Tea Party Suicide Bomber?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But if a muslim kid with no opportunity in life because there is 50% unemployment, can't afford school, can't afford to get married, and he gets sucked into a group that convinces him to strap bombs to himself to become a martyr for the cause, he is not described as mentally ill. He is described as a devout muslim.

Are you serious? Neither the 9/11 terrorists nor the recent attempted airline bomber comes remotely close to this description. Osama bin Laden comes from a very wealthy family. The airline bomber lived in a ridiculous London apartment worth millions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But if a muslim kid with no opportunity in life because there is 50% unemployment, can't afford school, can't afford to get married, and he gets sucked into a group that convinces him to strap bombs to himself to become a martyr for the cause, he is not described as mentally ill. He is described as a devout muslim.

Are you serious? Neither the 9/11 terrorists nor the recent attempted airline bomber comes remotely close to this description. Osama bin Laden comes from a very wealthy family. The airline bomber lived in a ridiculous London apartment worth millions.

Agreed in regards to Bin Laden and the Detroit wanna-be bomber. However, I think the PP analysis is correct in regards to the vast majority of the suicide bombers. BTW--I have not read or heard any where that Bin Laden has strapped a bomb to himself and attempted to blow himself to smitherens. He has the money to pay poor, illiterate, impressionable young men and women to handle that part of their fight.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Mr. Steele, this is a shameful smear of the Tea Party movement -- particularly the headline of your post -- and it's really beneath you.

Addressing your comments on the "themes," 2 and 4 are at least as much an objection made by people on the left as well as the right.

And in your subsequent post you say, "obviously, not all Tea Partiers are violent." This is grossly misleading -- what is striking about the Tea Parties is how little violence or destruction has been associated with them. Quite a contrast to what you see at left-wing anti-globalization protests, as far as I can tell.

As for the name of the terrorist being used by the media as a reason to disavow that an act is terrorism, did you miss the whole discussion of the Ft. Hood incident, where bunches of people tried to say that what Major Hasan -- not Major Joe -- did was not necessarily terrorism? That he was a crazy lone gunman? Did that offend you in the same way? Did I miss the thread where you posted speculation entitled "Muslim Terrorist?"

I know that you and I would agree on basically zero issues politically, but this is beneath you.

Look, this is very simple. If Joe Stack and his message had no significance for the Tea Party movement, those interested in the support of that movement would have no problem condemning the incident unequivocally. But, look at how some of them are reacting. Senator Scott Brown -- the poster boy of the Tea Partiers -- when asked his reaction had this to say:

"Well it's certainly tragic and I feel for the families obviously being affected by it.

And I don't know if it's related, but I can just sense not only in my election, but since being here in Washington, people are frustrated. They want transparency, they want their elected officials to be accountable and open and talk about the things that are affecting their daily lives. So I'm not sure that there's a connection, I certainly hope not. But we need to do things better."

Get that? Joe Stack is just a frustrated guy exactly like the people who voted for Scott Brown. The solution is for us to do things better.

Another one. Here is Texas Governor Rich Perry:

"It is always a battle between a battle of anarchy and tyranny."

That's right. We have a tyrannical government and there will always be reactions such as Stack's, according to Perry.

Can you imagine if an elected Democrat when asked his reaction to the Ft. Hood incident had said, "I can sense among Americans of the Islamic faith a real frustration with the US military. They want it to stop killing other Muslims. I don't know if there is a connection or not. But we need to do things better"?

Such a person would have been run out of town on a rail.

Recent terrorists in the US include Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, Jim Adkisson, and Joe Stack. All are Christian, white men. In the wake of the Ft. Hood incident, there were calls for special screenings of Muslims. Will we hear similar calls for special screenings of Christian white males?

[Anonymous]

I think it's just like Bill Mahre said: "don't know if these crazy conservatives are more dangerous when in power (and making the laws) or out of power (when they become unhinged)"

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:What I said is that his manifesto shares many of the themes of the Tea Party Movement, most notably, opposition to taxes and a strong dislike of the government. If his name was Mohammad instead of Joe and had left behind a document with Islamic overtones, this event would be treated much differently.

If his name was William Ayers (instead of Joe or Mohammed) and he had a strong dislike of government which he expressed with domestic act of violence, he would be a tenured professor.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
If his name was William Ayers (instead of Joe or Mohammed) and he had a strong dislike of government which he expressed with domestic act of violence, he would be a tenured professor.

Nobody asked for your snarky, yet cogent rebuttals of my world view, thank you very much.

Good one. But if "William" would have been "Mohammad", he wouldn't be a professor either. Being a rich white guy never hurt anyone.

