…and this is a 
What word is missing in this story?
Category: Evil
Posted on: October 27, 2008 10:21 PM, by PZ Myers
I'm sure everyone has already heard about the plot to murder Obama and many others:
Two white supremacists allegedly plotted to go on a national killing spree, shooting and decapitating black people and ultimately targeting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, federal authorities said Monday.
In all, the two men whom officials described as neo-Nazi skinheads planned to kill 88 people - 14 by beheading, according to documents unsealed in U.S. District Court in Jackson, Tenn.
It's a horrible and sordid story of idiots with guns, but in scanning the various news sources, there is a curious but obvious word missing — a word that normally our media and government fling about with unscrupulous abandon.
That word is "terrorism".
Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that white homegrown right-wing fascist killers are somehow exempt from being called what they are — terrorists?
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:25 PM
They're not terrorists. They're good old boys that need some direction.
Posted by: stogoe | October 27, 2008 10:26 PM
Sadly, No. It doesn't surprise me in the least.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | October 27, 2008 10:27 PM
Yes.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 27, 2008 10:28 PM
IIRC, the press wasn't at all reticent to call Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph terrorists, and while they weren't KKK, they were certainly white, christian right-wingers.
-jcr
Posted by: Brandon P. | October 27, 2008 10:29 PM
The scary thing is that there exist hundreds if not thousands of people like this who would be more than happy to off our possible next president.
Posted by: Christopher Olson | October 27, 2008 10:30 PM
If they're not terrorists, and Obama is... well, then it must be opposite day or something.
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 27, 2008 10:31 PM
Nope, me neither. Not even a little surprised.
Posted by: Caleb Milam Turberville | October 27, 2008 10:32 PM
- John C. Randolf
And white doesn't have anything to do with it: An example would be the recent coverage of Bill Ayers.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:32 PM
Bizarro world
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 27, 2008 10:32 PM
David Neiwart covers this very well :
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/10/memo-to-palin-here-are-some-other.html
Posted by: Salvatore Patrone | October 27, 2008 10:33 PM
I always wonder where the line between planning and "intent to execute" is drawn in these cases. It makes me think of the "terrorists" planning to attack Fort Dix. I could plan 3 coups, 2 assassinations, and 3 vast conspiracies sitting around with a couple of buddies and a bottle of Jack.
To answer your question: Only bombs and bombing are terrorism. Decapitation and manslaughter is just Marilyn Manson influencing the youth.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 10:36 PM
Oh, now - boys will be boys. They were just a tad over zealous. But I'm sure they're good christians.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 27, 2008 10:38 PM
Is this kid wearing lipstick?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/27/obama-plot.html
Since when do skinheads let emo kids join them?
-jcr
Posted by: Geral | October 27, 2008 10:39 PM
They won't use 'terrorist' because they have this notion of a terrorist of being a foreign extremist who wants to do us harm. What they forget is that terrorism isn't just caused by those people, it's a tactic that ANYONE can do.
Whether it's done by Al Qaeda blowing themselves up in a market, a couple Brits who shoot up a voting booth in Britain, or Uncle Tom who wants to kill black people.. it's all forms of terrorism.
If this was an Islamic Terrorist group, they'd be all over this one for the forms of extremism we have to destroy. Since, however, it's only done by extreme right wing ideologues.. it would of only been a crime.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:41 PM
Bottle of Jack? I like your style.
Posted by: Brad | October 27, 2008 10:41 PM
Its not terrorism.
The word is grossly misused and over-used, to the point where it has lost its meaning.
They are clearly, if the reports are true, delusional.
They dont have a real political agenda. They just want to kill "niggers". They dont have an aim, except in just trying to kill as many innocent people as possible.
One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. No-one is calling these people freedom-fighters.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 10:44 PM
They're white Americans who hate black people; they can't possibly be anything other than Christians.
