Comic Genesis Forums

About William J Karr?

Who the heck is that? Never heard of him, and a search in the news gives no reference.

Ah, my bad, I type too fast. Last name Krar.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm

I'm not sure what you expect of me about this... A pack of racist looney toons were caught stockpiling illegal weapons and plotting violent deeds and were arrested. AHAH! This proves....

...What, precisely?

What, is the existence of white racists supposed to prove the invalidity of the war with Islamic terrorists? I'm sure the Germans and the Japanese would have appreciated that attitude on our part during WWII. It would have made their lives a lot easier if we'd had nimnuls running about blathering about organized crime in America somehow disproved the need to battle the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists.

Yes, we know about the fringe loonies living up in the hills. We've known about them a darn long time. And, seeing as we just CAUGHT this lot, BEFORE they tried anything--- before, in fact, they had any definite plans outlined--- I think we can safely say the White Honky Menace is well under control.

I especially like the part where they fish up a half-dozen different news articles "to show how the media ignored the story." Yes, they reported the story, then they moved on. Thwarted criminal activities don't generate as much media interest as successful ones. Especially when they're hard to spin to make the current administration look bad. But their sense of priorities has never been good anyway--- consider how long they spent frothing over Dick Cheney's hunting accident. Cripes.

It is a matter, though, of priorities. For all their huffing and snorting and weapons caching, it wasn't white militants who killed 3,000 people on 9-11. And since 9-11-2001, there have been over FOUR THOUSAND Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide. As much as everyone likes to rattle and squeal after any and every distraction, militant racist whitey is rather far down on the list of serious threats.

Thank you R.H., (story pitching begins in the summer) but I'm afraid people here ARE blaming whites and Bush directly for PLANNING THE TERRORIST ATTACKS! They think hes a village idiot at the same time, I don't get it. I haven't seen any evidence from them, but they use 9-11 as much as Gary Trodeau says Bush does as an excuse for any of their opinions and actions. The "World Can't Wait" organization is still marching over it (the latest one is on my birthday, sadly, Mar 18), but fortunately it isn't anywhere close to the real protest marches of the 40's-60's!

[quote="RHJunior"]
It is a matter, though, of priorities. For all their huffing and snorting and weapons caching, it wasn't white militants who killed 3,000 people on 9-11. And since 9-11-2001, there have been over FOUR THOUSAND Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide. As much as everyone likes to rattle and squeal after any and every distraction, militant racist whitey is rather far down on the list of serious threats.[/quote]

McVeigh.

And how many terrorist attacks world-wide were commited by non-Muslims?

Why is it when a white man walks into a building and starts shooting, it's called 'mass murder', but when a Middle-eastern man does it, it's called terrorism?

depends on the motivation
the UniBomber was a Terrost
the Zodiac Killer was a mass muderor
[quote= "the inner contradictor"]
I think the UniBomber was Mexican
and you could say the ZK was terroizing those who believe in horoscopes[/quote]
whatever. as long as he didn't look middle easterner, if that is the point.

Scathach wrote: Why is it when a white man walks into a building and starts shooting, it's called 'mass murder', but when a Middle-eastern man does it, it's called terrorism?

Because the Islamic has a WORLDWIDE NETWORK of financial and tactical support for his actions, involving the war-chests of dozens of terrorist leaders and the "holy leaders" of a fanatical religion--- rather than just a couple of drunk beer-buddies with delusions of racial superiority?

Because the raghead sonovabitch is invariably acting on orders from his superiors?

Because for the past 40 years, every terrorist attack on American civilians, sovereignty and territory, *save MAYBE for ONE,* was committed by Islamics under the direction of a terror cell? (And that one, McVeigh? They were uncovering an evidence trail that led back to Al Quaeda.... when the Clinton administration shut down the investigation, satisfied with their sacrificial goat.)

Because they have been openly waging war on America since the 1970s?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages ... ttacks.htm <--- a short list of Islamic terrorist attacks on Americans since 1973

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks <---a list of Islamic terror attacks for the last six months

Because Islamics murder more people in the name of their god EVERY DAY than the KKK has murdered in the past 50 years? (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... gyear.html)

---More every year, than were killed in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition?(http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm)

---More in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland?
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/death95w.htm


And here's a few short lists of terror attacks committed worldwide in the name of Allah over the past few years. Just to refresh your tiny, tiny memory....

