Just like Rotherham, one more example of so-called ‘progressives’ using institutional power to conceal the truth in favour of false narratives that align better with their ideology. The woke are a threat to public security because, like the terrorists, they rely on ideology to justify terrible acts that harm the innocent.
I think the problem is far worse than your reply suggest and 99% of the problem is on the left.
The people who worked tirelessly to overturn the conviction of the man convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock on the basis of the technicalities, are the same people who drove changes to the law that removed centuries old legal protections, and who turned a bind eye to some very dubious evidence gathering, to ensure the conviction of the killers of Stephen Lawrence, are the same people who relegated news of the racist kidnapping and murder of the white teenager Kriss Donald to news of the opening of a new sports centre in Gateshead and who were happy to see the investigation shut down even though it was seemingly quite clear that all those responsible had not been arrested or charged
Here is a link to an interesting article in the Guardian back in the day https://unherd.com/2021/12/the-hypocrisy-of-americas-terror-debate/#comment-261339
Last edited 2 years ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Jon Redman
2 years ago
it’s odd that Brooks’s violent rhetoric, and past violence against women, didn’t raise any eyebrows
It’s not that odd really, for the reasons explained in the piece. Defining terrorism is like defining racism. To the left, whether something is racism or not depends on the race of the alleged racist. Racists who are black are never racists, everyone who’s white is a racist, and racially insulting white people is never racism. In no case does anything the racist might say or do make any difference to the judgment. In the same way, to the left people are terrorists or not according to whether use of the label advances the left’s agenda or not. Brooks’ victims were all white, whom the left also hates, therefore he’s not a terrorist. Crumbley’s victims provide an argument for gun control, which attacks the right, therefore he was a terrorist. It comes down to the left’s hierarchy approach to victimhood. Sympathy is apportioned according to what identity group you belong to, so if British police get involved in fights with rioting British miners they side with the miners. But if South African police kill rioting miners they have a problem because everyone involved is black, so they just say nothing.
“What is terrorism and who is a terrorist?”
With respect, the author has buried the lead, not unusual for an academic, so I will attempt to answer his question. There is a severe level of terrorism and terrorist activity in the US, and I for one, am deeply grateful to Merrick Garland and his completely apolitical Justice Department (Hunter Biden, anyone?) that is already looking into this grave threat.
That threat, of course, is the very real and present danger of parents speaking at school board meetings objecting to wokeness. These parents–I mean terrorists–have formed cells to initiative terrorist activities such as 1. speaking at meetings, 2. recall votes, 3. encouraging people to take these positions much more seriously. These terrorists must be stopped, and Merrick is on it. “Nobody wants to be accused of Islamophobia or racism,”
Finally, I just can’t let this comment pass. I suppose that this is especially true for the security guard at the Manchester Arena who saw the bomber, realized that he was acting suspiciously for a variety of different reasons, but said nothing because…..”Nobody wants to be accused of Islamophobia or racism…..”
Oh James, with respect, you so often start by slagging off the writer and then suggesting you’ll provide true insight, and proceed to jump on your own wee angle, showing you have, in fact, ‘buried the lead’.
People should be punished and imprisoned for what they do not for what they think. Motives may be relevant if it is thought that deradicalisation can be effected during their incarceration but a trial should concentrate exclusively on what they did. The whole proliferation of charges of “terrorism” and the introduction of classes of “hate crime” is a mistake.
It is almost impossible to untangle the thought processes of murderers and determine to what extent they are motivated by ideology, mental illness or childhood or adult trauma. Nor is there any point when it comes to the question of guilt or innocent which is what a trial is concerned with. If prison psychiatrists can delve into this area to see if a repetition of the behaviour might be avoided that is all well and good but it should not figure in any trial except to determine whether the accused is mentally capable of distinguishing right from wrong.
Agree 1000%. The whole category of “hate crimes” just lends itself to politicizing criminal behavior. One could argue that any premeditated act of violence is a “hate crime.” Motivation comes into play with establishing motive (duh), and perhaps in aggravating circumstances with regards to sentencing, but to me “hate crime” is way too much like “thought crime.”