If they were Islamic terrorists trying to blow up Obama then Fox News would have 'accidentally' said they were trying to blow up McCain/Palin and reminded everyone that Obama's middle name is Hussein and he has links to terrorists.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | October 27, 2008 10:47 PM
Of course they aren't terrorists - they're right wing Americans, and the left doesn't habitually go around calling people terrorists! If they were left-wingers or foreign, the Republicans would have branded them terrorists immediately.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:47 PM
So is the KK a terrorist group? Not only do they want to "kill niggers" they want to terrorize all of any non white race.
I bet Tom Metzger is.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:49 PM
missing a K up there
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 10:52 PM
Brad, #16, wrote:
Sorry, Brad - epic fail. A terrorist is someone who terrorises, dumbass.
They planned to kill a specific group of people because of their skin colour. What do you think the result of that would have been for other people with that skin colour had they succeeded?
Would they have been...terrorised? Well, fancy that.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:56 PM
Plus saying they didn't have a political agenda when they were targeting a presidential candidate is mind boggling.
Listen I've had a run in with the secret service on threatening a pres candidate. They don't take that lightly.
You don't just kill a pres candidate to kill the candidate. You do it to send a message.
Posted by: earthbound01 | October 27, 2008 10:59 PM
They are terrorists. This needs to be spread around. It's fucking terrorism to kill people for political reasons.
It was terrorism when good-old-boys pumped tear gas into a mosque, and this is a terrorist cell that the FBI broke up just now.
Posted by: Andrew | October 27, 2008 11:00 PM
Brad, terrorism is, as far as I'm aware, using terror to further a political or ideological cause. There boys said "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Sounds political and ideological to me.
Posted by: Zar | October 27, 2008 11:01 PM
Acknowledging that wanting to terrorize a minority community would be to acknowledge that anti-gay violence is terrorism. Can't have that!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2008 11:02 PM
Well, Nazis aren't generally called "terrorists" either. There are conflicting terms in many cases, and the more that the villains are understood, the less likely they are to be called the generic term "terrorist".
Likewise the Khmer Rouge are generally not called "terrorists," nor the Rwandans genocidists, despite their tendency to use terror.
Had they managed to cause terror, rather than being caught, they'd be far more likely to be called "terrorists" (like McVeigh).
I'm not defending the language, which seems to treat different groups in bewilderingly different ways. I'm just saying that there's a kind of tradition of labeling racist groups with certain terms, and more, yes, "foreign seeming" groups with the uncomprehending term of "terrorist."
In truth, I don't know that clarity would be gained by calling all of these groups "terrorist," rather it is much more likely that groups labelled as "terrorist" need to be given other terms, and understood and not simply feared. Above all, it is ridiculous to call those who target military personel as "terrorists."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Dean Barnett | October 27, 2008 11:03 PM
The author of this news article was simply adhering to the Palin Definition: if it isn't aimed at the Pentagon, the Capitol, or "innocent Americans" it isn't terrorism.
Posted by: Chironex | October 27, 2008 11:06 PM
Wow, that's a good point. *whistles*
Posted by: the508s | October 27, 2008 11:07 PM
Thank you sir...for making this point! At times...yes..I am not so proud to be an American because of this type of misinformation by the media. Lets call them what they are: Terrorists! 0_o
Posted by: Chironex | October 27, 2008 11:08 PM
I mean, in reference to the original post.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2008 11:10 PM
Oh yeah, it's "personnel," not "personel" like I wrote in #26. I mention this because it's not an uncommon mistake, and I do not wish to perpetuate even if I sometimes commit it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Phoesune | October 27, 2008 11:11 PM
Brad...
I agree the word is misused. But in this situation it is the correct use. If they had carried out their plan, they would have killed quite a few people with the intent to further their political and social goals. Their aim was to attack a race of people and by proxy the future of that race in America. To strike fear into the hearts of anyone that would ever think of running for President as a minority.
