The Austin Bomber is dead

[hornblower]

"conservative survivalist circles ..

 

involved in a group called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), a Bible study and outdoors group for homeschooled kids that included monthly activities such as archery, gun skills, and water balloon fights. Conditt and his younger sister would usually attend the activities along with 15 to 20 other kids, according to Schultz.

“A lot of us were very into science; we would discuss chemicals and how to mix them and which ones were dangerous,†said Schultz, who is now a house painter. “We were into weapons and stuff. A lot of us did role-playing, and RPG [role-playing games]; we’d have foam weapons and act out a battle.

...

a lot of children who were part of RIOT carried knives and learned how to shoot guns at gun ranges, but she didn't recall bombs or bomb-making being a specific topic of discussion at RIOT.

RIOT events also included 30 minutes to an hour of Bible study, Schultz said."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/austin-bombing-suspect-mark-anthony-conditt?utm_term=.ey407q55Gm#.clPQLbkkyE

I'm having a hard time imagining a Muslim bomber attending a similar program through a madrasa not having this information put forth  as proof of radicalization. 

[Ausmumof3]

"conservative survivalist circles ..

 

involved in a group called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), a Bible study and outdoors group for homeschooled kids that included monthly activities such as archery, gun skills, and water balloon fights. Conditt and his younger sister would usually attend the activities along with 15 to 20 other kids, according to Schultz.

“A lot of us were very into science; we would discuss chemicals and how to mix them and which ones were dangerous,†said Schultz, who is now a house painter. “We were into weapons and stuff. A lot of us did role-playing, and RPG [role-playing games]; we’d have foam weapons and act out a battle.

...

a lot of children who were part of RIOT carried knives and learned how to shoot guns at gun ranges, but she didn't recall bombs or bomb-making being a specific topic of discussion at RIOT.

RIOT events also included 30 minutes to an hour of Bible study, Schultz said."

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/austin-bombing-suspect-mark-anthony-conditt?utm_term=.ey407q55Gm#.clPQLbkkyE

I'm having a hard time imagining a Muslim bomber attending a similar program through a madrasa not having this information put forth as proof of radicalization.

Aside from the gun skills this could describe almost all 10-11 year old boys I know.

[Sneezyone]

Aside from the gun skills this could describe almost all 10-11 year old boys I know.

 

That's kind of the point. The ability/willingness to humanize this terrorist, to drive to find a way to identify and connect with this family, is out of place given the reflexive 'otherization' of similar bad actors.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Sneezyone

[desiree77]

 

 

"conservative survivalist circles ..

 

involved in a group called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), a Bible study and outdoors group for homeschooled kids that included monthly activities such as archery, gun skills, and water balloon fights. Conditt and his younger sister would usually attend the activities along with 15 to 20 other kids, according to Schultz.

“A lot of us were very into science; we would discuss chemicals and how to mix them and which ones were dangerous,†said Schultz, who is now a house painter. “We were into weapons and stuff. A lot of us did role-playing, and RPG [role-playing games]; we’d have foam weapons and act out a battle.

...

a lot of children who were part of RIOT carried knives and learned how to shoot guns at gun ranges, but she didn't recall bombs or bomb-making being a specific topic of discussion at RIOT.

RIOT events also included 30 minutes to an hour of Bible study, Schultz said."

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/austin-bombing-suspect-mark-anthony-conditt?utm_term=.ey407q55Gm#.clPQLbkkyE

I'm having a hard time imagining a Muslim bomber attending a similar program through a madrasa not having this information put forth as proof of radicalization.

This is a very innocent group of kids and adults. It's not militaristic. Think of a bunch of teenagers going to a local park with pool noodles playing war.

 

I do not think it's right to suspect, much less conclude, that he was mentally ill. There is zero evidence for that as of yet.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[HSmomof2]

But we can relate to this family. I have a 23 yo loner living in Austin.... Scares me. So yeah I feel sympathy because I can relate. I don't have the same experience with someone from the middle East so it is harder to feel sympathy. Human nature.

