The White Supremacist Terrorist Threat

The fact that they're described as lone wolf attacks for one.

.


Except that the term lone wolf attacks has also been used to describe attacks carried out by so called "Islamic terrorists" also. The term is more about describing how they have no direct ties or direct orders from known terrorist groups, and while they might be inspired by terror groups they are actually acting on their own.

The brothers involved in the Boston Marathon bombings qualify as "lone wolf terrorists" even though they acted together they were not a part of any know terror group nor taking direction/orders from that group.

This is from wiki, but it contains a wide variety of attacks that can be said to be "lone wolf"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)

Now for the guy involved in the Quebec shooting, I will assume the authorities are still carrying on their investigation to find out what groups he is or is not linked to. Whether he worked with others. Whether others directed his attack.
What they find will determine if he is or is not truly a lone wolf.
 
Which has three effects:

- Allows the issue to be ignored by the authorities beyond prosecution and punishment of the lone wolf. No task forces are created to investigate and pre-emptively root out other people who may be plotting attacks against minority populations.
- Absolves the majority of blame. They get to disassociate themselves from the perp, without considering their role in a system that allowed and still allows acts like these to continue.
- De-legitimize the victims. This isn't the oppression Olympics, but when crimes against a certain section of the population are not scrutinized as much as crimes commited against another section of the population, it creates a sense that some citizens aren't as important as others. A sense backed by historical and current events.

The worrying thing is that with a white supremist literally standing in the White House, I don't see this being prioritized. I see these fringe ideas taking hold in a significant proportion of people and festering, until Trump gets booted out of power and a more sensible person tries to right the ship, then BOOM! All havoc breaks loose.

Nah I'm probably worrying too much.

You've broken it down very well, especially in light of the current political climate.

Except that the term lone wolf attacks has also been used to describe attacks carried out by so called "Islamic terrorists" also. The term is more about describing how they have no direct ties or direct orders from known terrorist groups, and while they might be inspired by terror groups they are actually acting on their own.

The brothers involved in the Boston Marathon bombings qualify as "lone wolf terrorists" even though they acted together they were not a part of any know terror group nor taking direction/orders from that group.

This is from wiki, but it contains a wide variety of attacks that can be said to be "lone wolf"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)

Now for the guy involved in the Quebec shooting, I will assume the authorities are still carrying on their investigation to find out what groups he is or is not linked to. Whether he worked with others. Whether others directed his attack.
What they find will determine if he is or is not truly a lone wolf.

Well I already identified that there is no difference between Dylann Roof and say the Boston Marathon Bombings, however the Boston bombers are associated with Islam. Compare that with Dylann Roof; who was a devout Christian, however he is treated as an individual and his actions are not seen as being reflective of his faith - I mean, the attacks took place in a Church, and his normal Church congregation knew him since he was a little boy ffs.

So the real problem here is not so much the description of "lone wolf" by definition but the association of a person's faith and intention.
Nobody will look at Dylann Roof and blame Christianity as being influential in his actions, and no other Christians will have to answer for what he did.
 
Originated with Tim McVeigh.
I left McVeigh off purposefully...he said, he did it to take revenge against the Feds for Waco and while he listed The Turner Diaries as inspiration, all his explanations later including looking at the govt as being an oppressor.

I think the a lot of far right mentalists (militias) from his time were against taxation and the govt - and that was their primary drive, whereas now, anti immigration and obviously islamophobia have a much larger profile.
 
In terms of threat level, it of course differs in each country, but in global terms organization and coherence of purpose seem to be the main things separating the jihadists from their white supremacist counterparts, although we might expect to see the latter develop in a more sophisticated direction in the coming years. The jihadists of course fight among themselves by differing over strategy and seemingly trivial doctrinal issues, but have some very clear goals in mind which they all largely share - the revival of the caliphate, the expulsion of perceived non-Muslim influence from Muslim lands, the return to the pristine purity of the early days of Islam, the primacy of the shari'ah, and the belief in the duty of militant jihad to achieve these. There is an appeal to authenticity in Islamic terms which captivates many Muslims, and I'm not sure if the White Supremacist movement has, so far, come up with anything comparable.
 