And these men will be considered freedom-fighters among their sect of human scum. They are delusional as Bin Laden himself is delusional. That delusion is merely the basis of their beliefs and in fact is the motive of their terrorism. That is what makes it all the more frightening to us all.
Posted by: J.D. hutton | October 27, 2008 11:13 PM
If the right-wingers assassinate major political figures, they're not called terorrists. We use the term "freedom fighters."
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 27, 2008 11:13 PM
So is the KK a terrorist group?
Well, it goes through phases. Back when it started out, it was basically the terrorist wing of the Democratic party in the occupied southern states, rather like the Sinn Fein/IRA combination in Ireland many years later.
By the turn of the century (1900), it had become more like a fraternity like the Freemasons, and there were even instances of Jews and Catholics being invited to join them. The KKK had just about faded out of existence until the civil rights movement in the 1960s, when there was a sudden resurgence or membership.
J. Edgar Hoover was able to render them pretty much ineffective by infiltrating enough FBI agents and informants into the KKK, that they became unable to trust each other. That was a textbook example of how to break the back of such an organization. Too bad for them that they didn't figure out the simple L. Ron Hubbard trick of claiming to be a church.
As for whether the KKK is a terrorist group today, I'd have to say they're more like a wannabe terrorist group. Most of them will never do anything more than walk in a parade and yell at people. Most of the really dangerous racists will tend to join more secretive organizations, or join the prison gangs like the "Aryan Nation".
-jcr
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 11:15 PM
Groups of politically motivated people targeting innocents for the expressed reason of forwarding a political position by scaring and killing the targets are terrorists. i think it can be easily said that these two who planned on targeting only one race and their most prominent member were intent of sending a message.
KKK, WAR, Aryan Nation, Al Quaeda, Shining Path etc.. all terrorist groups at one point.
Posted by: Rowen | October 27, 2008 11:20 PM
Oh, the race card is being played a lot this week. Joy and rapture. The only thing about this that makes me happy is that the GOP is very obviously desperate.
http://www.stereohyped.com/new-wisconsin-flyer-preys-on-fear-of-black-power-20081027/
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 11:21 PM
Probably so. I'm sure Morris Dees would have betting info for us. The traditional KKK maybe not, but their splinter groups who knows. Do you have to actually cause physical violence to be a terrorists group?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 11:23 PM
That should read "better info"
Posted by: jb | October 27, 2008 11:27 PM
I think the word isn't missing, it's just been so heavily abused over the last 7 years that it doesn't carry the same weight anymore.
If they were conducting terrorism, it wouldn't be an assassination plot. Let alone one that wouldn't likely be pulled off (c'mon, really? 100 dead african americans? 14 beheadings? Really?). I think the lack of the word "terrorism" is perfectly appropriate.
Posted by: Shaden Freud | October 27, 2008 11:28 PM
"Tennessee Nazis."
"I hate Tennessee Nazis."
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 27, 2008 11:32 PM
JCR, your are skipping over the resurgence of the KKK in the wake of the movie,Birth Of A Nation. The 1920 were a heyday of KKK power and influence, taking over a number of towns in the south and west as well as controlling the state of Indiana. It was during this time that the KKK went from being anti-black to also being against catholics, jews and foreigners.
Posted by: aratina | October 27, 2008 11:37 PM
If they aren't legally terrorists, then our laws need to change so that future types of plans are considered terrorism and treated as such. This is a new group called the Supreme White Alliance (link to Southern Poverty Law Center) and there are more of them out there! There are no citizens more innocent than children (not to mention how much national turmoil this plan would have caused had it succeeded in the slightest bit); this is definitely terrorism.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 11:42 PM
Hey Janine - heads up, the guys need help. Get on your broom.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | October 27, 2008 11:43 PM
I see another word(s) missing...anti-American!
If we put it all together; neo-nazis are really anti-American terrorists! They'll likely be neo-cons soon, too. Hey, is that how the current neo-cons derived their name?