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago
“What is terrorism and who is a terrorist? A lot of ink has been wasted in trying to answer this, but it’s really not that complicated.”
Well, I think the best answer is the MSM are the terrorists as they take the world’s actions and make it terror or non-terror, as often as not irrespective of anything solid, excepting where it fits in their agenda.
Like Central Banks ‘Create Money’ by conjuring up debt on one side, and cash on the other side, of their balance sheets- to give out money to their masters and minions (Rich and Poor) from one side -, and giving out the debt for the ones they do not like (Workers and Middle Class), to pay for on the other….. The bank ‘Created the Debt and Dollars by some strokes of the keyboard, and so zeros and ones streaming off on the internet, turning into pain or pleasure, depending on who they wish what on…..
This is the MSM, Tech/Social Media, ones and zeros off their algorithms and keyboards to benefit the ones they like, and punish the ones they do not. And like the Central Banks casting either Debt, or Dollars on the ones they want to have it – the MSM does the same, but with Guilt and Innocence, good or bad..
There is a supply chain problem for the media as far as ‘far right’ terrorism goes: there is simply much more demand than there is supply.
Consequently the MSM have to make it up by ascribing the label to events that clearly do not belong in that category and by wildly exaggerating any examples they find of genuine right wing extremism.
The reverse is true when it comes to left wing terrorism: there is way too much Antifa, BLM and general anti-white violence for the MSM’s liking, so they ignore it or mis-label it (“mostly peaceful protests”).
Trump was right. The media (or large parts of them anyway) are the enemy of the people.
So don’t bother stopping terrorists who kill people? Just end MSM and incarcerate all journalists as terrorists?
Martin Brumby
2 years ago
Very interesting to read a sound post from an academic who isn’t pre-occupied by wokeness and virtue signalling. I do hope it doesn’t adversely affect his career.
Whilst I admit that I now try to avoid the mainstream media, I was interested to read a very recent account from the Campaign Against Antisemitism about one Ben Raymond (of whom I’ve never heard but was apparently a 32 year old co-founder of the nutter’s group National Action).
In the C.A.S.’s account he was sent down for ten years, but apparently actually eight for belonging to a proscribed organisation and two years (concurrently) for having some notes of home made detonators and an account of Anders Brevik’s ideology. The account fails to reveal that he actually DID anything naughty. But 8 years in the nick is quite a term, nowadays, even for an antisemitic nutter.
Compare and contrast with “Professor” Susan Michie, Communist Party Stalwart (“Stalin’s Nannie”), appointed by Boris as SAGE’s leading light in promoting the use of terror to control the plebs and promote our Beloved Leader’s wise choices of dealing with Covid and the Climate. Michie is lionised and much interviewed by the BBC. This other sad twerp is put in pokey for 8 years and seemingly ignored by the media.
I have zero sympathy for Raymond or Michie.
But it is self evident who is the greater threat to society.
For goodness sake, Michie is one of 90 or so scientists that are on the SAGE advisory group as at the 16th Sept 2021. Apart rom the BBC I hardly think she is a dominating factor in discussion unless she can persuade the other 89 to her left wing thinking
How many N azis are on it? There should surely be one balancing N azi for every Communist?
John Pade
2 years ago
There isn’t a terrorist under every bed and these two crimes prove it. The high school shooter is an adolescent misfit taking out his weirdness on others, abetted by the worlds worst parents. Darrell Brooks is just one of thousands or even millions of parolees and bail releasees who rob, kill, and rape Americans everyday. Shoehorning these people in the same category as the 9/11attackers and BLM activists is ridiculous. Crumbley is too weird and Brooks too stupid to be associated with terrorists.
