Why attack Sikhs?

No. I am saying the program is a proactive program in the sense that the primary goal is to address crime before it happens with community policing and other targeted programs and it was not enacted as a knee-jerk response to any particular incident.

 

again with the straw men. almost anything that happens in reactive with respect to something. the famous 2nd amendment of the constitution for example is clearly reactive with respect to the experience of having been a colony of england. so if we apply the same logic, such as it is, that's being applied to gun control, we should toss that out as well, grounded as it is in this appalling reactive posture.

you woke up this morning in a manner that could be seen as reactive with respect to having gone to sleep last night.

i could go on, but i expect you get the point.

 

We won't convince each other. I understand your (and MM's, and most other's) position. I simply don't accept it. I cannot accept that taking some lives is more heinous than taking others, all other things being equal (e.g. ruthless premeditation). That is what labelling this a hate crime does. Motivation is not a crime, the action is (yes, I understand it can affect the various degrees of murder, and I'm not particularly in agreement with that, either).

VERY few murders are just out to get some people. First degree murder is premeditated, with a specific target or set of targets. Devastating the Sikh community is a real outcome here. Devastating a family is a real outcome of just about any murder. Making a crime worse because of the scope of its effect is far too slippery a slope, and goes well beyond any pretense of objectivity. If you can get enough people to say they were affected by a crime, does it somehow become worse? Does publicising the action make it worse?

Of course that's a hate crime, and should be treated as such. You make my point for me. The hate crime is promoting hatred, not the actual vandalism.

I disagree. Simply passing information should not be a hate crime. The exhortation to hate, to commit crimes against the identified group IS the hate crime. The subsequent actions are already crimes, and should be punished as such. I strongly feel that increasing the punishment for them because we apply the hate modifier is a disservice and insult to every other victim of those crimes who somehow wasn't important enough to be hated.

But, as I say, we won't convince one another, so I will let that be my last comment on this other than to stand with everyone else in condemning this atrocity, and offering heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims.

 

the motor behind such law as limits the rights of fascists to be fascists have come about as a result of a political decision that fascism is simply not acceptable. you may note that these laws are more frequent in contexts with actual experience of fascism deployed in modes that were not awesomely happy making. that's different from the u.s. of a. where periods of sliding into neo-fascism have been framed as patriotic responses to aggression on the part of an Enemy which is everywhere and nowhere, omnipotent and powerless one function of which is to inflict Mortal Danger in order to stiffen the...um....resolve of the Real American People and pour even more alarming amounts of cash into expressions of their World Historical Military Destiny. if you think i'm joking, you might consider the televised nuremburg rally that was the 2001 super bowl.

so it's not been typically an abstract debate about some absolute freedom of speech, but rather one in which racist speech has been demonstrated to have horrific consequences that make of it something like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

 

isn't this special?

Right-wing extremist terrorism as deadly a threat as al Qaeda? - CNN.com

the united states has long been accused of being blind in its right eye.

 

The article mentions on two occassions left-wing extremists....

Extremists are the problem. Regardless of their politcal leanings.

 

cyn--how about we rehearse a little thread reality for a minute. this started out being about a neo-fascist asshole who picked up a (legally and easily available) gun and decided one fine sunday morning to act out the (culturally legitimate within a neo-fascist context) fantasy of race war and "do something" to "protect" the imaginary white race. those are the facts of the matter. i made it pretty clear what i was talking about when i talked about the normalization of racist politics by the mainstream right by their use of a style of argument that leans on racist discourse structurally, and by the shift into the ultra-right that the populist wing of the conservative movement in the states has *empirically* undertaken in part as a way of avoiding the consequences of their own policies in the interest of staking out a more stable-seeming place by using identity as the central category---put into motion by paranoia---which is channeled typically into those same pathways that lean on racist discourse (us/them, real/outsider, on and on). i also said that the ease of access to guns is another aspect of the problem. but what's really a problem, as evidenced by this situation, is the way these two things converge.

 

The last left-wing extremists groups that I recall reading about were groups like Recreate 68 (wanted to cause disruptions at the 08 Democratic convention ala the 68 convention in Chicago), Code Pink who staged anti-war protests around the country, and perhaps an animal rights/eco-terrorist group intent on property destruction to stop cosmetics testing on animals.

But I'm sure I missed a few. The remnants of the Black Panthers, SDS, other anti-war/anti-capitalists groups from the 60s. Operation Wall Street?

 

Well, there was the Unibomber in the 80s and 90s, but he was more of a Neo-Luddite than a leftist.

And Obama still has terrorist connections because he hung out with a member of the Weather Underground.
--- merged: Aug 7, 2012 at 8:04 PM ---
Oh, and Planned Parenthood which is characterized by a Republican state legislator as "a murderous organization … getting wealthy on murder for hire.”

 

This was a very bad event. Why would you ever attack a church or holy site? Even if you are an against that religion or are an Atheist, you don't attack obvious religious buildings. It's like attacking medics or the Red Cross, you just don't do it.

Second, most rational people don't want any of these random attacks. This was supposed to be what the 'terrorists' were going to do after Sept. 11, but it never happened. The tough part is trying to figure out how to stop them and if there are preventative measures that are needed.