Well I already identified that there is no difference between Dylann Roof and say the Boston Marathon Bombings, however the Boston bombers are associated with Islam. Compare that with Dylann Roof; who was a devout Christian, however he is treated as an individual and his actions are not seen as being reflective of his faith - I mean, the attacks took place in a Church, and his normal Church congregation knew him since he was a little boy ffs.

So the real problem here is not so much the description of "lone wolf" by definition but the association of a person's faith and intention.
Nobody will look at Dylann Roof and blame Christianity as being influential in his actions, and no other Christians will have to answer for what he did.

They're associated with Islam because they claimed to act for the sake of Islam. Roof as far as I know claimed to act for the sake of the white race, which is why he's associated with the White Supremacist movement rather than with Christianity.
 
You've broken it down very well, especially in light of the current political climate.



Well I already identified that there is no difference between Dylann Roof and say the Boston Marathon Bombings, however the Boston bombers are associated with Islam. Compare that with Dylann Roof; who was a devout Christian, however he is treated as an individual and his actions are not seen as being reflective of his faith - I mean, the attacks took place in a Church, and his normal Church congregation knew him since he was a little boy ffs.

So the real problem here is not so much the description of "lone wolf" by definition but the association of a person's faith and intention.
Nobody will look at Dylann Roof and blame Christianity as being influential in his actions, and no other Christians will have to answer for what he did.


The question always boils down to what were the driving factors for each individual. If their religion played a part in their decision to attack, then there is no problem mentioning that. If they were driven by racism, then mention that. In the case of Dylan Roof, what was the driving force in him making these attacks? In the case of the Boston Bombers, let's face it they were in part driven by their extreme Islamic views and according to those who interrogated the surviving brother and investigated both brothers, they were in their minds defending Islam. So of course it will get mentioned.

Now of course that does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. They should not be banned from entering the US and other such nonsense.
 
The relevant question is not how many who died, it is the number who would have died had the counter-terrorism been absent. I wouldn't be surprised if it's more efficient to go after larger organisations, since it is easier to investigate. A single lunatic without priors is difficult to sniff out.

I would also think those with better funding will be more capable of large scale attacks.
 
That Family Guy terrorism index is pretty suitable for this thread.

What this guy said.
d3f5f0abc2c4dd0028b6b254d6f579f2.jpg
 
They're associated with Islam because they claimed to act for the sake of Islam. Roof as far as I know claimed to act for the sake of the white race, which is why he's associated with the White Supremacist movement rather than with Christianity.

The question always boils down to what were the driving factors for each individual. If their religion played a part in their decision to attack, then there is no problem mentioning that. If they were driven by racism, then mention that. In the case of Dylan Roof, what was the driving force in him making these attacks? In the case of the Boston Bombers, let's face it they were in part driven by their extreme Islamic views and according to those who interrogated the surviving brother and investigated both brothers, they were in their minds defending Islam. So of course it will get mentioned.

Now of course that does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. They should not be banned from entering the US and other such nonsense.

I understand the logic behind that, however the original poster only mentioned the Marathon bombing as one example, it's not the case that each attack that was done by a Muslim was motivated by Islam. However they do get grouped as acts of Islamic terror - which is the point here.

Given the political climate, I think around the time of the Dylann Roof crime, statistics showed that you were much more likely (iirc it was twice as likely) to be a victim of an attack by a white supremacist than an Islamic extremist.
But the perceived threat in America at least, is surrounding Islam.
 
Except that the term lone wolf attacks has also been used to describe attacks carried out by so called "Islamic terrorists" also. The term is more about describing how they have no direct ties or direct orders from known terrorist groups, and while they might be inspired by terror groups they are actually acting on their own.

The brothers involved in the Boston Marathon bombings qualify as "lone wolf terrorists" even though they acted together they were not a part of any know terror group nor taking direction/orders from that group.

