The Texas bomber

Here is the simple truth that we can all admit. The Texas bomber was a young white Christian kid. So he’s a bomber.

But if he had had dark skin and been Muslim, he would have been a terrorist. Because let’s face it: that’s what he is. Sending bombs in packages and terrorizing a community. He is a terrorist in every sense of the word, but won’t be recorded as one because only Muslims can be terrorists. And not all the fences or Muslim travel bans in the world would have affected him.

PAD

32 comments on “The Texas bomber

  1. If a Muslim had done that, yeah, he would been called a terrorist. But since this guy was white , he’s just a plain sicko, if you ask President Lump. His dictionary is sure quite different than the one everyone else uses.

    1. Not just “Lump”. There are far too many others who joyfully use that same dictionary.

  2. There’s a social media meme about this topic that is sadly too close to the mark. It involves one of those color chart things you can pick up from the paint stores and tagged as the media color code for reporting. The darker (black & brown) colors are tagged with terrorist, thug, murderer, etc. while it works its way to lone wolf, wacko, and mental health issue the whiter it gets.
    .
    I’d like to day it’s true for conservative news outlets, but, while they push that more, it’s becoming more true at some mainstream outlets.

    1. Fiancée, who resides in Brasil, has told me on many occasions the media there is also guilty of this sort of bias. The darker the shade of a perpetrator’s skin, she says, the more likely the media is to emphasize this in their reports.

      1. As a Brazilian guy, I can confirm this. Sort of.
        .
        The whiter and richer the murderer, the more likely the press is of treating the perp as an individual with particular problems that motivated his act, as opposed to a “just one more of those black/brown thughs”.
        .
        But in Brazil we have no terrorism problem. It would have been reported as a drug trade/slum dweller problem.

  3. Well, we didn’t have any problem back in 1995 with labeling Timothy McVeigh as a domestic terrorist. The same with Ted “Unabomber” Kaczynski. It’s only been an issue since 9/11/2001.

      1. All a part of the radicalization of the American right-wing. Similarly to how environmental issues used to be a lot more non-partisan from the 1970s to the 1990s.

  4. Let’s not forget that, if he hadn’t killed himself, since he’s white the police would have very likely taken him alive (they’d at least have tried very hard to do so). This in juxtaposition of unarmed black men who are often shot on sight; the most recent case I heard of being the man who was shot over 40 times, in his own backyard, for holding a cell phone.

    The whole system is broken…

    Raphy

    1. Point of fact: Sacramento police officers fired 20 rounds at Staphon Clark; I don’t know how many struck the victim. Unfortunately, the shooting will probably be declared justified. Mr. Clark was in his backyard after first running from police and (allegedly) being seen by police smashing a sliding door, apparently with a ‘toolbar’ (crowbar?) not found on him at the scene.

      I’m not trying to defend the cops or to blame the victim, but Mr. Clark made the situation worse as soon as he started running instead of surrendering peacefully.

      1. I don’t know the particulars of this, but if I thought the police were likely to shoot me regardless of whether I surrendered peacefully or not, I would probably have run too. We can’t blame Staphon Clark for running when the track record for police accepting the peaceful surrender of a black male is as poor as it is.

      2. The tragedy is that as soon as the adrenaline starts pumping, the likelihood of deadly mistakes being made increases maybe tenfold or more. Training is meant to compensate for that, but it is not always effective. I think that’s a big part of what we are seeing here.

      3. Don’t get me wrong; being able to explain what happened is not remotely the same thing as excusing it. The officers still failed to exercise good judgement and a man has been unjustly slain as a result. Those officers must still be held accountable for their actions.

      4. “I’m not trying to defend the cops or to blame the victim, but Mr. Clark made the situation worse as soon as he started running instead of surrendering peacefully.”
        .
        Yes, black people always make things worse by just not dropping dead on the spot and saving police the bullets, right?
        .
        Not entirely sorry for the sarcasm, but I’m sick of the victim blaming instead of going after cops for straight up murdering people. More than 20 rounds? GTFO.

      5. I was not victim-blaming, though I acknowledge that my original opinion was based on news reports that may not have accurately related the facts of the story.

  5. I’m seeing a lot of people state that the Austin Bomber is a terrorist or not based on skin color or political leanings and so on. Terrorist, from the 9/11 attacks, has turned into a generic curseword meaning violent áššhølë, or even just someone you don’t agree with.