Martin Johnson
2 years ago
This problem is much like what is presented by hate crime laws. We criminalize thoughts, which always presents ambiguity and the potential for misunderstanding and manipulation, as opposed to actions, which are for more clear-cut. We criminalize terrorism or hate with no clear consensus on what either really means, then act all surprised and troubled when governments apply those laws in ways we disagree with.
Well, what did we expect?
This is all so stupid it makes my brain hurt. Murder is murder whether driving a vehicle into a parade of shooting up a school. Treat murder as the heinous crime it should be an you don’t need an excuse to pile on extra charges.
Terror and hate – emotional terms, not particularly well defined. The words have been revised to become weapons to enhance a basic crime. One might imagine every crime involves those aspects of the action.
Mikey Mike
2 years ago
We always need to wait until the situation is examined further when the perpetrator is black and the victims are white. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions just because the attacker espoused hatred and promoted violence against white people. We are told to be circumspect until the evidence is examined and the experts chime in. And then suddenly a month will pass and no one will be talking about the black man who anyone with rudimentary powers of deduction understands was targeting innocent white people because they were white. And its college educated white people who will call anyone who points this out a racist. What a weird time to be on earth.
Last edited 2 years ago by Mikey Mike
Zorro Tomorrow
2 years ago
Neither are terrorists, murderous criminals yes. The boy didn’t want to bring down America, nor did the truck driver. They might have liked to. If they’d attacked the military, police or politicians then maybe and only then if a terror group had planned the occasions and sent people out to commit the atrocities would be my definition.
Will Cummings
2 years ago
What differentiates a terrorist, is that a terrorist uses terror as a means to an end. A terrorist is someone who seeks to instill terror and then to use the resultant panic as a means of societal change. If one accepts this definition, then one might consider as terrorists those who seek to instill terror over a viral outbreak and to use the resulting panic as a means of societal change.
Julian Farrows
2 years ago
The journalists who report the news in such a way as to further a political agenda that purposefully misrepresents ethnic groups (for good or bad) are also engaging in a form of terrorism.
Dustshoe Richinrut
2 years ago
In the social media age, if the perpetrator of an atrocity’s intention is to inspire copycat attacks, then could that be considered a terrorist act? Depending on the basic facts? Over the last twenty years, there has among some terrorist groupings seemingly been almost a Top Of The Pops rivalry as to who can produce the greatest ‘spectacular’. Each terrorist must be ever hopeful that he has done enough to keep the show going, as it were. (A banality of evil).
Also, there might be a germ of truth that when a news organisation uses the word “atrocity”, that the violent incident that it relays news on is probably seen as a terrorist event.
Interesting that you have used the phrase, ‘A banality of evil’, referring back to your other post about Sheer and Arendt. I was going to do the same and you beat me to it.
I see the same above as I do in the cases of Japan and Germany in WW2.
In Japan, a group of senior people saw that Japan was cut off from raw materials and used schools, newspapers and all propaganda available to them to convince the people that Japan had to react by taking over the world. But the people were basically illiterate compared to Europeans. They followed because there was no alternative to them – either kill or be killed was the message.
In Germany, the population was one of the most cultured and educated in the world. The politicians here showed that Germany could be greater and greater and rule the world except for the internal enemy, the Jews. Cursing and blaming the Jews was already inherent in society and this reaction was banal. Gradually, it changed to murder but still was described as banal.
So, the white guy talked big with his mates, revered Hitler but probably wouldn’t have even known where Germany was – do people in the USA know about the world? – and might have been incited to violence. Not terrorism.
The black guy had grown up in a black community, hating white people for their relative successes in life, surrounded by examples of the domination of white people (in his mind, at least) and definitely part of a sub-culture. Quite possibly a terrorist. But difficult to say without looking in detail at the actual case.
I can understand one reason why the media would not agree with me. To label something as ‘terrorist’ is to make it sexy and to attract people to it as a meaning of life.
I very largely agree with you, other than your assertion that the Japanese people “were basically illiterate compared to Europeans”.
That would be very difficult to demonstrate.
Jordan Flower
2 years ago
Yet it’s striking that only one of those questions is being publicly asked right now, and it’s not the second one.