Posted by: David Utidjian | October 27, 2008 11:46 PM
JCR @ 13:
No that isn't lipstick but it sure does look like he is wearing eyeliner. Which is a bit strange... most Goths I have ever known aren't into violence much (of the shootin and killin kind.)
One thing to note... That weapon he is holding is an HK-91 (7.62 NATO). That is one heavy rifle. As depicted plus a loaded magazine it would weigh in at about 15 pounds. It is also a VERY expensive rifle. Again the rig as depicted is upwards of $2500-$3000. I am not sure where a high school dropout comes up with that kinda cash. They seem to be financed to some degree.
Come to think of it... I used to own one of those HK-91s back when I was 20. They were a lot cheaper then (I got mine for $200 from a gun store in SF.) I sold it in order to pay for school, books, rent and such back in the late '80s.
I wonder how the christian wingnuts are spinning this one.
-DU-
Posted by: hje | October 27, 2008 11:47 PM
Can you imagine the nutjobs that will be motivated by the histrionics of Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobson, et al. after Obama wins in a landslide, the Democrats gain 60 seats in the Senate, and Prop 8 as well as the ND abortion ban fail?
At some point the agents provocateurs need to be held accountable for their rhetoric.
Including Caribou Barbie, who managed yesterday to elicit the N-word--in reference to Obama--from an enthusiastic member of the crowd while in Des Moines. But she didn't miss a beat and continued on with an inarticulate screed against Obama.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 11:51 PM
Do you have a link for that?
Posted by: Noni Mausa | October 27, 2008 11:55 PM
Here's one use of "terrorist" in USA Today at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-20-hategroups_N.htm
[...]
"Many white supremacist groups are going more mainstream," says Jack Levin, a Northeastern University criminologist who studies hate crime. "They are eliminating the sheets and armbands. ... The groups realize if they want to be attractive to middle-class types, they need to look middle-class."
Levin estimates fewer than 50,000 people are members of white supremacist groups, but he says their influence is growing with a more sophisticated approach.
From 2006 to 2007, the number of such groups rose by 5% to 888, says the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks them through news reports and other sources. The number is up 48% since 2000.
The FBI knows of about 24 domestic terrorist groups. Spokesman Richard Kolko would not say how many are white supremacists...
[...]
==================
and another in in MarketWatch from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/adl-commends-federal-agents-preventing/story.aspx?guid={C325D8E5-9ED9-484E-8E59-8C66A0B113DB}&dist=hppr
Last update: 7:49 p.m. EDT Oct. 27, 2008
NEW YORK, Oct 27, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today congratulated law enforcement for uncovering and preventing what the League called "potentially the most deadly racist shooting spree in many years, including an assassination attempt on presidential candidate Barack Obama."
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Crockett County, Tennessee Sheriff's Office opened an investigation that resulted in the arrest on October 22 of Daniel Cowart, 21, of Jackson, Tennessee, and Paul Schlesselman, 18, of West Helena, Arkansas. The white supremacists were charged with suspicion of possessing an unregistered firearm, conspiring to steal firearms from a federally licensed gun dealer, and threats against a major candidate for the office of president.
"The arrests of these dangerous white supremacists prevented what could have been the most serious act of domestic terrorism in recent years," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "This case shows how extreme ideologies easily lead to extreme actions."
Mr. Foxman praised the federal and local law enforcement officers whose actions prevented the potential violent acts. "We congratulate the officers and agents with Crockett County and the ATF whose vigilance exposed a terrorist plot and saved lives."
[...]
...and there may be some more, but that's most of what turned up when I news-googled "white supremacist terrorist"
Noni
Posted by: Brian's A Wild Downer | October 28, 2008 12:04 AM
Sean Hannity says telling people about global warming makes you a terrorist.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 28, 2008 12:09 AM
IIRC, the press wasn't at all reticent to call Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph terrorists
before 2001, anyway.