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2004.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2001-2003.htm

Your attempt to equivocate the problem of radical racists with the <I>full on, full blown war</i> being waged by Islam against the entire world is the squalling of an ignorant yuppie housewife about rats in the toolshed when her husband is trying to deal with a nest of rattlesnakes under the porch. The rats are nasty, filthy and vicious, and they bite, and they should not be tolerated-----<I>but they are not one tenth the deadly threat that the rattlesnakes are.</i>

Three year olds are feckless enough to think all dangers are the same. Quit being a three year old.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

I always find it amusing how quickly people resort to personal attacks.


In 2000, there were 8 terrorist attacks on US soil. All were domestic.

In 2001, there were 14 attacks on US soil. 12 were domestic.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/ ... tm#page_11

Between 1980 and 2001, there were 482.

International - 164
Left-Wing - 130
Right-Wing - 85
Special Interest - 81
Individual - 14
Unknown - 8

This does not include activity by the drug cartels, which are also worldwide networks with financial and tactical support.

In addition, in New York State alone in 2001, there were 975 'hate' crimes. When similiar attacks occur by Muslims on international soil, they are called 'terrorist activity'.


Domestic groups include -

American Coalition for Life Activists
Animal Liberation Front
Army of God
Aryan Nation (a.k.a. Aryan Republican Army)
Branch Davidians (exitinct)
Christian Identity Movement
Colorado First Light Infantry
Colorado Militia
Citizens of the Republic of Idaho
Covenant (a.k.a. Sword and Arm of the Lord)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
Freeman
Ku Klux Klan
Michigan Militia
Militia of Montana
Mountaineer Militia
National Alliance
North American Militia of Southwestern Michigan
Patriot's Council
Phineas Priesthood
Posse Comitus
Reclaim the Seeds
Republic of Texas
Southern California Minuteman
Sword and Arm of the Lord
The Order (a.k.a. The New Order)
Texas Militia
Viper Militia
World Church of Creator

The vast majority of terrorism is domestic.


Now, follow up question -

Why is it, when a Muslim man in the middle east guns down a bunch of people on a street corner, it's terrorism, but when a Christian man in the US guns down a bunch of people on a street corner, it's gang violence?

as far as I know, you are the only one calling a hyprocrite shooting a corner store (ironically, if even intentionally, are owned majorially by people of the middle east-until recently now more Mien, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and other Asains are making progress into the economy) a gang related violence incident. No news media is dumb enough to take an attack obviously meant to force a idealism into society anything other than terroism (with the exception for adjectives).

[quote="t.s.a.o"]as far as I know, you are the only one calling a hyprocrite shooting a corner store (ironically, if even intentionally, are owned majorially by people of the middle east-until recently now more Mien, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and other Asains are making progress into the economy) a gang related violence incident. No news media is dumb enough to take an attack obviously meant to force a idealism into society anything other than terroism (with the exception for adjectives).[/quote]

Do you actually watch the news?

er...long story short, my mom has hidden the TV from the unit. We have local radio news on KCBS, and ther've been no terroist attacks here that were newsworthy to them. I get some news from KFAX.COM, and other forums that do watch TV.

t.s.a.o wrote: I think the UniBomber was Mexican

The Unabomber's proper name is Ted Kaczynski. Does that sound "Mexican" to anyone? He's white, of a middle-class background from Chicago. And he's a terrorist.

ok, someone from my school was Hispanic and he wore a jacket like the UniBomber, and that's how I found out about him-then I miz the momories up. anyway there's a definite terroist example.

RHJunior wrote: (And that one, McVeigh? They were uncovering an evidence trail that led back to Al Quaeda.... when the Clinton administration shut down the investigation, satisfied with their sacrificial goat.)

I've never been satisfied with how the McVeigh case was handled. They had a lot of circumstantial evidence on him, but even the Feds openly admit that they didn't have a SOLID case without the testimony of one man --- Michael Fortier.

The problem: Fortier didn't offer his testimony until AFTER the DoJ publically announced its intention to seek the death penalty if he did NOT turn state's evidence. Which is coercion. Which the defense brought up, only to have the charge dismissed without debate by Judge Maitsch. Maitsch threatened to charge the defense with contempt of court if they brought it up again. He did the same thing when McVeigh's counsel came up with an alternate scenario that the judge ordered stricken from the record on basis of his personal disbelief...yet, in any murder case, the defense HAS to come up with alternate scenarios to show that their client MIGHT be innocent.

Not to mention that the sketch of "John Doe #1" was so generalized it could have been almost any white male with a crew cut, while "John Doe #2" was extremely detailed to include a description of a specific tattoo and style of ballcap. At the same time, they caught several people who resembled John Doe #2 but had to let them go because they had alibis. Yet the Feds stuck by the claim that part of the proof against McVeigh that he was a "dead ringer" for the generic "John Doe #1".

