US congresswoman states America should be "more fearful of white men"

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you compare white terrorism to Islamist, there's a hell of a lot more attention time and money given to one over the other, despite the homegrown white brand being the far greater threat, based on death toll. She's pointing out that people should maybe be more fearful of that.

First off, what's white terrorism? Do you mean white supremacists or far-right terrorism committed by white people?
Secondly it's fairly obvious why Islamic extremism gets a lot more attention in the US, namely the significantly higher death toll.

On mental health, we never hear about an Islamist terrorist's mental health. Because When a white kid guns down innocents we see how they fell through the cracks, it was video games, porn, bad family life etc.
We find excuses, anything other than ethnicity.

Why would the ethnicity be mentioned?

Omar's comment are at best clumsy and poorly explained. At worst they're quite divisive. I'd expect a more from a presidential candidate.

Billy Mays

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you compare white terrorism to Islamist, there's a hell of a lot more attention time and money given to one over the other, despite the homegrown white brand being the far greater threat, based on death toll. She's pointing out that people should maybe be more fearful of that.

First off, what's white terrorism? Do you mean white supremacists or far-right terrorism committed by white people?
Secondly it's fairly obvious why Islamic extremism gets a lot more attention in the US, namely the significantly higher death toll.

On mental health, we never hear about an Islamist terrorist's mental health. Because When a white kid guns down innocents we see how they fell through the cracks, it was video games, porn, bad family life etc.
We find excuses, anything other than ethnicity.

Why would the ethnicity be mentioned?

Omar's comment are at best clumsy and poorly explained. At worst they're quite divisive. I'd expect a more from a presidential candidate.

She's not a presidential candidate

fly_agaric

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's a fine set up you have there if built on faulty foundations.

It's not a "set up"...it's just logic and I don't see any flaw in it assuming you are using your "white" terrorism term as shorthand for violence by right wing extremists in the US for impact.
Listening to opening post video that sounded like what Omar meant as well (she referred to radicalisation).
Trump and his followers will abhor the violence and say its nothing to do with them or their beliefs/ideology in same way that you see on the other side of the coin, but it is not true.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you compare white terrorism to Islamist, there's a hell of a lot more attention time and money given to one over the other, despite the homegrown white brand being the far greater threat, based on death toll. She's pointing out that people should maybe be more fearful of that.

Is it? I'm not sure but didn't get into it earlier.
Islamic extremists do have attacks on Sept. 11th 2001 weighing in their "favour" although that may be too long ago/you might be too young to remember it.
edit: I think Islamists have been a bigger threat since Sept. 11th hence the resources & focus, but will be interesting to see how FBI, police etc. will deal with right wing extremisim if its growing as a threat again in the US given who is in power at the present.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Also if you can show anyone denying there's any problem with Muslim extremism, I'd be interested to read it.

What left sometimes deny is that the extremism has to do with Islam.
That the extremists are not real muslims anyway etc.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

On mental health, we never hear about an Islamist terrorist's mental health. When a white kid guns down innocents we see how they fell through the cracks, it was video games, porn, bad family life etc. We find excuses, anything other than ethnicity.

I think mental health has been linked to several of the Islamist attacks as a factor. I mean most people who will swallow extremist propaganda and go on to do a terrorist attack will have issues I think...
I have found an article (2018) that discusses it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/world/americas/islamic-state-mental-health.html

"After a 31-year-old man used a cargo truck to crush 86 people to death on the promenade in Nice, France, his distraught father rushed to tell reporters his son had once suffered a nervous breakdown.

When Omar Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle to gun down 49 people at an Orlando nightclub, relatives described him as bipolar.

And in Canada this week, after a 29-year-old man opened fire on a street full of cafes, hitting 15 people and killing two, his family issued a statement: Faisal Hussain, it said, had long struggled with mental illness."

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I agree though, not all whites are terrorists. See how frustrating it must be for a minority? As Ilhan Omar herself has stated almost every day she's asked to denounce Muslim or immigrant related crimes. Does the press walk up to white congress people to ask same based on their being white? We'd a whole thread on AOC not responding to such a question.

I don't usually post here and did not see it. I don't really think anyone in that position should have to justify themselves personally, certainly not for crimes of others because they are the same ethnicity.

People do have to justify their ideology though and religion is a part of that as is politics.
I'm betting Trump and the republicans in general are going to have to do a lot of justifying of their views & repeated denouncing of violence given what has happened.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

First off, what's white terrorism? Do you mean white supremacists or far-right terrorism committed by white people?
Secondly it's fairly obvious why Islamic extremism gets a lot more attention in the US, namely the significantly higher death toll.
Why would the ethnicity be mentioned?

Omar's comment are at best clumsy and poorly explained. At worst they're quite divisive. I'd expect a more from a presidential candidate.

Terrorism perpetrated by whites. Pretty self explanatory.
If a Muslim kills she's asked to condemn it, because she's Muslim. Or she risks being accused of supporting it.
When a white person shoots up a cinema, nobody expects any white politician to have to denounce it or risk being seen to support it.

There have been 250 mass shooting in the US so far. How many ISIS/Al Qaeda attacks?
"Why would the ethnicity be mentioned?" often thinly veiled racism IMO. Because it's the key point when a minority does it, the entire grouping is tarred. But it's turned to video games, poor family life or porn when it's a white perpetrator.

Her point, in my interpretation, was that the average american has more to fear from white people than Jihadis. On a percentage scale she's got a point. It's only clumsy when it's taken out of context like the OP. She's a member of congress not a presidential candidate.

fly_agaric wrote: »

It's not a "set up"...it's just logic and I don't see any flaw in it assuming you are using your "white" terrorism term as shorthand for violence by right wing extremists in the US for impact.
Listening to opening post video that sounded like what Omar meant as well (she referred to radicalisation).
Trump and his followers will abhor the violence and say its nothing to do with them or their beliefs/ideology in same way that you see on the other side of the coin, but it is not true.

Is it? I'm not sure but didn't get into it earlier.
Islamic extremists do have attacks on Sept. 11th 2001 weighing in their "favour" although that may be too long ago/you might be too young to remember it.
edit: I think Islamists have been a bigger threat since Sept. 11th hence the resources & focus, but will be interesting to see how FBI, police etc. will deal with right wing extremisim if its growing as a threat again in the US given who is in power at the present.

What left sometimes deny is that the extremism has to do with Islam.
That the extremists are not real muslims anyway etc.

I think mental health has been linked to several of the Islamist attacks as a factor. I mean most people who will swallow extremist propaganda and go on to do a terrorist attack will have issues I think...
I have found an article (2018) that discusses it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/world/americas/islamic-state-mental-health.html

"After a 31-year-old man used a cargo truck to crush 86 people to death on the promenade in Nice, France, his distraught father rushed to tell reporters his son had once suffered a nervous breakdown.

When Omar Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle to gun down 49 people at an Orlando nightclub, relatives described him as bipolar.

And in Canada this week, after a 29-year-old man opened fire on a street full of cafes, hitting 15 people and killing two, his family issued a statement: Faisal Hussain, it said, had long struggled with mental illness."

I don't usually post here and did not see it. I don't really think anyone in that position should have to justify themselves personally, certainly not for crimes of others because they are the same ethnicity.

People do have to justify their ideology though and religion is a part of that as is politics.
I'm betting Trump and the republicans in general are going to have to do a lot of justifying of their views & repeated denouncing of violence given what has happened.

Nope. The point is not all white mass murders are ALT-Right. Not all white mass murders vote Republican. Trump is responsible for fueling race hate in the United States. If he's too ignorant to realise the consequences of his statements, that doesn't excuse him, IMO.
Nobody denies Islamic extremist groups want to harm western targets/the U.S.

She had a point and the gun lobby are happy to ignore it. Jihadi's don't make up a significant NRA/Gun customer base after all.

fly_agaric

Matt Barrett wrote: »

She had a point and the gun lobby are happy to ignore it. Jihadi's don't make up a significant NRA/Gun customer base after all.

Was a stupid statement, ripe to be spun but I suppose (in US politics) you've got to land those killer blows and get your digs into the opposition no matter what.

Had a read of more of thread now beyond 1st attention grabber post...looks like a car crash. US "outrage politics" posted to Irish website. Should not have bothered if I had any sense.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Terrorism perpetrated by whites. Pretty self explanatory.

Calling terrorism committed by people who happen to be white as "white terrorism", is as dumb as referring to violent Islamists as Arab terrorists, just because they happen to be Arab.
You may as well talk about bi-pedal or carnivore terrorism.

If a Muslim kills she's asked to condemn it, because she's Muslim. Or she risks being accused of supporting it.
When a white person shoots up a cinema, nobody expects any white politician to have to denounce it or risk being seen to support it.

You seem to think being a member of a race is comparable with being a member of a group with a shared ideology.

There have been 250 mass shooting in the US so far. How many ISIS/Al Qaeda attacks?

So you've moved on from talking about white terrorism to now talking about mass shootings.
Islamist terrorism has shown the ability to carry out wide scale attacks with casualties in the thousands and is persistent threat on a global level.
Far-right/white supremacist terrorism while being a serious threat is no where near the same level.

Her point, in my interpretation, was that the average american has more to fear from white people than Jihadis. On a percentage scale she's got a point.
It's only clumsy when it's taken out of context like the OP. She's a member of congress not a presidential candidate.

Exactly, your interpretation, other people defending her have a different interpretation.
And no she didn't refer to white people, just white men.

hill16bhoy

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Calling terrorism committed by people who happen to be white as "white terrorism", is as dumb as referring to violent Islamists as Arab terrorists, just because they happen to be Arab.

White supremacist terrorism is explicitly done in the name of white supremacy against non-white people. It is what it says on the tin.

White supremacist terrorism is a more live threat than Islamist terrorism.

Islamist terrorism does not have its own mainstream media network radicalisng people - white terrorism does. It's called Fox. And Fox is just the tip of the iceberg in terms off the far right media environment. The US president himself is radicalising people into white supremacist ideology, but he's only the symptom - the Republican party has been at it for decades - in their own words.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”

Islamist terrorism recruits gullible, stupid young men into an extreme ideology which is obviously wholly illegitimate and utterly indefensible.

But the path towards radicalising people towards it does start out from a place of legitimate grievance - decades of imperial wars and demonisation of Muslims because of their religion and skin colour.

The path chosen is wholly illegitimate and to be utterly condemned, but in terms of why people are radicalised into such an extreme ideology, it's not much different to why people joined the IRA, who also committed indefensible massacres, or why Palestinians strapped suicide vests to themselves.

White supremacist terrorism starts out with NO "legitimate grievances" whatsoever.

It's sole ideology is the supremacy of the white race, an ideology which is both a giant fraud and leads inexorably to genocide if not stopped in its tracks.

DreamsBurnDown

Hopefully we can agree that every life is of equal value, and every murder is utterly defenseless and an absolute tragedy. In this context, the statement that "America should be more fearful of white men" is utter garbage, and particular garbage if you are an African American. Of the roughly 3,000 solved cases of African Americans murdered each year, ~250 were murdered by whites. The reality is whatever race you are, the most you have to fear from is your own race, as the vast majority of murder victims (and victims of violent crime in general) are killed by their own race. The murder rates are roughly 20/100,000 for African Americans, 5/100,000 for Hispanics and 3/100,000 for whites. Roughly 50% of all murder victims are African Americans and of the cases solved, 90% were killed by fellow African Americans.

The real American tragedy is the overall murder rate, about 17,000 victims per year. The number of people killed in mass killings, involving 3 or more, is no more than 100 per year, but yet these get all the attention. The other 16,900 victims are surely of equal importance. Obama tried to shine a light on this national tragedy but if anything it has got worse, it is utterly insane what is going on in America's inner cities, and gets scant attention in the media.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Hopefully we can agree that every life is of equal value, and every murder is utterly defenseless and an absolute tragedy. In this context, the statement that "America should be more fearful of white men" is utter garbage, and particular garbage if you are an African American. Of the roughly 3,000 solved cases of African Americans murdered each year, ~250 were murdered by whites. The reality is whatever race you are, the most you have to fear from is your own race, as the vast majority of murder victims (and victims of violent crime in general) are killed by their own race. The murder rates are roughly 20/100,000 for African Americans, 5/100,000 for Hispanics and 3/100,000 for whites. Roughly 50% of all murder victims are African Americans and of the cases solved, 90% were killed by fellow African Americans.

The real American tragedy is the overall murder rate, about 17,000 victims per year. The number of people killed in mass killings, involving 3 or more, is no more than 100 per year, but yet these get all the attention. The other 16,900 victims are surely of equal importance. Obama tried to shine a light on this national tragedy but if anything it has got worse, it is utterly insane what is going on in America's inner cities, and gets scant attention in the media.

The irony here is that you're actually telling us is that Americans should be more fearful of black men.

Why on earth would you focus on race when talking about non-racially motivated shootings?

Are you another one of these posters whose posts are obvious code for "African-Americans are degenerate", who simultaneously denies the neeed for a group like Black Lives Matter?

Do you even believe white supremacist terrorism is a problem?

In another post, implied there was no political motive for the El Paso shooting.

So tell us, what was the motive for the El Paso shooting?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/americas/terrorism-white-nationalist-supremacy-isis.html

steddyeddy

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Calling terrorism committed by people who happen to be white as "white terrorism", is as dumb as referring to violent Islamists as Arab terrorists, just because they happen to be Arab.
You may as well talk about bi-pedal or carnivore terrorism.

You seem to think being a member of a race is comparable with being a member of a group with a shared ideology.

So you've moved on from talking about white terrorism to now talking about mass shootings.
Islamist terrorism has shown the ability to carry out wide scale attacks with casualties in the thousands and is persistent threat on a global level.
Far-right/white supremacist terrorism while being a serious threat is no where near the same level.

Exactly, your interpretation, other people defending her have a different interpretation.
And no she didn't refer to white people, just white men.

OK let's call it white supremacist terrorism. Those with extreme victim complexes regarding immigrants and an insecurity around ones own race projected as an inferiority of other races.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

White supremacist terrorism is explicitly...in its tracks.

And you're quoting me in all this because???

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Calling terrorism committed by people who happen to be white as "white terrorism", is as dumb as referring to violent Islamists as Arab terrorists, just because they happen to be Arab.
You may as well talk about bi-pedal or carnivore terrorism.

You seem to think being a member of a race is comparable with being a member of a group with a shared ideology.

So you've moved on from talking about white terrorism to now talking about mass shootings.
Islamist terrorism has shown the ability to carry out wide scale attacks with casualties in the thousands and is persistent threat on a global level.
Far-right/white supremacist terrorism while being a serious threat is no where near the same level.

Exactly, your interpretation, other people defending her have a different interpretation.
And no she didn't refer to white people, just white men.

I believe that's her point also. If we are looking at all immigrants from Muslim countries as possible jihadist terrorists, which is a very large part of the rhetoric, it's important to point out it's more likely a mass killing will be carried out by a white person. I agree with you.

No, you're arguing like I'm agreeing with the bigots. I'm not. Neither is she. If we are working in the environment we are it's important to have perspective. It's more likely you'd be shot by a white male than a jihadi. We can also say 'not all whites'. Every person is responsible for their actions we can't tar an entire group because of the actions of a few, right?

steddyeddy wrote: »

OK let's call it white supremacist terrorism. Those with extreme victim complexes regarding immigrants and an insecurity around ones own race projected as an inferiority of other races.

But 'white supremacy' doesn't cover the Las Vegas shooter, the cinema shooter, any of the school shooters, sandy hook etc.

White men are the devil

We should roll back every single thing every white man has ever done, then these sexists / racists wouldnt have their platform and The World would be a much happier, healthier, brighter place

Shemale wrote: »

White men are the devil

We should roll back every single thing every white man has ever done, then these sexists / racists wouldnt have their platform and The World would be a much happier, healthier, brighter place

Likely you're joking but that's what Muslims deal with every day.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But 'white supremacy' doesn't cover the Las Vegas shooter, the cinema shooter, any of the school shooters, sandy hook etc.

AFAIK none of those are considered terrorist attacks.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The irony here is that you're actually telling us is that Americans should be more fearful of black men.

Why on earth would you focus on race when talking about non-racially motivated shootings?

Are you another one of these posters whose posts are obvious code for "African-Americans are degenerate", who simultaneously denies the neeed for a group like Black Lives Matter?

Do you even believe white supremacist terrorism is a problem?

In another post, implied there was no political motive for the El Paso shooting.

So tell us, what was the motive for the El Paso shooting?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/americas/terrorism-white-nationalist-supremacy-isis.html

Except I have made none of the points you accuse me of making, or hold the beliefs that you accuse me of holding. This is another example of you attacking the poster which has seen you banned on other threads.

But to indulge you.. before you go on ignore.

What I said was that Americans (who make up America) are most fearful of their own race. African American men are more fearful of other black men, and for good reason given the violent crime and murder statistics. The same is true for all races, victims of violent crime are 80 - 90% from the same race.

White supremacy is most certainly a problem, and needs to be seriously tackled. The first step I believe should be tackling hate speech, the freedoms granted by the first amendment are outdated in the Internet age where social media is now an outlet for hate. Calling for violence towards anyone based on their race or ethnicity should be a crime imo.

I haven't posted anything about the El Paso shooter, but from his manifesto he was clearly a racist.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

AFAIK none of those are considered terrorist attacks.

They've been referring to it as 'domestic terrorism' for some time, even as far back as Timothy McVeigh.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They've been referring to it as 'domestic terrorism' for some time.

What law enforcement agency is listing the shootings you mentioned as domestic terrorism?

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

What I said was that Americans (who make up America) are most fearful of their own race.

How do you explain Trump and the ideology of white supremacism then?

Are you telling me that most whites who voted for Trump are most fearful of their own race? If so, why does Trump's popularity harden with the overwhelmingly white Republican support every time he vilifies people of other races?

I suppose it's hardly a surprise that whites are fearful of other races given the decades long diet of bigotry being fed to them by the Republican party and right-wing media in the US - in fact a large proportion, perhaps a majority, of the white population US as a whole has never come to terms with its inconvenient historical truths.

Just last night we had Tucker Carlson telling us that "white supremacism is a hoax".

Do you believe there's a place for groups like Black Lives Matter?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What law enforcement agency is listing the shootings you mentioned as domestic terrorism?

There are calls that they should be. Any time any minority carries out similar the likes of ISIS might claim it but it's often the same kind of mentally unstable individual looking for an outlet for their rage.
The term 'white supremacy' doesn't cover them is my main point. These are white males and in a significantly higher number than any attacks carried out by Jihadis, so if we are talking threats, she's right to say what she did to point that out IMO.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Likely you're joking but that's what Muslims deal with every day.

Absolutely, sick of the constant white men bashing these days.

I heard Microsoft pay HR a bonus to hire non white males / non asian males.

Paddy Power have a recruitmemt poster with 3 African men, 4 white women, 1 asian man, 1 white man the message I infer is African women, white males and asian males need not apply. Intetesting tactic when probably 90%+ of their customers are white and asian men

Suppose my point was if white men have ****ed up society we should do away with all medical, scientific, electrical, engineering and technological invented by white men and people might realise life aint so bad with us.

batgoat

Shemale wrote: »

Absolutely, sick of the constant white men bashing these days.

I heard Microsoft pay HR a bonus to hire non white males / non asian males.

Paddy Power have a recruitmemt poster with 3 African men, 4 white women, 1 asian man, 1 white man the message I infer is African women, white males and asian males need not apply. Intetesting tactic when probably 90%+ of their customers are white and asian men

Suppose my point was if white men have ****ed up society we should do away with all medical, scientific, electrical, engineering and technological invented by white men and people might realise life aint so bad with us.

If you're offended by that poster, you're a fragile soul.. I think most would glance at that ad and see nothing wrong with it. You see an attack on white men...

batgoat wrote: »

If you're offended by that poster, you're a fragile soul.. I think most would glance at that ad and see nothing wrong with it. You see an attack on white men...

I think you need to read it again, I never said I was offended by it?

I also said they havent represented african women in it.

Positive discrimination is discrimination, people getting paid more to not hire certain gender or race is far worse than people just chosing not to hire them.

Maybe it troubles me more as both companies I mentioned are in my area of expertise and this discrimination directly impacts me.

Overheal

Shemale wrote: »

Absolutely, sick of the constant white men bashing these days.

I heard Microsoft pay HR a bonus to hire non white males / non asian males.

source?

Paddy Power have a recruitmemt poster with 3 African men, 4 white women, 1 asian man, 1 white man the message I infer is African women, white males and asian males need not apply. Intetesting tactic when probably 90%+ of their customers are white and asian men

that’s quite the bombastic and irrational leap. That’s like saying Geico only hires geckos, or Progressive Insurance only hires white women. Sure enough, AllState only hires people who break into a Dennis Haysbert monologue. I just don’t see how you can sensibly infer what you’re saying about this poster and I think you should get over yourself. “I’m not offended by it” my hole.

Suppose my point was if white men have ****ed up society we should do away with all medical, scientific, electrical, engineering and technological invented by white men and people might realise life aint so bad with us.

Easily the dumbest comment I’ve read on the forum all day. Congratulations. I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

sk8erboii

Shemale wrote: »

Absolutely, sick of the constant white men bashing these days.

Mate if you wanna know what ‘bashing’ really is google ‘El Paso shooting’ or ‘Utoya Shooting’

Smh @ weak men who think theyre oppressed LOL

Overheal wrote: »

source?

that’s quite the bombastic and irrational leap. That’s like saying Geico only hires geckos, or Progressive Insurance only hires white women. Sure enough, AllState only hires people who break into a Dennis Haysbert monologue. I just don’t see how you can sensibly infer what you’re saying about this poster and I think you should get over yourself. “I’m not offended by it” my hole.

Easily the dumbest comment I’ve read on the forum all day. Congratulations. I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

It was announced at a comms session they had, I doubt they are the only company at it.

The poster fits in with the quotas a lot of companies are trying to meet with the exception of african women, hardly a huge leap, certainly not your dumb comparisons.

Doesnt fit in with the all white men are the enemy narrative does it