Why is NPR withholding the manifesto of racist terrorist Micah X?

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: ketsuko

By today's definition.

Replay doesn't work in RL.

Given what they did and why, they'd still be terrorists today too.

You didn't get it. They are NOW called terrorists. They weren't then. "Terrorist" didn't become the American boogyman until about 15 years ago.

As you said.... try again.

Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground were called 'terrorists' in the late 60's and early 70's. Yes, the same Bill Ayers that helped raise money to elect Barack Obama.

Initially formed as a splinter group which believed that peaceful protests were ineffective, the Weathermen were widely criticized for their use of violence as a means of social and political change. Some accused the group of terrorism, while others accused it of giving all activists, both militant and more mainstream, a bad name.

But for the Weathermen, violent action was nothing short of necessary in a time of crisis, a last-ditch effort to grab the country’s attention. And grab attention they did—in March 1970, just days after Bernardine Dohrn publicly announced a “declaration of war.”

When an accidentally detonated bomb killed three Weathermen in the basement of a Manhattan townhouse, the group suddenly became the target of an FBI manhunt, and members were forced to go into hiding. The bomb had been intended to be set off at a dance at a local Army base.

How did the Weathermen arrive at this point? Some of the group’s former members, interviewed in THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, cite the murder of Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in a December 1969 Chicago police raid as a turning point. What many believed to be a government-sanctioned killing in an effort to wipe out militant groups such as the Panthers was, for the Weathermen, the final straw.

www.pbs.org...

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn --- still around and still active....hummmm.

a reply to: intrepid

Are you drunk? I said the opposite.

Not quite drunk. But you agreed, vehemently (you yelled your agreement) with this statement,

Is it inconceivable that a terrorist is also crazy?

Right?
You agreed that it is inconceivable that a terrorist is crazy?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: intrepid

Are you drunk? I said the opposite.

Not quite drunk. But you agreed, vehemently (you yelled your agreement) with this statement,

Is it inconceivable that a terrorist is also crazy?

Right?
You agreed that it is inconceivable that a terrorist is crazy?

Nope. You stepped in it this time Sparky. I'm an English major. See your statement:

Is it inconceivable that a terrorist is also crazy?

"Also" denotes a separate entity. Which in my opinion it isn't. Killing people for damn near any reason is nuts. Don't see why an intelligent individual has a hard time with that. Are you arguing for the sake of it? If so, later.

a reply to: intrepid

Intrepid, do you know who Bill Ayers is? Is he nuts?

a reply to: intrepid

Killing people for damn near any reason is nuts.

I disagree. Is self defense nuts? Is capital punishment nuts? Is euthanasia nuts? War is nuts, but is killing the enemy nuts?

Are you arguing for the sake of it? If so, later.

No. Now what?

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: intrepid

Intrepid, do you know who Bill Ayers is? Is he nuts?

Yup. Wasn't called a terrorist though.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: intrepid

Killing people for damn near any reason is nuts.

I disagree. Is self defense nuts? Is capital punishment nuts? Is euthanasia nuts? War is nuts, but is killing the enemy nuts?

That's not what we are discussing here. Obtuse much?

a reply to: intrepid

The weathermen were not called terrorists? Really? Are you sure?
news.google.com...,2557257&hl=en

a reply to: intrepid

That's not what we are discussing here

I quoted your statement. Do I need to do so again?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: intrepid

That's not what we are discussing here

I quoted your statement. Do I need to do so again?

No. I'm done with this pointless BS. If I were you I'd reread this tomorrow [snipped] and get some perspective.

a reply to: intrepid

You've not paid much attention, then. The American MSM and the White House have called everyone from the church shooter to Tea Party legislators "domestic terrorists." The only people they've stopped calling terrorists are Islamofascists and liberal activism purposed terrorists. Race only plays a role in regards to pandering to racially specific voter bases.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

The skinny is that Johnson was called a terrorist.

Did you watch the video of Micah Johnson in action ?

Did THAT look like a guy not in control of ALL his faculties ?

I don't know about you but gunning people down is insane in my book. If it isn't in yours......