I don't doubt that McVeigh had a hand in it --- but there remains a strong stink that the Feds simply gave up the search for any extra accomplices beyond Nichols.

Scathach wrote:In addition, in New York State alone in 2001, there were 975 'hate' crimes. When similiar attacks occur by Muslims on international soil, they are called 'terrorist activity'.

Mainly this is because New Yorkers do not strap bombs to their chests and run onto buses loaded with the "target minority" for the express purpose of killing as many as possible. Nor are any of the hate crimes referred to part of an orchestrated attempt to change the geopolitical world through the elimination of an entire country and everyone living in it.

Not to mention the fact that "terrorism" is a long-established term, while "hate crime" is a term recently manufactured by a political group for the primary purpose of advancing their political motivations.

Scathach wrote:Domestic groups include -

(various groups named)

The vast majority of terrorism is domestic.

Actually, all of these groups put together number fewer followers than Al Qaeda alone. A list of Islamic international terrorist groups is three times as long as the one you present.

Also, you included a number of organizations proven NOT to be terrorist, domestic or otherwise:

1. Viper Militia: all terrorism charges were dropped after the ATF's informant admitted in grand jury testimony to fabricating evidence --- and not just some of it, but most of it. He admitted that the "militia idea" was his own, that the "bomb plot" was a joke video made for the amusement of the group's own members, and that no one in the group purchased any illegal weapons until he himself egged them on to do so.

2. Branch Davidians (not extinct, just burned out of their church and home): even the ATF admits that the Davidians had no plans to commit any acts of terrorism. The entire point of the ATF raid was to seize a single unregistered weapon that, in fact, no one at the ATF has ever confirmed the Davidians actually possessed (a .50 caliber Browning Automatic). According to all available evidence, the Davidians were actually law-abiding citizens prior to the raid. Having overturned the charges against them, they are currently seeking damages against the ATF.

3. Militias of Colorado, Texas, Montana, Michigan: the Colorado State Defense Force (Provisional) (there is no "Colorado Militia") has no record of anti-governmental activity or ideology. In fact, this group is seeking official state sanction in order to become a supporting governmental entity. Neither the Texas, Montana, nor Michigan groups have been shown to support terrorism in any fashion. In fact, the view of all of these groups is that they themselves are anti-terrorist.

4. Citizens of the Republic of Idaho: even MilNet describes this group as "a relatively harmless anti-government protest group" and that there is no evidence that anyone in this group has committed or intends to commit any significant crimes.

5. Republic of Texas: this group has not committed nor been implicated in any terrorist activities to date. It doesn't even have a militant wing; it's a political activism group.

6. Southern California Minuteman: non-existent group. Four members of the Southern California MARKSMAN'S ASSOCIATION were accused in 1998 of plotting to gun down illegal aliens as they crossed the Mexican border. The ATF and LAPD Anti-Terror Division told CNN that the SCMA members were a "militia cell" plotting "terror attacks". But none were ever charged with terrorism or conspiracy charges. The "Minuteman" name appears to have originated with the ATF.

[quote="Calbeck"]Mainly this is because New Yorkers do not strap bombs to their chests and run onto buses loaded with the "target minority" for the express purpose of killing as many as possible. Nor are any of the hate crimes referred to part of an orchestrated attempt to change the geopolitical world through the elimination of an entire country and everyone living in it.[/quote]

No, they tend to use guns instead of bombs. And as for your 'change the geopolitical world blah blah blah', how is that different than the folks casually tossing around the words 'glass parking lot'?

Real world incident of my personal experience - My best friend is from India. She is 4'9" tall. Shortly after 9-11 and while she was six months pregnant, she was thrown down a flight of stairs by a white man screaming at her and calling her things such as 'raghead'. Her husband came rushing up as the aforementioned white man was continuing approaching my friend. Fortunately for my friend, her husband is large and ex-military. Had he not been present, what would have happened that day?

The man that attacked my friend is not isolated.

Now, if the situation had been reversed, and a middle-eastern man attacked a white woman in such a manner, would the middle-eastern man have been called a terrorist?

---Actually, all of these groups put together number fewer followers than Al Qaeda alone. A list of Islamic international terrorist groups is three times as long as the one you present. ---

Your source for this information?

---The entire point of the ATF raid was to seize a single unregistered weapon that, in fact, no one at the ATF has ever confirmed the Davidians actually possessed (a .50 caliber Browning Automatic).---

Not only did they possess it, they used it.

For the rest, cite your sources.

Oh, and as for the 'true threats' bull,

My odds of choking to death on food are 1 in 370,035.

My odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 18,585.

