By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –
1. If you appoint yourself to carry out surveillance of a mosque congregation who have never given any evidence of being violent, you might be a white terrorist.
2. If you don’t know the difference between gentle Sufi mysticism and violent extremism, you might be a white terrorist.
3. If you plot to burn down a mosque, you might be a white terrorist.
4. If you also plot to burn a school and a cafeteria, you might be a white terrorism.
5. If you plot to put together a militia to attack the mosque, you might be a white terrorist.
6. If you make phone calls to potential militia members discussing using assault rifles on Muslims at the mosque who put up resistance, you might be a white terrorist.
7. If the County Commissioner of your county posted a sign showing a cowboy pointing his rifle at the viewer with a caption, “How to wink at a Muslim,” you might be a white terrorist.
8. If despite organizing a terrorist attack and recruiting accomplices from other states, you still aren’t charged with terrorism– you might be a white terrorist.
Robert Doggart has been found guilty on 4 counts of plotting to commit arson and violate civil rights. But he was not charged with terrorism.
The term “white terrorism” suggests that regular terrorism is committed by non-white people, when in fact white people are the world champions of global terrorism.
The term “White terrorism” is used in the same manner as the more commonly deployed “Islamic Terrorism” to point out the false distinction made by those who use the term.
White supremacist infiltration of law enforcement, and the removal of white supremacist groups from terror lists is obviously of enormous concern. CALL your Congressmen and Senators to express your outrage or fear.
Correction needed in #7. The cowboy is pointing a shotgun (double barreled), not a rifle. There’s a big differece between the two, and the error is immediately obvious to those who know it.
Only one kills? It’s a major difference.
‘Terrorism’ is essentially a tactic of politics, by other means. Handily re-defined by some of its practicioners to delegitimize others who may also employ it.
But make no mistake, the use of Terrorism, and evocation of its existence by politicians or in a blog, are both political acts.
At whatever point you can work from that understanding, Terrorism becomes something you can begin to address effectively, meaning politically.
Terrorism training is part of the political science courses?
9. If you are bestowed with the privilege of openly carrying firearms at political events or even drawing a bead on federal agents when they investigate your illegal appropriation of publicly owned land with no action being taken against you. (But if a person of color, well, even if we just suspect you’re carrying, you are toast!)
But he was not charged with terrorism.
Of course not. In the United States of Hypocrisy it is only people of color who are charged with terrorism.
Well, no. Arabs are not “people of color”, for example.
In the US, that kind of thing goes up and down; I’d say nowadays Arabs are being browned again
Just because “Iran” and “Aryan” derive from the same root, that doesn’t make them white people.
I think the bigger question is will white terrorism increase the budgets of our law enforcement agencies, and by how much?
There’s an interesting point here:
The promise (or perhaps just the suggestion) of bigger budgets could well drive a more properly inclusive definition of ‘Terrorism’.
Any overly devout person, drooling racist or privileged xenophobe who can be motivated into acts of violence and destruction is a potential “terrorist” irrespective of skin shade.
Your basic armed-to-the-teeth Trump supporter.
If you think all Trump supporters are drooling racists, etc., you are what the Social Democrats in Russia used to call ‘infintile leftists.’
Last time I checked this wasn’t Russia.
Mop your drool.
No — some of them are drooling kleptomaniacs.