What's new

If the Las Vegas Killers Were Muslims, We'd Call Them Terrorists

Yet to hear a white Terrorist been called a terrorist unless of course Whites dont scare / instill terror into Americans!

You really should read more. Right-wing extremists are clearly classified and dealt with as domestic terrorists:

Excerpt from: FBI — The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States


Domestic Terrorism

Domestic right-wing terrorist groups often adhere to the principles of racial supremacy and embrace antigovernment, antiregulatory beliefs. Generally, extremist right-wing groups engage in activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action.

On the national level, formal right-wing hate groups, such as the National Alliance, the World Church of the Creator (WCOTC) and the Aryan Nations, represent a continuing terrorist threat. Although efforts have been made by some extremist groups to reduce openly racist rhetoric in order to appeal to a broader segment of the population and to focus increased attention on antigovernment sentiment, racism-based hatred remains an integral component of these groups' core orientations.

Right-wing groups continue to represent a serious terrorist threat. Two of the seven planned acts of terrorism prevented in 1999 were potentially large-scale, high-casualty attacks being planned by organized right-wing extremist groups.

The second category of domestic terrorists, left-wing groups, generally profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the people against the "dehumanizing effects" of capitalism and imperialism. They aim to bring about change in the United States and believe that this change can be realized through revolution rather than through the established political process. From the 1960s to the 1980s, leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the most serious domestic terrorist threat to the United States. In the 1980s, however, the fortunes of the leftist movement changed dramatically as law enforcement dismantled the infrastructure of many of these groups, and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe deprived the movement of its ideological foundation and patronage.

Terrorist groups seeking to secure full Puerto Rican independence from the United States through violent means represent one of the remaining active vestiges of left-wing terrorism. While these groups believe that bombings alone will not result in change, they view these acts of terrorism as a means by which to draw attention to their desire for independence. During the 1970s and 1980s numerous leftist groups, including extremist Puerto Rican separatist groups such as the armed forces for Puerto Rican National Liberation (FALN--Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional Puertorriquena), carried out bombings on the U.S. mainland, primarily in and around New York City. However, just as the leftist threat in general declined dramatically throughout the 1990s, the threat posed by Puerto Rican extremist groups to mainland U.S. communities decreased during the past decade.

Acts of terrorism continue to be perpetrated, however, by violent separatists in Puerto Rico. As noted, three acts of terrorism and one suspected act of terrorism have taken place in various Puerto Rican locales during the past four years. These acts (including the March 31, 1998 bombing of a superaquaduct project in Arecibo, the bombings of bank offices in Rio Piedras and Santa Isabel in June 1998, and the bombing of a highway in Hato Rey in 1999) remain under investigation. The extremist Puerto Rican separatist group, Los Macheteros, is suspected in each of these attacks. The FBI has not recorded any acts of terrorism in Puerto Rico since 1999.

Anarchists and extremist socialist groups--many of which, such as the workers' world party, reclaim the streets, and carnival against capitalism, have an international presence--at times also represent a potential threat in the United States. For example, anarchists, operating individually and in groups, caused much of the damage during the 1999 WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle.The third category of domestic terrorism, special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other movements. Some special interest extremists--most notably within the animal rights and environmental movements--have turned increasingly toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their causes.

In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)--an extremist animal rights movement--has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal rights groups in the United States, including ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. A distinct but related group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), claimed responsibility for the arson fires set at a Vail (Colorado) ski resort in October 1998, which caused 12 million dollars in damages. This incident remains under investigation. Seven terrorist incidents occurring in the United States during 2000 have been attributed to either ALF or ELF. Several additional acts committed during 2001 are currently being reviewed for possible designation as terrorist incidents.

.............................

Conclusion

Despite the current focus on international terrorism, it is important to remain cognizant of the full range of threats that confront the United States. These threats continue to include domestic and international terrorists. While the majority of attacks perpetrated by domestic terrorists have produced low casualty figures, the 169 lives claimed in the Oklahoma City bombing and the potential very heavy loss of lives that could have resulted from various thwarted plots demonstrate the interest among some domestic extremists in inflicting mass casualties.

.........................
 
Nope. That isn't what the definition of terrorism is per Title 22 of Chapter 38. Read it again and you will note that for yourself
Yes hence my sarcasm and also no wonder all gori chamri is labelled insane or paranoid or whatever psychologist can label them and if that doesnt work out socialists can label them extremists ....but never terrorist...clear cut case of denial! terrorism only happens outside these borders we are safe my chickens!

Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism It reads:

"Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents "



This crime occurred in the USA. I really don't see the full definition of "terrorism" as determined by Title 22 being applicable to this crime
@VCheng then whats this ^^
 
Yes hence my sarcasm and also no wonder all gori chamri is labelled insane or paranoid or whatever psychologist can label them and if that doesnt work out socialists can label them extremists ....but never terrorist...clear cut case of denial! terrorism only happens outside these borders we are safe my chickens!