My odds of being killed by my bathtub are 2,232 to 1

My odds of being struck by lightning are 576,000 to 1

My odds of dying in a terrorist attack are 1 in 650,000.

So...by that, I should be nearly 300 times more afraid to go in the bathroom than of Al Qaida. I have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by terrorists.

Oh, and my odds of being murdered are 18,000 to 1. 32% of murderers are white, 35% are black, but less than 2% are 'other'. So, odds are, if I die violently at someone's hands, it will be either a black or white male. Odds are, if I am the victim of an assault, it will be a white male.

So tell me. Who should I be more afraid of? Al Qaida, or the random white guy on the corner?

Me? I prefer not to be afraid. That's why I won't give up long baths, stop walking to the store, quit eating spicy food, turn in my driver's license, or surrender the 4th amendment. It's why I won't let hate and fear mongers control my life.

You know how an elephant goad works? You piss off the elephant and it does what you want it to do.

Congratulations, Scat. By the internal logic of your arguments, <I>the terrorist threat doesn't really exist!</i> Won't the people who are being killed by terrorist bullets and bombs be happy to find out that it's all a figment of their imagination?

The only problem is that your arguments have no resemblance to real-world logic and no root in real-world fact, and you know it.

Yes, you have a better chance of choking to death on a piece of steak than you have of being killed in a terrorist attack..... Were there french chefs lurking in every restaurant, plotting to cram cubes of beef down unsuspecting throats with their bare fingers, it MIGHT be a valid comparison. But there obviously aren't. You are attempting to compare the statistical probability of a random accident with the likelihood of suffering the deliberate, malicious, PRE PLANNED act of a group of violent people.

Your argument implies that there is no substantial difference between the rare but inevitable household accident, and the deliberate, plotted act of homicide. That there is no difference between chance, and choice.

"Most terrorism is domestic." Sure--- if you live in BEIRUT. You're not a child. You know damned well what terrorism is, and that 90% of what you're trying to pass off as "domestic terrorism" is nothing of the sort. Why are you so desperate to blow smokescreens for the actions of Islamic Jihad? Do you think your fawning subservience will earn you leniency from them? On some level you must, or you wouldn't be so desperate to try and argue apples and oranges.

You mistake the fruit of America's vigilance, and the momentary absence of terrorist attacks, for the absence of a terror threat. But there have been SEVERAL thwarted Islamic terror plots against American targets over the past five years, including a recent one to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Our national defences are constantly being probed. The threat is real, and ongoing.

"You won't let fear and hatemongers control your life." Yet you're doing just that--- by blaming the people FIGHTING the terrorists, instead of the terrorists themselves, for your fear. You blame the victims for being angry, and try to claim that their rightful anger against the terrorists is no different than the wild-eyed genocidal fanaticism of the terrorists themselves. You equate self-defence with the instigation of violence. When backed into a corner about the unending slaughter they commit, you try to claim that other groups or individuals utterly unrelated to the question (and a number of which, as another pointed out, are innocent of your slanderous accusation) are "just as bad," rather than dealing with the issue at hand. You blather about <I>choking on food</i> rather than face the issue.
<I>You fear your protectors and rescuers more than you fear the ones attempting to enslave and/or murder you.</i>

How are the terrorists trying to enslave or murder you "any different from" the people talking about turning the desert into a glass parking lot?
The ones who CAN turn the desert into a glass parking lot HAVEN'T, and moreover WOULDN'T, even though they have been provoked by the animal savagery of the Al Quaeda past a level that would have gotten a rain of nukes from any lesser nation. Even though we could <I>flick a finger</i> and reduce Mecca and Medina both to glowing ash, we have refrained. We have instead risked our blood and treasure to go in, remove two despotic regimes from power, and give two nations liberty they haven't known in generations.

As current events have clearly demonstrated, were the roles reversed, you'd be sitting in the ashen ruins of your house picking radioactive rubble out of your skin the next time anyone published an unflattering picture of Mohammed.

That's the difference. Our men are out there building schools, hospitals, power stations.... while the terrorists are hiding in hovels building bomb-belts. Islam TALKS about being "the religion of peace," but Christendom ACTS the part.

Scat, your problem is called "Stockholm syndrome."

Hostages, battered housewives, abused children, Jews in the concentration camps... it's a common ailment. When held prisoner by their fears, the victim tries to survive by "identifying" with their captors/persecutors-- to the point that the victim actively cooperates with them. Any simple act by the aggressor is seized upon as an act of kindness. The most brutal behavior by the persecutor is desperately rationalized away. The victim, at that point, will even blame their REAL rescuers for the situation the abuser has plunged them into, and even openly attack their rescuers in cooperation with their abusers.