It’s not striking at all. We know exactly why Brooks has been handled with kid gloves by the corporate press.
Just like Rotherham, one more example of so-called ‘progressives’ using institutional power to conceal the truth in favour of false narratives that align better with their ideology. The woke are a threat to public security because, like the terrorists, they rely on ideology to justify terrible acts that harm the innocent.
I think the problem is far worse than your reply suggest and 99% of the problem is on the left.
The people who worked tirelessly to overturn the conviction of the man convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock on the basis of the technicalities, are the same people who drove changes to the law that removed centuries old legal protections, and who turned a bind eye to some very dubious evidence gathering, to ensure the conviction of the killers of Stephen Lawrence, are the same people who relegated news of the racist kidnapping and murder of the white teenager Kriss Donald to news of the opening of a new sports centre in Gateshead and who were happy to see the investigation shut down even though it was seemingly quite clear that all those responsible had not been arrested or charged
Here is a link to an interesting article in the Guardian back in the day
https://unherd.com/2021/12/the-hypocrisy-of-americas-terror-debate/#comment-261339
It’s not that odd really, for the reasons explained in the piece.
Defining terrorism is like defining racism. To the left, whether something is racism or not depends on the race of the alleged racist. Racists who are black are never racists, everyone who’s white is a racist, and racially insulting white people is never racism. In no case does anything the racist might say or do make any difference to the judgment.
In the same way, to the left people are terrorists or not according to whether use of the label advances the left’s agenda or not. Brooks’ victims were all white, whom the left also hates, therefore he’s not a terrorist. Crumbley’s victims provide an argument for gun control, which attacks the right, therefore he was a terrorist.
It comes down to the left’s hierarchy approach to victimhood. Sympathy is apportioned according to what identity group you belong to, so if British police get involved in fights with rioting British miners they side with the miners. But if South African police kill rioting miners they have a problem because everyone involved is black, so they just say nothing.
Spot on.
“What is terrorism and who is a terrorist?”
With respect, the author has buried the lead, not unusual for an academic, so I will attempt to answer his question. There is a severe level of terrorism and terrorist activity in the US, and I for one, am deeply grateful to Merrick Garland and his completely apolitical Justice Department (Hunter Biden, anyone?) that is already looking into this grave threat.
That threat, of course, is the very real and present danger of parents speaking at school board meetings objecting to wokeness. These parents–I mean terrorists–have formed cells to initiative terrorist activities such as 1. speaking at meetings, 2. recall votes, 3. encouraging people to take these positions much more seriously. These terrorists must be stopped, and Merrick is on it.
“Nobody wants to be accused of Islamophobia or racism,”
Finally, I just can’t let this comment pass. I suppose that this is especially true for the security guard at the Manchester Arena who saw the bomber, realized that he was acting suspiciously for a variety of different reasons, but said nothing because…..”Nobody wants to be accused of Islamophobia or racism…..”
I am a little confused…are you being sarcastic?
YES!
Just by using the argument tool: ad absurdum. .
Oh James, with respect, you so often start by slagging off the writer and then suggesting you’ll provide true insight, and proceed to jump on your own wee angle, showing you have, in fact, ‘buried the lead’.
Cheers, mate. I’ll try to do better….
People should be punished and imprisoned for what they do not for what they think. Motives may be relevant if it is thought that deradicalisation can be effected during their incarceration but a trial should concentrate exclusively on what they did. The whole proliferation of charges of “terrorism” and the introduction of classes of “hate crime” is a mistake.
It is almost impossible to untangle the thought processes of murderers and determine to what extent they are motivated by ideology, mental illness or childhood or adult trauma. Nor is there any point when it comes to the question of guilt or innocent which is what a trial is concerned with. If prison psychiatrists can delve into this area to see if a repetition of the behaviour might be avoided that is all well and good but it should not figure in any trial except to determine whether the accused is mentally capable of distinguishing right from wrong.