    We need to step away from this quickly.

    To be a capital T Terrorist you need two things.

    1. Violent acts that are instigated by strong political motivations.
    2. A larger organization that is aligned with those same political goals and driving.

    To be a terrorist you need both of these things. That is what makes terrorism something unique. If you are just violent then, well, you are just violent. Even if you are violent for political reasons, when you die, or are imprisoned, your violence ends.

    When you have a larger organization this changes things. First off, the individual is not the end of it. Arresting or killing that one person won’t stop the violence because others in the organization will take their place. There is a seemingly endless number of young men willing to give up their lives for Al Queda. No one stepped up after the Boston Marathon bombings to continue to carry that flag.

    Secondly the resources available to an organization of any size, especially well funded terror networks, are completely different from those that are available to a single criminal. Timothy McVeigh did horrible damage on his own. But he ultimately had a rider truck with a bunch of fertilizer in it. With additional funding and confederates to work with his attack could have been much more significant.

    The reason we have to be careful with this word is that the way you deal with these two situations is different. The non-terrorist can and should be dealt with using civil laws. A Terrorist organization needs a different type of intervention, ranging from diplomatic solutions, to International Police Organizations, to military intervention.

    So can we please just stop calling everyone a Terrorist unless they actually meet the definitions.

    1. “To be a capital T Terrorist you need two things.
      1. Violent acts that are instigated by strong political motivations.
      2. A larger organization that is aligned with those same political goals and driving.
      To be a terrorist you need both of these things. That is what makes terrorism something unique. If you are just violent then, well, you are just violent. Even if you are violent for political reasons, when you die, or are imprisoned, your violence ends.”

      .

      Sorry, Chris, I cannot agree with your point #2. If your goal is to spread fear and terror, regardless of any affiliation with a larger group, you are a terrorist by definition. Even your first point is a it over-simplified. The motivation might be political, but it is at least grounded in what is perceived as some greater cause. Again, it might be political, but not necessarily so.

      1. How about we give up on using the word altogether? “Terrorist” has the word “terror” in it, which tends to inspire fear/dread and other bad things. We’re doing their job for them. How about we just refer to them as what they are: pathetic losers, or simply psychopaths? These names have rather less cachet than ‘terrorist’ and, I should think are much less likely to inspire people to emulate them.

    2. On your claim about “strong political motivations,” I’m calling bûllšhìŧ.

      To be a “terrorist,” your ONLY need is to “instill terror in a group of people.” Politics, or anything else, be dámņëd.

      If politics are involved, then you’re talking about “political terrorism.” But the people of Tokyo who died after members of the Aum Shinrikyo cult carried out a sarin gas attack in 1995 weren’t victims of a *political* terrorist attack; it was a terrorist attack, nonetheless.

      It’s also worth pointing out that people didn’t have any problems labeling the Pulse Nightclub shooter as a “terrorist” (despite the fact there was NO conclusive evidence that the man had any genuine political motives).

      1. Too loose of a definition would make Wes Craven and Stephen king terrorists, too…

    3. The big problem with this is that homicidal Muslims are assumed to be terrorists even when they have no ties to Al-Qaeda or any larger group. Simply because they have similar beliefs and are assumed to be on the “same side” as Al-Qaeda.
      .
      There have been a TON of white supremacist murderers in the USA in the last decade, they have even killed vastly more people than Muslim terrorists acting in the same timeline in the USA.
      .
      And they do have somewhat similar belief systems and all operate under the same vague far right umbrella. Not all that different from the Muslim version.

  6. Technically speaking, it is only terrorism if the person is trying to push a political goal. Just terrorizing for the sake of terrorizing is not terrorism.

    My Source: Oxford English Dictionary.

    The IRA are a good example of terrorists, who are white, Christian, and declared classified by Interpol.

    Maybe they would have called a Muslim guy terrorist for the same thing… but if there is no intent to have political change it is still categorically wrong

    Come on man, I love your writing, you are a smart dude clearly, and I agree with you on a whole Hëll of a lot of stuff, but this is kind of lazy.

    I only say this because I love yo, and have a very high level of of respect and standards.

    Take care.