This is from wiki, but it contains a wide variety of attacks that can be said to be "lone wolf"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)

Now for the guy involved in the Quebec shooting, I will assume the authorities are still carrying on their investigation to find out what groups he is or is not linked to. Whether he worked with others. Whether others directed his attack.
What they find will determine if he is or is not truly a lone wolf.

Omar Mateen would also be a "lone wolf".
 
I understand the logic behind that, however the original poster only mentioned the Marathon bombing as one example, it's not the case that each attack that was done by a Muslim was motivated by Islam. However they do get grouped as acts of Islamic terror - which is the point here.

Have you got some examples of Muslim attackers who have made no link to Islam in rationalizing their act being described as 'Islamic' terrorists? It certainly happens on some right-wing, anti-Islam websites I can name but in the mainstream press and media I'd struggle to think of cases where this has happened.
 
Have you got some examples of Muslim attackers who have made no link to Islam in rationalizing their act being described as 'Islamic' terrorists? It certainly happens on some right-wing, anti-Islam websites I can name but in the mainstream press and media I'd struggle to think of cases where this has happened.

The Orlando Nightclub is the most recent one. Motivated by homosexuality and his own (apparent) closeted homosexuality, and raised as a Muslim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Motive
 
The Orlando Nightclub is the most recent one. Motivated by homosexuality and his own (apparent) closeted homosexuality, and raised as a Muslim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Motive

That's according to some speculation by others. The only motivation cited by the shooter himself, according to what you just posted, is this:

In the hours before the shooting, Mateen used several Facebook accounts to write posts vowing vengeance for American airstrikes in Iraq and Syria and to search for content related to terrorism...During the shooting, Mateen made a 9-1-1 call claiming, among others, it was an act of retaliation for the killing of ISIL militant Abu Waheeb in an airstrike the previous week
 
That's according to some speculation by others. The only motivation cited by the shooter himself, according to what you just posted, is this:

But that's in retaliation to the death of someone who happened to be an ISIL militant, he didn't attack because of ISIL or his allegiance to ISIL.

Also considering there's accounts from over a dozen people including his own father and ex-wife, it's not as easy to diminish as only speculation.
Especially since he targeted a gay club specifically. If he happened to attack a hetero-club then sure, it wouldn't correlate or add up, but there's a clear link with homosexuality.
 
But that's in retaliation to the death of someone who happened to be an ISIL militant, he didn't attack because of ISIL or his allegiance to ISIL.

Also considering there's accounts from over a dozen people including his own father and ex-wife, it's not as easy to diminish as only speculation.
Especially since he targeted a gay club specifically. If he happened to attack a hetero-club then sure, it wouldn't correlate or add up, but there's a clear link with homosexuality.

This good enough for you?

Omar Mateen described himself as 'Islamic soldier' in 911 calls to police
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...n-911-calls-orlando-shooting-fbi-release-isis

Of course there are any number of factors which drive people to radicalization and to commit these attacks, that's why they're so hard to pre-empt. Mateen's alleged homosexuality could very well have been a factor in his own path. But in giving the attacker a particular label, we can only reliably go off how they have defined themselves and their motivations.
 
But that's in retaliation to the death of someone who happened to be an ISIL militant, he didn't attack because of ISIL or his allegiance to ISIL.

Also considering there's accounts from over a dozen people including his own father and ex-wife, it's not as easy to diminish as only speculation.
Especially since he targeted a gay club specifically. If he happened to attack a hetero-club then sure, it wouldn't correlate or add up, but there's a clear link with homosexuality.
Dude was definitely Gay and was a self hater. But, he also had islamist tendencies - his friend reported him to the FBI in 2014, but they couldn't find anything actionable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando...s-omar-mateen-gay-lover-speaks-out-univision/
 
This good enough for you?

Omar Mateen described himself as 'Islamic soldier' in 911 calls to police
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...n-911-calls-orlando-shooting-fbi-release-isis

Of course there are any number of factors which drive people to radicalization and to commit these attacks, that's why they're so hard to pre-empt. Mateen's alleged homosexuality could very well have been a factor in his own path. But in giving the attacker a particular label, we can only reliably go off how they have defined themselves and their motivations.