Good point. It seems as though the victims themselves are of little or no interest.
And yes.
Yes.
Very well said! Motivation may be useful to know when deciding guilt, but should not be criminal in itself.
Agree 1000%. The whole category of “hate crimes” just lends itself to politicizing criminal behavior. One could argue that any premeditated act of violence is a “hate crime.” Motivation comes into play with establishing motive (duh), and perhaps in aggravating circumstances with regards to sentencing, but to me “hate crime” is way too much like “thought crime.”
“What is terrorism and who is a terrorist? A lot of ink has been wasted in trying to answer this, but it’s really not that complicated.”
Well, I think the best answer is the MSM are the terrorists as they take the world’s actions and make it terror or non-terror, as often as not irrespective of anything solid, excepting where it fits in their agenda.
Like Central Banks ‘Create Money’ by conjuring up debt on one side, and cash on the other side, of their balance sheets- to give out money to their masters and minions (Rich and Poor) from one side -, and giving out the debt for the ones they do not like (Workers and Middle Class), to pay for on the other….. The bank ‘Created the Debt and Dollars by some strokes of the keyboard, and so zeros and ones streaming off on the internet, turning into pain or pleasure, depending on who they wish what on…..
This is the MSM, Tech/Social Media, ones and zeros off their algorithms and keyboards to benefit the ones they like, and punish the ones they do not. And like the Central Banks casting either Debt, or Dollars on the ones they want to have it – the MSM does the same, but with Guilt and Innocence, good or bad..
Correct.
There is a supply chain problem for the media as far as ‘far right’ terrorism goes: there is simply much more demand than there is supply.
Consequently the MSM have to make it up by ascribing the label to events that clearly do not belong in that category and by wildly exaggerating any examples they find of genuine right wing extremism.
The reverse is true when it comes to left wing terrorism: there is way too much Antifa, BLM and general anti-white violence for the MSM’s liking, so they ignore it or mis-label it (“mostly peaceful protests”).
Trump was right. The media (or large parts of them anyway) are the enemy of the people.
So don’t bother stopping terrorists who kill people? Just end MSM and incarcerate all journalists as terrorists?
Very interesting to read a sound post from an academic who isn’t pre-occupied by wokeness and virtue signalling. I do hope it doesn’t adversely affect his career.
Whilst I admit that I now try to avoid the mainstream media, I was interested to read a very recent account from the Campaign Against Antisemitism about one Ben Raymond (of whom I’ve never heard but was apparently a 32 year old co-founder of the nutter’s group National Action).
In the C.A.S.’s account he was sent down for ten years, but apparently actually eight for belonging to a proscribed organisation and two years (concurrently) for having some notes of home made detonators and an account of Anders Brevik’s ideology. The account fails to reveal that he actually DID anything naughty. But 8 years in the nick is quite a term, nowadays, even for an antisemitic nutter.
Compare and contrast with “Professor” Susan Michie, Communist Party Stalwart (“Stalin’s Nannie”), appointed by Boris as SAGE’s leading light in promoting the use of terror to control the plebs and promote our Beloved Leader’s wise choices of dealing with Covid and the Climate. Michie is lionised and much interviewed by the BBC. This other sad twerp is put in pokey for 8 years and seemingly ignored by the media.
I have zero sympathy for Raymond or Michie.
But it is self evident who is the greater threat to society.
For goodness sake, Michie is one of 90 or so scientists that are on the SAGE advisory group as at the 16th Sept 2021. Apart rom the BBC I hardly think she is a dominating factor in discussion unless she can persuade the other 89 to her left wing thinking
How many N azis are on it? There should surely be one balancing N azi for every Communist?
There isn’t a terrorist under every bed and these two crimes prove it. The high school shooter is an adolescent misfit taking out his weirdness on others, abetted by the worlds worst parents. Darrell Brooks is just one of thousands or even millions of parolees and bail releasees who rob, kill, and rape Americans everyday. Shoehorning these people in the same category as the 9/11attackers and BLM activists is ridiculous. Crumbley is too weird and Brooks too stupid to be associated with terrorists.