[Anonymous]

But Barack Obama is president. Names mean little, including the Tea Party's. The premise of the movement of being overtaxed for stalemates in Congress is probably a good percentage of the American people would agree with right now. However, the Tea Party is tending to the extreme, fueled by Fox News. That doesn't make the premise non-viable. It makes the Tea Party fringe. Fringe with nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
He was a nut and a terrorist just like Timothy McVeigh. Period.

I wonder if David Gregory will have his wife on Meet the Press to talk about McVeigh being deemed a terrorist. Joe Stack clearly fits the definition.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:In the wake of the Ft. Hood incident, there were calls for special screenings of Muslims. Will we hear similar calls for special screenings of Christian white males?

This makes no sense on many levels. First, given what happened at Fort Hood -- which was not, I might add, the first incident where a Muslim soldier targeted other troops -- it is apparent to me that far from receiving enhanced screening, Major Hasan's obvious performance issues were glossed over due in large part to the military's interest in retaining Muslim soldiers. My guess, and this is conjecture, of course, that a Major Smith who exhibited similar behavior or performance would have been summarily kicked out of the military no fuss, no muss.

Second, I don't think even you seriously think that, on average, individual Christian white males pose the same type of terrorism threat as Muslims in the U.S at the present moment in history. Really, exactly the same? No possible way to distinguish the threat level? I'd be interested in the evidence that supports that kind of conclusion. It seems quite evident to me that, certainly on a worldwide basis, mainstream Christian theology and mainstream Islamic theology take quite different views on the justification for violence. Obviously, actual practice varies quite a bit, and all groups have some violent fringes, but this near-metaphysical insistence that there is simply no way to identify which groups pose the highest risk at a particular point in time is bizarre to me. The government recently identified certain types of right-wing groups as posing a higher risk of terrorist activity at the present time; I thought that was a sensible conclusion, given the facts on the ground, and my guess is that you did too. What's the difference?

Finally, even if you are right that Christian white males should be subjected to enhanced scrutiny to the same extent as Muslim males -- I note in passing that the recent body count is quite a bit different, but let's gloss over that -- there are simply too many nominally Christian white males as a percentage of the U.S. population to have "special" screening for them as a practical matter. Does this mean that for smaller groups that could conceivably be subject to such screening, we must refuse to do it because not every group could be screened in that way? For instance, white Christian males with connections to militia, tax protestor, or white nationalist organizations would be an appropriate case for higher scrutiny in certain roles -- and I would guess that, as a practical matter, such elevated scrutiny is already implemented in many places, either officially or unofficially.

Note that I recognize that may be good arguments that screening particular groups more intensively may not, as a practical matter, actually work. That's a technical question, and I suspect the answer will vary based on context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Agreed in regards to Bin Laden and the Detroit wanna-be bomber. However, I think the PP analysis is correct in regards to the vast majority of the suicide bombers. BTW--I have not read or heard any where that Bin Laden has strapped a bomb to himself and attempted to blow himself to smitherens. He has the money to pay poor, illiterate, impressionable young men and women to handle that part of their fight.

No, this won't do. It evades the point. Yes, many suicide bombers are poor; there will always be cannon fodder. But the significant terrorists that have attacked the U.S. are not motivated by poverty because, generally speaking, they are not poor. They are elites, with intellectual, not material, grievances against the United States. (So too, I would guess, are the brains behind Palestinian suicide bombing, but I don't have direct knowledge of that.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:In the wake of the Ft. Hood incident, there were calls for special screenings of Muslims. Will we hear similar calls for special screenings of Christian white males?

This makes no sense on many levels. First, given what happened at Fort Hood -- which was not, I might add, the first incident where a Muslim soldier targeted other troops -- it is apparent to me that far from receiving enhanced screening, Major Hasan's obvious performance issues were glossed over due in large part to the military's interest in retaining Muslim soldiers. My guess, and this is conjecture, of course, that a Major Smith who exhibited similar behavior or performance would have been summarily kicked out of the military no fuss, no muss.

Second, I don't think even you seriously think that, on average, individual Christian white males pose the same type of terrorism threat as Muslims in the U.S at the present moment in history. Really, exactly the same? No possible way to distinguish the threat level? I'd be interested in the evidence that supports that kind of conclusion. It seems quite evident to me that, certainly on a worldwide basis, mainstream Christian theology and mainstream Islamic theology take quite different views on the justification for violence. Obviously, actual practice varies quite a bit, and all groups have some violent fringes, but this near-metaphysical insistence that there is simply no way to identify which groups pose the highest risk at a particular point in time is bizarre to me. The government recently identified certain types of right-wing groups as posing a higher risk of terrorist activity at the present time; I thought that was a sensible conclusion, given the facts on the ground, and my guess is that you did too. What's the difference?