Posted by: Jeanette | October 28, 2008 12:18 AM
@46: Don't forget the abortion ban here in Colorado, which doesn't have a chance to pass, either. Amendment 48 on our ballot is referred to as "the personhood amendment," because it seeks to redefine a fertilized human egg as a person under the law. Everywhere in our laws where the word "person" can be found, it would refer to any "person" as young as a fertilized egg. Such an egg would have all of the same legal rights as anyone has.
Not only would Amendment 48 do away with abortion, but it would also likely do away with fertility treatment that involves fertilizing numerous egg cells, do away with many forms of birth control, put an end to stem cell research, criminalize miscarriage when the woman is found to be at fault, and cause women to die while doctors wait for a lawyer's advice before dealing with ectopic pregnancies or other life-threatening circumstances.
As I said, this doesn't have a chance of passing. But we need to defeat it in a landslide, to discourage this from being tried again. So to anyone who lives in Colorado: No on 48.
Also, we have a problem here in Colorado because this is one of the easiest states to get amendments on our ballot. Because of that, we have a recurring situation where out-of-state people come here to put crazy laws on the ballot so they can experiment with our state. That's what happened with Colorado's Amendment 2, the anti-gay law that was passed back in 1992 and was later ruled unconstitutional.
There's an amendment on the ballot this time that would make it as difficult to get amendments on the ballot here as it is in other states, and giving us some protection from nuts of our own and from out of state.
Posted by: admiral_naismith | October 28, 2008 12:26 AM
Thanks for sharing that. If nothing else, it shows how the media bias is toward the right, not the left.
Thanks for the Facebook add, too.
Posted by: aaron | October 28, 2008 12:32 AM
I wouldn't consider these people to be terrorists either. Terrorism implies a concise political objective, what these guys planned just implies bigotry. If they made a statement like "the US must return all black people to Africa or there will be more actions like this" than they perhaps could have been terrorists. But just wanting to kill someone in a flashy manner because you hate them isn't terrorism.
Yes it's true that if these fellows were Muslim they would have been called terrorists, but that would have been just another case of the label being misapplied.
If anything this indiscriminate labelling of nutjobs as terrorists in counter-productive. You call a nutjob a terrorist they're no longer just a nutjob, they're now part of a secret organization in an epic struggle against an oppressive/evil government, better to show them for the one-off blips they are.
Posted by: Patricia | October 28, 2008 12:37 AM
Janine - Crap, I finally found the sow. We already skewered her.
Land your broom, and we can send our flying monkeys back to the castle. Dang.
I may have to pout.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 28, 2008 12:41 AM
Sorry to go OT, but there's another story to highlight exactly just how sickening and barbaric religion is:
Somali woman executed by stoning
I feel ill.
Posted by: LapsedPacifist | October 28, 2008 12:59 AM
Total bullshit. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were right wing nutjobs. Eric Rudolph is known as a terrorist. The KKK is the most notorious domestic terror group of them all.
I hate political violence as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend "homegrown right-wing fascist killers" are somehow exempt from either the terrorist label or public scrutiny and disgust.
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | October 28, 2008 1:03 AM
I felt (and currently feel) the same way about abortion clinic bombers. While Grandpa Reagan was president he was asked if he would consider the Dr. killers and clinic bombers as terrorists - he said he did not.
Just goes to show you that they are only terrorists if you don't like what they are doing.
Posted by: Autumn | October 28, 2008 1:16 AM
Well, the US State Department includes "assasination", as well as "the preparation or planning" of an assasination, as sufficient to be defined legally as a terrorist (Section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the Innigration and Nationality Act).
So, however petty and idiotic these guys are, they are, by the federal definition, certainly terrorists.
Allegedly.
Posted by: Autumn | October 28, 2008 1:20 AM
Holy crap, I totally just misspelled "immigration" as "innigration" in a thread about white supremacists.
I blame the beer.
and the demerol.
But mostly the republicans.