I will add that I am glad this shooter was killed. If they had to house him in a state run jail like CO and AZ now do for the rest of their lives, it would take 10 middle class taxpayers (~$4,000/year in state taxes) to cover 1 prisoner (about $40,000). I will say again that in these obvious cases where there is no doubt at who did it, it would be much cheaper just to off them in their sleep once they are convicted and can't appeal.

The issue here is the 'well regulated militia' part. Owning a gun is a responsibility and has a few regulations, but it isn't well organized or has a few limits to prevent people who shouldn't have access to weapons from obtaining them. Not that I would like the NRA getting stronger and more organized by being in control of a public militia, but they should make gun owners go through real life defensive training, make sure the owners have a stable mental state, and make sure recommended lock boxes actually work (Unsafe Gun Safes Can Be Opened By A Three-Year Old - Forbes).

I've made it to the big time finally. I was named in a thread I hadn't even posted in.

Laws are made by representatives of the people. And most people aren't convinced to do anything or make any more laws until something happens. A lot of people want to pass a law to limit the amount of CO2 that power companies release, but until something major happens to get a large amount of the people who are opposed to don't care to favor doing something, bad things might happen in the future. Although we are seeing temperatures rise.

The trans-fat banning law is a little example of a law that was passed before the health of people got really bad, and cholesterol numbers are going down because of it.

I'm all for comedy and don't find stuff offensive, but this too soon. They should have done this months ago.

We don't need any eco-terrorists, the oil companies are doing it for them.
Fire erupts at Chevron refinery in California – USATODAY.com
BP, Transocean faulted over preventive efforts in gulf spill - Los Angeles Times
Massive fire at refinery facility near Houston, Texas
Chevron, Transocean must stop drilling after spill in Brazil – USATODAY.com
Breaking News | PE.com - Press-Enterprise
And there are lots more. Who are the real eco-terrorists?

 

i've made it clear, a few times over, the level that i was talking about when i mentioned terms like conservativeland or conservative ideology. if i wanted to talk about specific conservative people, i would have talked about them. it isn't important to me that you don't like what i say about conservative ideology because it's accurate independently of you. and it isn't real important to me that you don't like what i see it as normalizing because that, too, seems obvious to me independently of you. that gun controls would impose restrictions on access to and usage of guns seem to me the point. but since we hadn't actually been talking about the specific modalities of gun control, your account of how such controls exist in new york have ruined your life seem to me unfortunate for you but also beside the point. unless you mean to imply that such restrictions as you bemoan are somehow an account of what gun controls might impose---which seems to me curious since the discussion wasn't about that. but that's the only way the arguments you're making make any sense at all. it seems to me that you aren't talking about my actual arguments at all, but rather about and through your overly personal interpretation of an off-hand remark i made.

 

Ok, because all that is wrong with our country is right wing, please allow me to introduce this little Gem from the FBI report on Terrorism (domestic) through-2005. I don't have later years available but the general trends should be more or less constant.

Can be found here: FBI — Terrorism 2002/2005s

Firstly: Here is a breakdown of terrorist attacks on US soil by group from 1980-2005 generated from the data in the above report, courtesy of the loon. Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005 (Source: FBI) The below picture is accompanied by the following text: which is discussing the misperception that all terrorist activity is promulgated by muslims, but is also relevant to our conversation: "But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed "re

http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/piechart2-1024x1024.jpg


I see a whole lot of 'left wing' on that pie chart and only a 16% 'others' category which presumably encompasses both right wing nutjobs and ordinary crazy people.


As I mentioned previously and to which you failed to respond, the ELF and other left wing organizations have been conducting more acts of domestic terrorism than right wing ones. The only real difference in the 'wingnut' factor between the two is that you identify with the left and won't recognize the damage being done by the radical left.

If you put the person who conducted the Sikh temple attack on trial (had they not died) with an all right-wing republican jury they would still be found guilty 100% of the time. Even 'right wing' people in this country don't endorse murder. Especially when it was likely a case of mistaken identity

A member of the establishment (police officer) would not have waded into a gunfight and then been shot multiple times defending Sikh's if we as a society condoned such behavior.

 

If you look at those incidents of "left wing" terrorism, they are predominantly violence against property by animal rights groups and environmental activists. They are considered "terrorism" because of the fact the goal is to send a political message and are the acts of a group rather than an individual. The casualty count - zero.

From my perspective, lone wolf members of racist/Islamaphoic/homophobic/anti-immigrant/anti-abortion hate groups pose a far greater danger.

 

so let me get this straight.

you are whining about the fact that in a case involving a neo-fascist asshole, with an obvious and extensive neo-fascist asshole past, who decided to bring his legally and all-too-easily obtainable gun to a sikh temple last sunday and start his own personal race war that i am not talking about the left? you cannot possibly be serious.

on your opening straw man: i wasn't talking about "all that's wrong with america"---i was talking specifically about the conditions that seem to me have enabled this particular neo-fascist asshole to operate in a context that made of his racist viewpoint something that seemed normal. and i was talking about the simple fact that, particularly since the fiasco that was the bush period, the right has gotten into bed with the nra. so there's multiple levels of connection between broader contexts, the political right, and this newest massacre.

but why didn't i mention louis xiv?

this is goofy.

 

property is theft.

happy now?