Finally, even if you are right that Christian white males should be subjected to enhanced scrutiny to the same extent as Muslim males -- I note in passing that the recent body count is quite a bit different, but let's gloss over that -- there are simply too many nominally Christian white males as a percentage of the U.S. population to have "special" screening for them as a practical matter. Does this mean that for smaller groups that could conceivably be subject to such screening, we must refuse to do it because not every group could be screened in that way? For instance, white Christian males with connections to militia, tax protestor, or white nationalist organizations would be an appropriate case for higher scrutiny in certain roles -- and I would guess that, as a practical matter, such elevated scrutiny is already implemented in many places, either officially or unofficially.

Note that I recognize that may be good arguments that screening particular groups more intensively may not, as a practical matter, actually work. That's a technical question, and I suspect the answer will vary based on context.

I guess if you are a white male who works in an office building, this might be true. But other people might think the 8,000 hate crimes per year are the bigger threat. If you are black, Jewish, muslim, mexican, or homosexual, this might just be the bigger problem. BTW two thirds of the offenders are white and probably most are white male christians.

But we don't categorize those as terrorist acts. We categorize those as hate crimes, so I guess they are not as significant a form of intimidation. Or maybe they intimidate people that we care about less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I guess if you are a white male who works in an office building, this might be true. But other people might think the 8,000 hate crimes per year are the bigger threat. If you are black, Jewish, muslim, mexican, or homosexual, this might just be the bigger problem. BTW two thirds of the offenders are white and probably most are white male christians.

But we don't categorize those as terrorist acts. We categorize those as hate crimes, so I guess they are not as significant a form of intimidation. Or maybe they intimidate people that we care about less.

I was discussing terrorism, which is the topic at hand. You can raise the point about hate crimes; in response, I'd raise the point about violent crime more generally. Do you really think that white males commit more crimes of violence against members of minority groups than vice-versa? If so, I'd like to see a cite. If not, why do you care less about those victims?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:But Barack Obama is president. Names mean little, including the Tea Party's.

To date, Obama has not bombed either the Pentagon or Capitol Building (though he may well have reason for the latter). Had he done so, I'm pretty sure that he would not get the same treatment as William Ayers.

I realized that I left off a couple of obvious names from my list of Christian white male terrorists. So, here is a more complete list (and I am sure I am still missing some):

Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, Jim Adkisson, Bruce Ivins, James Von Brunn, and Joe Stack

Also, more evidence that the right wing is quite comfortable with Stack and his actions. Today at the CPAC conference, Human Events editor Jed Babbin thought the crash was a laughing matter. When he introduced Grover Norquist, he had the following to say:

"And let me just say, I'm really happy to see Grover today. He was getting a little testy in the past couple of weeks. And I was just really, really glad that it was not him identified as flying that airplane into the IRS building."

That got a big laugh from the audience because, you know, killing Federal employees is really funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess if you are a white male who works in an office building, this might be true. But other people might think the 8,000 hate crimes per year are the bigger threat. If you are black, Jewish, muslim, mexican, or homosexual, this might just be the bigger problem. BTW two thirds of the offenders are white and probably most are white male christians.

But we don't categorize those as terrorist acts. We categorize those as hate crimes, so I guess they are not as significant a form of intimidation. Or maybe they intimidate people that we care about less.

I was discussing terrorism, which is the topic at hand. You can raise the point about hate crimes; in response, I'd raise the point about violent crime more generally. Do you really think that white males commit more crimes of violence against members of minority groups than vice-versa? If so, I'd like to see a cite. If not, why do you care less about those victims?

Terrorism is a political act to inflict damage and intimidate an opponent. So are hate crimes. Is that not obvious to you?

On the other hand if you want to say that all crimes are equal, then clearly terrorism is very, very low on our list of concerns. We have probably lost more people in bar fights alone in the last ten years than we have to terrorism. So maybe jukeboxes or chicken wings are a more important threat to our way of life.

[Anonymous]

Sorry--my reply ended up embedded in previous:

There were no calls for special screenings of Muslims;there were calls for special screenings of Muslims calling for jihad. And Janet Napolitano asked for extra screening of returned military a la Timothy McVeigh militant white male so that ground has actually been covered. This whole thread is frustrating. Equating this terrorist with ALL Tea party members is EXACTLY the same as equating suicide bombers with ALL Muslims or McVeigh with ALL white ex-military. Disgusting. Sorry