Posted by: Pennypacker | October 28, 2008 1:32 AM
Sarah Palin was asked recently if the people who bombed abortion clinics are terrorists, and she said "I don't know if you could use the word 'terrorist'..."
To most conservatives and many people in the media, white christians can't be terrorists...
Posted by: hje | October 28, 2008 1:35 AM
Re: Rev. BDC's query concerning Palin.
Courtesy of Wonkette:
http://wonkette.com/403862/sarah-palin-fan-has-cute-nickname-for-barack-obama
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | October 28, 2008 1:50 AM
Posted by: Brad | October 27, 2008 10:41 PM
The very reason that the terms freedom-fighter and terrorist got mixed up in the first place was because of this very type of dishonest labeling tactic - a tactic we helped create, because the "freedom-fighters" we were supporting in Afghanistan in the 80's were "terrorists" in Russia's eyes.
In Iraq, we are not focused on fighting terrorists. In the year I was there, 90% of our time was spent fighting insurgents, a group that has all too eagerly been branded as somehow "terrorist" by our government.
These skinheads are most definitely terrorists, because their actions and motivations simply fit the definition of that word in its most basic sense. Terrorists use extreme intimidation and fear tactics to force their belief structure onto others. And I can't see how you can look at this neo-Nazi group's plans and see that they "don't have a real political agenda" at all. They were planning to set out on a racist killing spree at a time when our country is weighing the very real possibility of our first non-caucasian President, and the culmination of that spree was to be the political assassination of that very candidate. If this doesn't clearly show their political and ideological agenda of intimidation and suppression of minorities, I don't know what would.
Posted by: Josh in Philly | October 28, 2008 1:51 AM
JCR --No. The Klan underwent a resurgence in the second decade of the twentieth century, ran a campaign of demagoguery against Catholics, lynched a Jew (look up the career of Tom Watson), and participated in threatening and lynching African Americans (see the work of Richard Wright), primarily but not exclusively in the U.S. South, during the subsequent three decades. In my Midwestern hometown (Youngstown) in the Teens and Twenties, they had violent fights with the (Catholic) Mafia (see William Jenkins).
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | October 28, 2008 2:02 AM
How about referring to these bozos as nascent terrorists? They obviously had the will, and seem to have been amassing the weapons, even if their plan of execution wasn't coherent. With time, they could have done some real damage to civil society.
The sad fact is that an Obama victory will inspire a resurgence of the right-wing militia movement. Even if Barry and a Democratic Congress manage to restart the economy and steer the country in a better direction, the wingnut hate brigade will be out in the woods, living out their fear-driven fantasy. If a movie were to be made about it, it would be titled "White Dawn".
"RACIST WOLVERINES!!!"
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | October 28, 2008 2:05 AM
The missing word may not be 'terrorism', but 'Liberace':
"Both individuals stated they would dress in all-white tuxedos and wear top hats during the assassination attempt," the court complaint states.
Posted by: ina | October 28, 2008 2:14 AM
am so grateful for this post, thought i was losing my mind but it looks like someone sane thought the same thing - I just sent a letter to the NYT online writer of the "break story" on their website asking why they didn't use terrorist or terrorist activity to describe what was going on and had a feeling i was being oversensitive.
it's possible it's the lack of organization/systematization but i don't believe it. i think the news outlets (and let's face it the secret service) doesn't want to be incendiary - read : until you actually blow up x dozens of kids in oklahoma you can't be a domestic terrorist. while assassination does "count" legally, i think standard dirty hands definitions would apply more directly to the plan to decapitate high school students to illustrate and motivate a political agenda - that's where it looks just like terrorism to me (and hey jerks all over the country probably thinks it's a freedom fight that they're losing).
i had an "disagreement" the other day with a friend (she's white, i'm not) about how likely an Obama win was to lead to some localized minor (or not so minor) race rioting (not one race in particular, either). anyone want to join the betting pool?
ina, feeling depressed about it all
Posted by: ina | October 28, 2008 2:19 AM
oh, dear, and before anyone reads that last bit the wrong way, i did NOT mean to imply that anyone white (or even most people who are white) wouldn't see that race rioting is a possibility. i simply wanted to eliminate someone thinking that the issue was that my friend, not myself, was in the minority and was treating me as timid and scared of non-white people. though man i scare myself when i start getting this incoherent. say g'night gracie.