From that same publication:

Mateen was also considered to have fabricated a connection to the Boston Marathon bombers.

On Thursday the CIA director, John Brennan, testified that his agency had found no connection between Mateen and Isis.

NPR reported that investigators have not found telltale signs associated with Islamist radicalization, such as a change in mosques or abrupt shifts in behavior or family associations.

“We don’t know the true nature of what his allegiance may or may not be. He claimed allegiance to both [Isis] and Hezbollah, even though both [Isis] and Hezbollah are fighting each other. Unless he’s of a Swiss bent, I don’t know we can just take his word for his allegiances,” said a US security official who was not cleared to speak for the record, adding that previous Mateen statements “have either been disproven or been incongruous with reality”

The unfolding FBI inquiry, the official said, could “go anywhere from [Mateen being] a true radical at the time he pulled the trigger to a deep sense of self-loathing at potentially being homosexual, a self-loathing which has its own dangerous effects”.

There's more signs of him lying about his allegiance to ISIS than him actually being aligned with ISIS.
Just because he says so, doesn't mean he is. And if he was a closeted homosexual it makes sense for him to lie about it, given his faith.
Plus ISIS didn't take any credit for the attack either.
 
Last edited:
Dude was definitely Gay and was a self hater. But, he also had islamist tendencies - his friend reported him to the FBI in 2014, but they couldn't find anything actionable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando...s-omar-mateen-gay-lover-speaks-out-univision/

Islamist tendecies is one thing, but planning an attack in the name of ISIS is another. And attacking a gay nightclub, on top of his alleged homosexuality, points more to him being gay and hating himself for it, rather than him being a terrorist.
 
There's more signs of him lying about his allegiance to ISIS than him actually being aligned with ISIS.
Just because he says so, doesn't mean he is. And if he was a closeted homosexual it makes sense for him to lie about it, given his faith.
Plus ISIS didn't take any credit for the attack either.

The discussion isn't about any links he might have had to ISIS. You were claiming that he was labelled an 'Islamic terrorist' without having claimed to have acted for Islam - in fact, as I've pointed it, it's because he identified himself as an 'Islamic soldier'. Everything else is just speculation.
 
Maybe the simple fact that they're "outsiders/foreigners" is more disconcerting. The 9/11 attacks were the first military attacks in the country since 1941, attacks perpetrated by foreigners, I mean. That was the end to American security. Those attacks were massive, spectular and so mediatic. I was in Iran at the time and initially thought it was a trailer for a film !

Plus, I imagine many Americans were absolutely astounded by that attack in the sense that we in the West tend to find it inconceivable that anyone dislikes us us, let alone hates us. Also, governments have colluded in the line that they simply hate our freedoms, our way of life.

There might be a cultural element too. The cold war phobia was in the UK was totally different from that in the US. There were no witch-hunts comparable to McCarthy, as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the simple fact that they're "outsiders/foreigners" is more disconcerting. The 9/11 attacks were the first military attacks in the country since 1941, attacks perpetrated by foreigners, I mean. That was the end to American security. Those attacks were massive, spectular and so mediatic. I was in Iran at the time and initially thought it was a trailer for a film !

Plus, I imagine many Americans were absolutely astounded by that attack in the sense that we in the West tend to find it inconceivable that anyone dislikes us us, let alone hates us. Also, governments have colluded in the line that they simply hate our freedoms, our way of life.

There might be a cultural element too. The cold war phobia was in the UK was totally different from that in the US. There were no witch-hunts comparable to McCarthy, as far as I know.
umm - we had the World Trade Center bombings in 1993 - massive bombs that luckily weren't quite right, still 6 dead and 1000+ injured.

Also in 1993 - US TV channels showed dead US soldiers being set upon by angry mobs in Somalia.

We knew we were hated.
 
From that same publication:











There's more signs of him lying about his allegiance to ISIS than him actually being aligned with ISIS.
Just because he says so, doesn't mean he is. And if he was a closeted homosexual it makes sense for him to lie about it, given his faith.
Plus ISIS didn't take any credit for the attack either.