I hate to say it, but this whole digression got started because you made an insupportable assertion - that white people NEVER get called terrorists. Now that it has been proven that they can and do get called that, you are attempting to move the goalposts.

There so far hasn't been any evidence this guy suddenly snapped, and he's not like the guy who murdered the reporter on air during her live spot who had been jumping at every shadow and calling it evidence of racism and discrimination against him. That guy was nuts.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

And I am not the one who denied 16 people in Dallas their RIGHTS.

And Micah Johnson didn't give a crap about the 16 people he shot DUE PROCESS.

Dude, WTF are you talking about?

Seriously. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Or do you just like to scream "They're taking away our rights!" and "Due process!" at every opportunity?

Explain to me, please, what the # you're talking about.

Since you seem to have no idea what he is talking about then maybe this helps.

He is talking about Johnson shooting 16 people and killing 5 and with that he violated their rights and the fact that he did that shows he did not care.

If this was really needed to be explained to you i feel a bit sorry for you to be honest.

a reply to: everyone
Why do the numbers keep changing?

I thought 7 were wounded and 5 died as a result of the shooting, plus the attacker killed by a bomb?

12 shot, 1 blown up.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: ketsuko

That's not the way due process works.

Seems to me that anyone that attacks the establishment(typically white) is labeled a terrorist. Unless of course he's white.

Oh look a racist promoting racist paranoia.

originally posted by: intrepid


Yup. Wasn't called a terrorist though.

en.wikipedia.org...

Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American terrorist convicted[3] and executed

A couple of points of order ... the use of "racist terrorist" in the OP title and body ...

I hear my friends on the right commonly complaining about the use of the term "racist" yet, I see the term used exclusively for this shooter in Dallas and for the Black Lives Matter movement at large. We hear that "racist" is a purely divisive term, fabricated by the media-Democrats-etc. and that it has no meaning ... when applied to the right-wing ... but apparently, it's fine to use it with impunity when describing non-right-wing folks?

That seems ironic if not self-contradictory, doesn't it?

I heard several posters here recently claim that in order for acts to be considered revolutionary, there had to be a number of people involved ... some theorized up to as much as 30% of the population. As far as what we generally refer to as terrorism, that doesn't happen in a vacuum, even when committed by a "lone wolf" that wolf is usually at least an ostensible member of a pack, somewhere. So given that, is it useful to elevate this shooter's actions to the level of terrorism, particularly as this seems to be an isolated (personal) act?

a reply to: TheBulkThese people only need to believe what they concoct themselves and whenever they manage to make it fit their proffered "reality"
they will run with it. Which is why you see them spreading their ideas shamelessly around.


This intrepid dude has told himself that white people are never labeled as terrorist and it is pretty evident to me after seeing all his posts here that he actually believed it. By now after all the evidence posted showing that that is patently wrong he will be unable to genuinely believe it internally but externally he will proceed as he had done anyway and deny and ignore and let him/herself be pat on the back for everytime he regurgitates the make believe as long as it fits the agenda. Screw truth even if it leads to solutions.


A fine demonstration of a demoncrat hive mind. Lie and oppress and dogpile and assault until you get the result you want and then pretend to be pro-freedom and for free speech and truth and liberty and so on and so on.

a reply to: everyone

I just have to say (I'm sure you'll receive other correction soon) that Intrepid is many things, but a Democrat is not one of them.

Perhaps a little less unnecessary and superfluous personal commentary and a bit more actual reasonable argumentation?

Just a thought, PSA over.

a reply to: everyone

He is talking about Johnson shooting 16 people and killing 5 and with that he violated their rights and the fact that he did that shows he did not care.

If that is what he was referring to, I still do not see how anyone's rights or due process were violated. That's the point.

Some people like to loosely throw around phrases such as "rights violation" and "due process" at every opportunity, because it's convenient for them to make a ruckus. The same way some people like to throw around "racism" at every opportunity.

If this was really needed to be explained to you i feel a bit sorry for you to be honest.

You shouldn't. I sought clarity in order to properly have a discussion without assuming.

Do you understand everything that everyone has said without having to ask a question, or do you assume to know everything?