-ina
Posted by: scooter | October 28, 2008 2:24 AM
ooooh pulleeeze.
No self -respecting cop would insult real terrorists by including these assclowns.
Read the article.
It's obvious these fucktards were rambling on some skin-head blog, all monitored heavily since OK City, were arrested on an unspecified charge , caught an illegal weapons charge, then when the cops started reading their blog ramblings back to them they spilled their guts, admitted everything
These guys admitted to the most insane speed freak rambling plan where they would murder blacks across the nation then attack a 'black school' then rush toward Obama, firing out the windows, like Bonnie and Clyde.
Speaking of 'Bonnie', the witless trailer trash, Cowart, is photographed with an assault rifle, but he heard that in the big time media, they use make-up, the fucking idiot is wearing lipstick and eye make-up !!!!.
http://hosted.ap.org/photos/C/ca228990-02de-46eb-a48c-72e1f0724755-big.jpg
Probably all he could find in Crack Whore mommy's purse.
My best guess is the get caught at any cost strategy was an attempt to move up in the world, get into prison, and become Aryan Brotherhood, then emerge 10 years later to lead the White Revolution.
When you spill your guts over a traffic stop, that doesn't get you much cred with killers and gangsters.
They will be protected by the Aryan Brotherhood, as prime bottom meat.
To call these morons Terrorists would be an insult to suicide bombers, Klansmen, the Muslim Brotherhood, the CIA, and every self respecting baby killing, civilian bombing, Khmer Rouge, and IDE planter on God's Gray Earth.
PZ said:
This is the best the feds and SS can up with as far as assassination plots on OBAMA??? Smells like a red herring to me, and just groundwork in case somebody REAL gets a shot, the feds will parade this crap out like they've been foiling the skinheads diligently, this is the second one, BTW.
Terrorists my fat pink ass, these punks don't even rate as fall guys, much less white homegrown right-wing fascist killers
They were arrested on an illegal weapons charge.
And that Cowart Boy sure got a pretty mouth.
Posted by: Patricia | October 28, 2008 2:34 AM
Hey Scooter - remember tote goats?
Posted by: scooter | October 28, 2008 2:44 AM
This is the first time I had
Patricia@69
we both have our mouths full right now but if you need an update on Tote Goats
And the other Tote Goat in case you goats need a totin'
Posted by: mr-zero | October 28, 2008 2:49 AM
The other word that is missing is 'Christian' Do you image for a second that if they were muslim that woldn't have been pointed out.
Posted by: Jeanette | October 28, 2008 2:55 AM
http://notnews.today.com/2008/10/27/feds-disrupt-idiot-plot-to-kill-obama/
Posted by: hje | October 28, 2008 3:18 AM
Re: #61. Andrew Sullivan thinks differently about the Palin rally outburst.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/redistributor.html
Maybe he's right, but after watching videos of people at Palin appearances for the last two weeks, nothing would surprise me.
Posted by: pcarini | October 28, 2008 3:23 AM
I don't think their apparent ineptness disqualifies them from being terrorists, their intent (and that they had made preparations) is enough. Hell we have people locked up in Gitmo who weren't even planning attacks, let alone assassination of a presidential nominee.
Posted by: DuckPhup | October 28, 2008 3:56 AM
It's rather simple, really...
If you cause death, mayhem and destruction in the name of Allah... you're a terrorist.
If you cause death, mayhem and destruction in the name of Jesus... you're a slightly overzealous christian hero, in god's army.