    1. Yes, but the IRA were the “wrong” kind of Christians in their nation-state.
      .
      The real point isn’t race or religion. It’s that the terrorist label is only ever applied to groups and individuals that are not a part of the hegemonic forces in a nation-state.
      .
      The Weathermen were white, but they were considered terrorists, because their ideology was opposed to the American status quo. The KKK, the more fringe elements in the alt-right, and several Militia groups were/are as violent and politically-oriented as the Weathermen, but they are not seen as terrorists because they’re on the same side as what passes for the American status quo (even though they are a hideously exaggerated and distorted version of it).
      .
      The double standard is evident in how eager folks are to apply the terrorist label to Antifa, even though their body county is minimal when compared to the radical right. 75% of the political murders in the last decade in the US were perpetrated by the radical right.

      1. The Michigan Militia (which is in my home state) have been labeled terrorists, by the U.S. government.

        And I’m not sure what you mean by “wrong type of Christian.” Do you mean Catholic? Because many of the countries that make up Interpol are majority Catholic.

        DO you mean because they attacked England? Because most of Europe are by no means fond of England.

        My father actually was in Belfast after an IRA attack, like he landed as it happened. He interviewed both the Catholic and Protestant sides, a Priest and a minister.

        He said what disturbed him more than anything was how everyone was just used to it.

        And Ireland became an economic force during the IRA’s reign.

        The IRA are labeled terrorists because they killed innocent people. Including pay toilets and movie theaters as they made plans with the Nazis. Historical fact.

        The Weathermen loved bombs and politics. Interesting side note, Bill Ayers only got off because a judge followed the letter of the law, when he was arrest (for a crime he did) was not done lawfully.

        The KKK was declared a terrorist group in 1871. Which was 50 years before they became so mainstream in some states that you couldn’t be elected to office in some states without being a member.

        And a politcal murder is not automatically a terrorist act, only if there is a threat of more violence unless demands are made.

        As far as Militias go, yes, some are ignored for their rhetoric. But, you can only be labeled terrorists if they are viewed as a legitimate threat.

        That is why the Michigan Militia made the list, Timothy McVeigh hung around with them for a time.

        You can go on and say all you want about how you wish America would fall, or that you want a second American Revolution, but if there is no proof you will enact it.

        The KKK, many militias, and groups like Neo-Nazis may be espousing gross things (in fact, I’m positive they are), but they know the law. That is what people often overlook.

        That is part of the reason the term “militia” is used, because it is protected by the constitution.

        Finally, Antifa. I won’t get into my views on them, because honestly it doesn’t matter, but they aren’t classified as terrorists.

        Sure, many pundits may say they are, but they aren’t classified by the government… the people who can actually do things to them.

        Are Muslims overly assumed? Sure.

        Are some groups looked at more closely than others for odd reasons? Sure.

        That doesn’t mean that lives at risk aren’t the most important thing. It doesn’t mean there is some never spoken conspiracy.

      2. It isn’t some big conspiracy. A conspiracy would imply bad guys in media, industry, politics, finance, etc. having regular meetings to coordinate plans and responses. The left-wing criticism of this double standard does not need a conspiracy. The reason capitalism is so powerful, the reason tribalism, racism, cultural chauvinism, are so indelible and indestructible, is that they don’t require a conspiracy to keep functioning.
        .
        All that is required is that powerful actors (or would-be powerful actors) realize where their short-term interests are. That is why canny politicians and media figures are so wary of giving labels to groups that are a part of their support base. These actors don’t need to coordinate with each other in some conspiracy.
        .
        As for the KKK, neo-nazis, and militiamen knowing the law, this isn’t overlooked at all. That is precisely why they are so much more dangerous and effective than any Muslim bogeymen in the long term. And lives being at risk is precisely the point. As I said, the extreme rightwing body count in the USA in the last decade is three times as high as that of Muslim terrorists.
        .
        Yes, they work within the law. They indoctrinate unstable young men with their rethoric, and when these young men go from word to action, these groups deny any connection and culpability, instead of being eager to count the murderer as one of their own, like ISIS or Al-Qaeda would do.
        .
        In that they are way, way smarter and more insidious than their Muslim versions. They don’t want to blow up the White House, they want to live in it. The fascist modus operandi isn’t to destroy democracy with a violent coup, it is to subvert it.

Comments are closed.