Well being a lone wolf not working under the direction of ISIS might be why. It is really a poor example because of his own statements (which of course may be lies, or may be only part of his motive) you can't really say it was based on some bias that people associated him with Islamic Extremists. It got associated in large part because of his own statements. If you want to blame someone for that, blame him, not some media or cultural bias against Islam.
 
umm - we had the World Trade Center bombings in 1993 - massive bombs that luckily weren't quite right, still 6 dead and 1000+ injured.

Also in 1993 - US TV channels showed dead US soldiers being set upon by angry mobs in Somalia.

We knew we were hated.

Several embassy bombings, killings of tourists around the world, killing of embassy staff, the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, etc etc etc.
 
Well being a lone wolf not working under the direction of ISIS might be why. It is really a poor example because of his own statements (which of course may be lies, or may be only part of his motive) you can't really say it was based on some bias that people associated him with Islamic Extremists. It got associated in large part because of his own statements. If you want to blame someone for that, blame him, not some media or cultural bias against Islam.

Not only that, but there was actually a real reluctance in the media and elsewhere to describe him as an 'Islamic terrorist', even after his statements were revealed.

There are plenty of acts of politically motivated violence carried out by Muslims which are not described as 'Islamic'. The PKK, Fatah, KLA and Polisario Front are all Muslim-majority militant groups, yet nobody describes them as 'Islamic' for the same reason nobody describes the IRA or ETA as 'Catholic'.
 
I think the virtual epidemic of drug use, alogn with higher death rates, suicides, etc, concentrated among whites (in the US at least) has gone quite unnoticed, at least by the liberals and Left. This speech (published as an article) does a good job of highlighting it:

When systemic problems become too large to ignore, when socialists start gaining millions of votes, for example, or when black people riot and rebel in the streets, the news media is forced to provide some explanation. And in doing so, they typically give us fractured glimpses of reality. But rarely do they piece together the entire picture. Consider four separate news stories from last year.

The first is the continuing crisis of the opioid addiction crisis in this country. There are two million people addicted to opioids in the United States, a disproportionate number of whom are white. From 2009 to 2014, almost half a million people have died from opioid overdoses, a fourfold increase since 1999.

A second story, briefly in the news, reported on the decline in life expectancy for white women. It is unprecedented for life expectancy to reverse in a so-called first-world country. In the United States peer countries, life expectancy is actually growing. Why is life expectancy for working-class white women in decline? Drug overdose, suicide, and alcohol abuse.

In Chicago, the story has been the rise in shootings and murders in the city’s working-class black neighborhoods. In 2016, there were 4,379 people shot in Chicago, and 797 people killed. The overwhelmingly majority of both were African-American.

The news media’s nonsensical explanations for the violence include retaliation. But that is only matched by the nonsense offered by elected officials, which includes the absence of role models and poor parenting. What is almost never offered as at least part of the answer is how Chicago has the highest black unemployment rate of the nation’s five largest cities at 25 percent, that nearly half of black men aged 20 to 24 are neither in school nor employed, that Chicago has the third-highest poverty rate of large cities in the US, and that it is the most segregated city in the country.

Finally, there is the story of the shrinking of the so-called middle class. In the 1970s, 61 percent of Americans fell into that vague but stable category. Today, that number has fallen to 50 percent. It is driven by the growing wealth inequality that exists in this country.

In the last year alone, the one percent saw their income rise by seven percent, and the .1 percent saw their income rise by 9 percent. In general, the richest 20 percent of US households own 84 percent of the wealth in this country, while the bottom 40 percent own less than one percent.

The media would have us believe that this is a story primarily about the Rust Belt and disgruntled white workers. In fact, it is also a story about 240,000 black homeowners, who lost their houses to foreclosures in the last eight years. It is also a story about urban school closures and the decimation of employment for black educators. Thousands of black teachers have been fired in the last decade.

These four prominent stories reported on over the last several years are often told separately, reinforcing the perception that different groups of ordinary people in this country live in their own world and have experiences that are wholly separate from each other. But what would happen if we put these stories together, and told them as a single narrative about life in this country?