Posted by: scooter | October 28, 2008 4:18 AM
You are suggesting that we extend the Gitmo Gulag to include half of America who thinks the other half are terrorists and these shit-for-brains rednecks are terrorists because they had a fantasy that amounts to World of Warcraft online mentality, and that makes them Terrorists?
What about if I were to suggest an anarcho-syndicalist philosophy on line and hint that the 01% of the population owned too much of the wealth and property and perhaps the tree of liberty be watered with the blood of tyrants?
In your world, I would be a terrorist for quoting Jefferson, and if I owned an assault rifle, I'd be in line for a severe buttfucking in prison because my revolution would not be your revolution.
labeling loser redneck fuctards as terrorists dilutes the threat of terrorism, these idiots couldn't rob a liquor store without getting their heads blown off.
We already have Stephen Colbert's THREATDOWN scaring the shit out of us every night, and those goddam bears, and pcarni, I know you're right, and I ....I I'm so afraid, please make it stop......
Protect me from fuctards. who couldn't make a living as shoplifters.
I'm afraid.
Protect me, suspend my civil liberties, protect me from: http://hosted.ap.org/photos/C/ca228990-02de-46eb-a48c-72e1f0724755-big.jpg
I'm skeered of the terrorists, help me, send duct tape.
Posted by: Vidar | October 28, 2008 4:33 AM
I was thinking of the word "idiots" myself.
They are certainly terrorists, in the correct sense of the word, but it seems that the media have warped the meaning of the word "terrorist".
It is now more associated with men who have a dark tan, wear somewhat unkempt beards, turbands, and dusty white robes.
It's yet another reason why America needs a reliable news source that gives out facts rather than lies, spin and sensation.
Posted by: The Vicar | October 28, 2008 4:35 AM
I'm not sure this counts as terrorism by the dictionary definition. The definition I was taught was "the use of violence against non-governmental targets to influence governmental policy". (That is, you attack the citizenry to force the government to do something -- or to stop doing something.)
Obama is already the government -- he's a senator. He wants to become more important in the government by becoming president. This would just be an assassination.
(And you can tell that we are jaded children of the modern age because we no longer think that mere assassination is a bad enough thing. No, we have to think of it as terrorism.)
Posted by: j | October 28, 2008 4:41 AM
terrorists use bombs, dumbass#s. assassinations with rifles just make you crazy frikkin aholes. killing black people like that make you crazy frikkin ahole racists mutha fukkas. even if you have a political agenda. but not terrorists. if they were going to blow up a school, that's what they'd be called. but drive bys? what, the local gang is a terrorist org now?
and frankly, they call white people terrorists. no problem. you all missing the point. Its not who perpetrates the crime that matters, its who was the intended victim. and the methods of the victimization.
Posted by: Katkinkate | October 28, 2008 5:13 AM
Posted by: John C. Randolph @ 4 "IIRC, the press wasn't at all reticent to call Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph terrorists, and while they weren't KKK, they were certainly white, christian right-wingers."
But that was pre 9/11 before the 'war on terrorism' had been chosen as the next 'threat' to terrorise the USA into submission with. Now they usually take every opportunity to use the word to keep the fear alive.
Posted by: maureen | October 28, 2008 5:36 AM
Completely off topic - except to social historians - I have news for Patricia.
It's a petition for pardons and among the 6 tests cases are Anne Whittle and Elizabeth Southerns, Pendle, 1612.
Posted by: moother | October 28, 2008 6:14 AM
it's REPUBLICAN, stupid
these fuckers should have been shown up for what they really are.
Posted by: Muffin | October 28, 2008 6:20 AM
Eh, I'm more concerned about the word "terrorist" being used far too liberally, myself. Of course there does seem to be a clear bias, as you point out, but I'd rather that the word isn't inappropriately used at all, instead of being inappropriately used in some cases (as it is now) or in all cases.
Posted by: Michelle | October 28, 2008 6:39 AM
...I'm not sure how much of a threat two neonazis douches are though... I mean, COME ON! Their plot was sure to fail. They're idiots.