@VCheng then whats this ^^

If a ghori chamri picks up a gun and goes on a rampage because his wife refused to cook him a turkey meal in the morning or because his girlfriend kicked him out the night before, he is not a terrorist. If a Muslim ghori chamri or any other Muslim picks up a gun and goes on a rampage because the USA invaded Afghanistan or Iraq or has troops stationed in Saudi, he is a terrorist. The former committed an anti- social crime whilst the latter committed a political crime against the State. So, the ghori-chamri highlighted in this thread wasn't a terrorist by the definition of the American Title 22. Put simply, Zarvan used a bad example. For those ghori chamris who for example blow up a building or stage a mass killing for their right wing cause, there is no doubt that they are defined as terrorists in Title 22 ("clandestine agents" are not limited to foreigners). Hope that helps
 
so basically we just took a U-turn!

No. There is no U-turn here. The Department of State has its definition that applies within its sphere of operations. The FBI, which is charged with internal security, clearly defines and thwarts domestic terrorist activities as I quoted above.
 
If a ghori chamri picks up a gun and goes on a rampage because his wife refused to cook him a turkey meal in the morning or because his girlfriend kicked him out the night before, he is not a terrorist. If a Muslim ghori chamri or any other Muslim picks up a gun and goes on a rampage because the USA invaded Afghanistan or Iraq or has troops stationed in Saudi, he is a terrorist. The former committed an anti- social crime whilst the latter committed a political crime against the State. So, the ghori-chamri highlighted in this thread wasn't a terrorist by the definition of the American Title 22. Put simply, Zarvan used a bad example. For those ghori chamris who for example blow up a building or stage a mass killing for their right wing cause, there is no doubt that they are defined as terrorists in Title 22 ("clandestine agents" are not limited to foreigners). Hope that helps
dude! dude! I am talking about other gori chamri...is it a habit to compare 2 very different instances or is it just a flaw when it comes to Islam?
 
dude! dude! I am talking about other gori chamri...is it a habit to compare 2 very different instances or is it just a flaw when it comes to Islam?

Please don't become unnecessarily defensive about Islam when you are communicating with me. I could very well say that if a Russian citizen aggrieved by the stance of the USA on the Crimea issue enters California and started randomly blowing up buildings or shooting people, he is a "terrorist" according to American law. I used Islam as an example. I also highlighted that right wing extremists in the USA who stage attacks on people or the State are also labelled "terrorists" according to the definition of "terrorism".
 
Please don't become unnecessarily defensive about Islam when you are communicating with me. I could very well say that if a Russian citizen aggrieved by the stance of the USA on the Crimea issue enters California and started randomly blowing up buildings or shooting people, he is a "terrorist" according to American law. I used Islam as an example. I also highlighted that right wing extremists in the USA who stage attacks on people or the State are also labelled "terrorists" according to the definition of "terrorism".
Alright must have missed it from injections to terrorism definition is a little too much for me I guess :enjoy:!
 
no matter how much we criticize the western media ,the fact remain that's its still the most authentic & credible source of information, because they are still a trillion times better then many other's, @ least the western media has that much integrity that, it does not promotes martial law, or self denial, or propagates a chauvinist mindset or indulges in nonsense conspiracy theories, of blame others syndrome ,which unfortunately some third world countries media shameless do & then these third world media has the Gall to criticize western media !, I will be blunt here, the truth is, with all its pros & cons, the western journalism is still based on promoting the universal values of democracy, freedom of speech, accountability & human rights, & these forms the cornerstone of their ethos, which is unthinkable in many parts of the world
 
Last edited:
Alright must have missed it from injections to terrorism definition is a little too much for me I guess :enjoy:!
there is no problem with the definition a local crime is a crime & terrorism is terrorism, & the jurisdictions & civil conscience, are very clear on that, you cannot equate a case of local criminal offence with organized, ideological, political & motivated terrorism ,they are "two" very separate things
a criminal offence is of a charge of the federal legislative bureau &is dealt with the local jurisdiction's, while terrorism is a charge of a national offense is dealt by the anti terrorist court, they are dealt by two different procedures & forums altogether,
they are not the same
 
no matter how much we criticize the western media ,the fact remain that's its still the most & authentic & credible source of information, because they are still a trillion times better many other's, @ least the western media has that much integrity that, it does not promotes martial law, or propagates a chauvinist mindset or indulges in nonsense conspiracy theories ,which unfortunately some third world countries media do, with all its pros & cons, the western journalism is still based on promoting the universal values of democracy, freedom of speech, accountability & human rights, & they forms the cornerstone of their ethos, which is unthinkable in many parts of the world
Sorry I dont agree..every media is controlled by someone or another and mostly brews what it is asked to and actually "censortize that which it is told to do so...

there is no problem with the definition a local crime is a crime & terrorism is terrorism, & the jurisdictions & civil conscience, are very clear on that, you cannot equate a case of local criminal offence with organized, ideological, political & motivated terrorism ,they are "two" very separate things
a criminal offence is of a charge of the federal legislative bureau &is dealt with the local jurisdiction's, while terrorism is a charge of a national offense is dealt by the anti terrorist court, they are dealt by two different procedures & forums altogether,
they are not the same
yea just read ...the 2 other posters...surprisingly you quoted the very post I had agreed with in this terms
 