If we told them together, it could allow us to see that the anxieties, stresses, confusions, and frustrations about life world today are not owned by one group, but are shared by many. It would not tell us that everyone suffers the same oppression, but it would allow us to see that even if we don’t experience a particular kind of oppression, every working person in this country is going through something. Everyone is trying to figure out how to survive, and many are failing.

If we put these stories together, we would gain more insight into how ordinary white people have as much stake in the fight for a different kind of society as anyone else.

We wouldn’t so casually dismiss their suffering as privilege, because they do not suffer as much as black and brown people in this country. In fact, we might find that the privileges of white skin run very thin in a country where nineteen million white people languish in poverty.

Apparently, the wages of whiteness are not so great that they can stop millions of ordinary white people from literally drinking and drugging themselves to death, to escape the despair of living in this “greatest country on earth.”
 
I saw Tim McVeigh mentioned, it reminded me of the video that I went to straight after the Trump election:

 
I think the virtual epidemic of drug use, alogn with higher death rates, suicides, etc, concentrated among whites (in the US at least) has gone quite unnoticed, at least by the liberals and Left. This speech (published as an article) does a good job of highlighting it:
Watched the live stream of that amazing speech by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. Was completely shocked about the stat that working-class white women lifelife expectancy is in decline.
 
Watched the live stream of that amazing speech by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. Was completely shocked about the stat that working-class white women lifelife expectancy is in decline.

Me too, it was by far the best speech in that lineup.
 
Me too, it was by far the best speech in that lineup.
Agree with that.

It seemed(At least to someone who was watching thousands of mile away) to bring together race, gender and economic status into one forward looking idea. Very Fred Hampton like.

 
I think the virtual epidemic of drug use, alogn with higher death rates, suicides, etc, concentrated among whites (in the US at least) has gone quite unnoticed, at least by the liberals and Left. This speech (published as an article) does a good job of highlighting it:

Poor white people are basically going through what poor black people have been going through for decades. Endemic joblessness and poverty, leading to drug abuse and crime. They're realising that the problems which afflicted black communities for so long wasn't down to them being lazy or naturally inclined to criminality after all.

I agree that the way the liberals/Left in the US react with so much less sympathy to this new wave of extreme poverty is hypocritical and problematic fwiw.
 
Yet the US is taking by far the most radical steps of any country to protect itself from a perceived islamist threat (while simultaneously doing everything possible to ensure that US citizens are allowed to be heavily armed).

Reminds me of the clip I saw today of the TV show Quer that is shown in Bavarian TV



It is with English Undertitles...

I think it is funny that in Germany the best and most critical political comedy is shown by state controlled and public financed TV...
 
Last edited:
For example, the bureau’s agents can decide that a campus organization is not “legitimate” and therefore not entitled to robust protections for free speech; dig for derogatory information on potential informants without any basis for believing they are implicated in unlawful activity; use a person’s immigration status to pressure them to collaborate and then help deport them when they are no longer useful; conduct invasive “assessments” without any reason for suspecting the targets of wrongdoing; demand that companies provide the bureau with personal data about their users in broadly worded national security letters without actual legal authority to do so; fan out across the internet along with a vast army of informants, infiltrating countless online chat rooms; peer through the walls of private homes; and more. The FBI offered various justifications of these tactics to our reporters. But the documents and our reporting on them ultimately reveal a bureaucracy in dire need of greater transparency and accountability.

One of the documents contains an alarming observation about the nation’s police forces, even as perceived by the FBI. Officials of the bureau were so concerned that many of these police forces are linked to, at times even populated by, overt white nationalists and white supremacists, that they have deemed it necessary to take that into account in crafting policies for sharing information with them. This news arrives in an ominous context, as the nation’s law enforcement agencies are among the few institutional factions in the U.S. that supported Trump, and they did so with virtual unanimity. Trump ran on a platform of unleashing an already out-of-control police — “I will restore law and order to our country,” he thundered when accepting the Republican nomination — and now the groups most loyal to Trump are those that possess a state monopoly over the use of force, many of which are infused with racial animus.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31...has-inherited-an-fbi-with-vast-hidden-powers/