally been law-and-order security types, which is why the war on drugs and the border security issues have been largely conservative issues."
Care to prove your statement? Not all GOP pols are conservatives. For example: Bush II, McCain, and Bush I were/are GOP pols but are not conservatives. Nowadays most GOP voters are conservative but not all. My point is that conservatism is a political philosophy not a political party. If you were to take the time to study American conservative political philosophy, you would realize that conservatives are for small, limited national government that tramples on personal liberties as little as possible. We prefer to give the fed gov as little power as possible and decide the vast majority of issues at the state level rather than the federal level. Drugs are one of the issues that should be decided at the state level.
"In the aftermath of any attack, attention turns immediately to preventing another identical attack, and the politically inclined turn the discussion towards which of their favored policies might have prevented the attack."
Actually I made no claim that conservative policies would decrease risk from terrorism and said that I am willing to incur additional risk rather than reduce our personal liberty anymore. You seem to have completely missed the points of my post.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा