Discussion: Austin Police Chief Labels Serial Bomber A 'Domestic Terrorist' For The First Time

[system1]

Austin Police Chief Labels Serial Bomber A 'Domestic Terrorist' For The First Time Back to article

[tindalos]

White Christianist* terrorist would be more accurate but domestic terrorist is a move in the right direction.

* ...those on the fringes of the religious right who have used the Gospels to perpetuate their own aspirations for power, control and oppression: Christianists. They are as anathema to true Christians as the Islamists are to true Islam.

[loss_mentality]

While this is a good thing in terms of the fight against racism and bigotry, I’d prefer to see minorities not being labeled terrorists (i.e. being called “troubled young men/women”) rather than more white people being labeled terrorists.

The more the T-word get used, the easier it becomes to enact draconian measures that eclipse human rights.

But that’s a pipie dream, I suppose, so this is the best we can hope for.

[irasdad]

“Manley previously called Conditt a ‘very troubled young man,’ drawing criticism that the bomber would have been labeled a terrorist more quickly if he had not been a white man.”

Let’s analyze this using The Fox Terrorism Checklist™:

1. An act of murderous violence? (Check)

2. By a religious fanatic? (Check)

3. Who was radicalized by an extremist ideology? (Check)

4. And is a brown Muslim? D’oh! So, so close…

Well, as everyone can plainly see, definitely not a “terrorist”.

Just a “lone wolf” suffering from “mental illness”.

Nothing we can do about it…

[jakebarnes]

Christian extremist? Christian terrorist?

[wagonmound]

Of course it was domestic terrorism, what the fuck else would it be…community dislike? Sad.

[tindalos]

@loss_mentality

The more the T-word get used, the easier it becomes to enact draconian measures that eclipse human rights.

A valid concern I’d say even if, at this point, I genuinely believe we need greater accuracy to (re)affirm a commitment to empirical reality and a recapture of the language that describes it; too long has the framing of critical issues been dominated by reactionaries and their fantasies.

[demyankee]

Proper answer to #4 is: Oh. He’s wHite? Boys will be boys.

[loss_mentality]

@tindalos

A valid concern I’d say even if, at this point, I genuinely believe we need greater accuracy to (re)affirm a commitment to empirical reality and a recapture of the language that describes it; too long has the framing of critical issues been dominated by reactionaries and their fantasies.

I totally agree; what you say is a vital concern. And to that end, I’m not sure if “terrorist” is the right word for this guy. I think the word is way over-used. To me, it’s always implied an organized campaign undertaken by a group. I also feel it’s a really loaded word, and a fuzzy one often used for propaganda and to demean political or military opponents.

In general, I think we’d be better off sticking to words like “criminal” and getting rid of talk of terrorism altogether.

I think the sheriff was right the first time, though I completely understand why, for the sake of consistency, he was criticized for not calling the guy a terrorist when non-whites get that label so easily. If we’re going to use the word, it should applied evenly and not be used to demean minorities.