Sorry I dont agree..every media is controlled by someone or another and mostly brews what it is asked to and actually "censortize that which it is told to do so...
& I don't & i wont agree with the above point of view, which to me is morally, ethically principally & wrong, I am a proud westerner , & when it comes to that I care two hoots about my origin, I eat the salt of west, I enjoy the privilege which the west has given me , to me country of origin becomes irrelevant when it comes to direct conflict with country of residence, after all, one cannot spit on the plate which one eats from, that to me is morally & ethically wrong, in fact its treason worthy of the highest condemnation

anyhow
even though we have almost enemy like views of each others opinions nonetheless, I respect the fact that you stand for what you believe in, of which you have all the right to

regards
 
Last edited:
& I don't & i wont agree with the above point of view, which to me is morally, ethically principally wrong, I am a proud westerner , & when it comes to that I care two hoots about my origin, I eat the salt of west, I enjoy the privilege which the west has given me , to me country of country origin becomes irrelevant when it comes to direct conflict with country of residence, after all, one cannot spit on the plate which one eats from, that to me is morally & ethically wrong, in fact its treason worthy of the highest condemnation

anyhow
even though we have almost enemy like views of each others opinions nonetheless, I respect the fact that you stand for what you believe in, of which you have all the right to

regards
No one is spitting anywhere...you can easily google how much of the western media is independent (without someone pulling its strings)...a very small percentage ....to be honest is 1 moral value one would have learnt irrespective of where they live or their origins are!

Just thought I should share this 2 yr old article not sure how many significant changes has occurred since then:



This infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources.

That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983.

NOTE: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn't own AOL, so Huffington Post isn't affiliated with them.

But the fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal Dad says. While some big sites, like Digg and Reddit aren't owned by any of the corporations, Time Warner owns news sites read by millions of Americans every year.

Here's the graphic:

media-infographic.jpg




Read more: These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America - Business Insider


“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries.” – David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.


The public airwaves in this country have slowly been taken away from the public. There was a time when broadcasters were called upon to be responsive to the needs of the citizenry and present all sides of any given issue. It was part of their calling – to be the Watchdog of Democracy.


these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america.jpg



In the year 2002, US media had abandoned their responsibility to the country. The view that gets advanced is no longer the view of the ‘little guy’ – it’s the view of ownership, of top management, of major corporations. Editorial decisions are made with one eye on the political slant that will best benefit the company, and one eye on the bottom line. The corporate view is tainted, in that it looks for the best way to advance the corporation’s financial interests. The result is
this – instead of behaving as the Watchdog of Democracy, the media has become the Lapdog of government.

We are fed hours and hours of distraction instead of hard news. Instead of hearing both sides of the debate on the pending war on Iraq, we are given hours of justification for going to war. The anti-war position is marginalized, even mocked, by supposedly ‘objective’ journalists. Instead of an open debate on both sides of any issue, the side
which will benefit the Corporate Media is advanced as the ‘correct’ side.

Talk radio in this country is a hotbed of vicious right-wing hate speech. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage routinely proclaim that progressive thought is tantamount to an assault on Democracy. Any questioning of government policy is framed as ‘obstructionist’. And instead of attempting to call any of these hate-mongers to account, they are dismissed as ‘entertainment’ and the government focuses on the ‘indecency’ of a harmless Victoria’s Secret fashion show.

Something is wrong here. Very, very wrong.
“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.” –Richard Salant, former President of CBS News

In 1922, New York City Mayor John Hylan had publicly said,

“These international bankers control the majority of the magazines and newspapers in this country.”

“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
- New York Press Club, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Times

OUR MEDIA IS NOT FREE
OUR MEDIA IS NO LONGER FROM THE
PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE

In the old Soviet Union, the government controlled the media. Not a word of substance could be published without prior approval from the Bolshevik commissars. Today, in the United States, the situation is starkly similar. But most Americans don’t even know it. In the United States today, it is a select handful of super-rich families and tightly-knit financial interests—a plutocratic elite—who own the Big Media and who control the government through their ownership of that media.​
and it goes on Who controls the Media?

@genmirajborgza786 just saying...but yea everyone is free to share their views about what they think or know of... but one should not fail to recognize the obvious...I dont know how much influence is there but very few people/ companies control most of the media...this leads to a monopoly projecting a certain set of ideas... :enjoy:
 
Last edited:
@genmirajborgza786 just saying...but yea everyone is free to share their views about what they think or know of... but one should not fail to recognize the obvious...I dont know how much influence is there but very few people/ companies control most of the media...this leads to a monopoly projecting a certain set of ideas...


At least in this topic, it has been clearly shown that the title is incorrect and that US domestic terrorism by right wing extremists is dealt with just as any other terrorism.

A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what religion he/she may profess to.
 
Back
Top Bottom