This problem is much like what is presented by hate crime laws. We criminalize thoughts, which always presents ambiguity and the potential for misunderstanding and manipulation, as opposed to actions, which are for more clear-cut. We criminalize terrorism or hate with no clear consensus on what either really means, then act all surprised and troubled when governments apply those laws in ways we disagree with.
Well, what did we expect?
This is all so stupid it makes my brain hurt. Murder is murder whether driving a vehicle into a parade of shooting up a school. Treat murder as the heinous crime it should be an you don’t need an excuse to pile on extra charges.
Terror and hate – emotional terms, not particularly well defined. The words have been revised to become weapons to enhance a basic crime. One might imagine every crime involves those aspects of the action.
We always need to wait until the situation is examined further when the perpetrator is black and the victims are white. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions just because the attacker espoused hatred and promoted violence against white people. We are told to be circumspect until the evidence is examined and the experts chime in. And then suddenly a month will pass and no one will be talking about the black man who anyone with rudimentary powers of deduction understands was targeting innocent white people because they were white. And its college educated white people who will call anyone who points this out a racist. What a weird time to be on earth.
Neither are terrorists, murderous criminals yes. The boy didn’t want to bring down America, nor did the truck driver. They might have liked to. If they’d attacked the military, police or politicians then maybe and only then if a terror group had planned the occasions and sent people out to commit the atrocities would be my definition.
What differentiates a terrorist, is that a terrorist uses terror as a means to an end. A terrorist is someone who seeks to instill terror and then to use the resultant panic as a means of societal change. If one accepts this definition, then one might consider as terrorists those who seek to instill terror over a viral outbreak and to use the resulting panic as a means of societal change.
The journalists who report the news in such a way as to further a political agenda that purposefully misrepresents ethnic groups (for good or bad) are also engaging in a form of terrorism.
In the social media age, if the perpetrator of an atrocity’s intention is to inspire copycat attacks, then could that be considered a terrorist act? Depending on the basic facts? Over the last twenty years, there has among some terrorist groupings seemingly been almost a Top Of The Pops rivalry as to who can produce the greatest ‘spectacular’. Each terrorist must be ever hopeful that he has done enough to keep the show going, as it were. (A banality of evil).
Also, there might be a germ of truth that when a news organisation uses the word “atrocity”, that the violent incident that it relays news on is probably seen as a terrorist event.
Interesting that you have used the phrase, ‘A banality of evil’, referring back to your other post about Sheer and Arendt. I was going to do the same and you beat me to it.
I see the same above as I do in the cases of Japan and Germany in WW2.
In Japan, a group of senior people saw that Japan was cut off from raw materials and used schools, newspapers and all propaganda available to them to convince the people that Japan had to react by taking over the world. But the people were basically illiterate compared to Europeans. They followed because there was no alternative to them – either kill or be killed was the message.
In Germany, the population was one of the most cultured and educated in the world. The politicians here showed that Germany could be greater and greater and rule the world except for the internal enemy, the Jews. Cursing and blaming the Jews was already inherent in society and this reaction was banal. Gradually, it changed to murder but still was described as banal.
So, the white guy talked big with his mates, revered Hitler but probably wouldn’t have even known where Germany was – do people in the USA know about the world? – and might have been incited to violence. Not terrorism.
The black guy had grown up in a black community, hating white people for their relative successes in life, surrounded by examples of the domination of white people (in his mind, at least) and definitely part of a sub-culture. Quite possibly a terrorist. But difficult to say without looking in detail at the actual case.
I can understand one reason why the media would not agree with me. To label something as ‘terrorist’ is to make it sexy and to attract people to it as a meaning of life.
I very largely agree with you, other than your assertion that the Japanese people “were basically illiterate compared to Europeans”.
That would be very difficult to demonstrate.
It’s not striking at all. We know exactly why Brooks has been handled with kid gloves by the corporate press.