Agree. Especially as homeschoolers, this hits closer to home. FTR, I feel sympathy for any family who has someone harm others. As I said before, something terrible like this could happen to any family.

[HSmomof2]

But we can relate to this family. I have a 23 yo loner living in Austin.... Scares me. So yeah I feel sympathy because I can relate. I don't have the same experience with someone from the middle East so it is harder to feel sympathy. Human nature.

Agree. Especially as homeschoolers, this hits closer to home. FTR, I feel sympathy for any family who has someone harm others. As I said before, something terrible like this could happen to any family.

[Sneezyone]

But we can relate to this family. I have a 23 yo loner living in Austin.... Scares me. So yeah I feel sympathy because I can relate. I don't have the same experience with someone from the middle East so it is harder to feel sympathy. Human nature.

 

It may well be. It's still an impulse that should be examined and checked. There's not nearly enough info here to know if the benefit of the doubt is warranted let alone leap into poor kid, poor family tropes. This kid is not the victim.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Sneezyone

[umsami]

I am horrified at how little attention the victims received. Seems like it only became mainstream "news" when the bomb went off at FedEx.  As others have said, the dog who died on United received more coverage than the bombing victims.  

 

I was not at all surprised by the man's race nor religion nor how the media is covering him.  

 

If the first victim was a promising young white cellist...it would be non-stop news coverage.

 

And if, God-forbid, his bomber was Muslim or a person-of-color, there wouldn't be a shred of sympathy for his family or any assumption of innocence for them.

 

If you do not realize this, then you do not know your own privilege.

 

He was a suicide-bomber.  He blew himself up when police got close, and hoped to harm them as well.  You get that, right?  Just because his name wasn't Abdul, doesn't make it not so.   His religion (which from his blog seemed extremist) was no less extremist than a Muslim extremist.  His hatred was racially motivated.  He targeted black families.  That is no different than targeting Jewish families.  He is no different than Dylan Roof in that matter.  

 

Having said all that, I'm very grateful that he was caught. I wish it had been alive if only to find out more information about other bombs. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by umsami

[desiree77]

We've had plenty of coverage of the victims here in Austin. But maybe not as much detail. But it doesn't matter, does it? Anyone could be a victim of senseless killings. People want to know about the perpetrator. We, as a society, have this need to know all about him because then maybe we can find a pattern and stop it the next time. It's not the victims who caused this.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Sneezyone]

We've had plenty of coverage of the victims here in Austin. But maybe not as much detail. But it doesn't matter, does it? Anyone could be a victim of senseless killings. People want to know about the perpetrator. We, as a society, have this need to know all about him because then maybe we can find a pattern and stop it the next time. It's not the victims who caused this.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Yes, it does matter. This disparate treatment and coverage contributes to the persistent myth that some people are more prone to violence than others.

[umsami]

We've had plenty of coverage of the victims here in Austin. But maybe not as much detail. But it doesn't matter, does it? Anyone could be a victim of senseless killings. People want to know about the perpetrator. We, as a society, have this need to know all about him because then maybe we can find a pattern and stop it the next time. It's not the victims who caused this.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

1) In Austin, yes... nationwide?? Nope.  Very little.  It took some time as well.  The dog on United got far more coverage than the 17 year old black cellist. 

 

2) Yes, it matters about the victims.  They are who should matter.  Their lives.  That he was targeting black families is a BIG DEAL.  It is important.  It shows motive.  It shows hatred.

 

3) If you focus on the victims, more than the murderers, it's a way to lessen the fame factor.  That's been shown to reduce copycat crimes.

[Ausmumof3]

That's kind of the point. The ability/willingness to humanize this terrorist, to drive to find a way to identify and connect with this family, is out of place given the reflexive 'otherization' of similar bad actors.

I have to be honest, as a mum this is almost always my reaction when a youngish person commits violent crime on this scale. I feel sorry for the mum because I think as a mum it would be the absolute worst thing possible to know the kid you loved birthed and raised went on to hurt others. Even more so as a homeschool mum because you would feel that it was all you.

 

As far as calling it terrorism I am ok for reserving that word for ideologically related crime no matter the ethnicity or political motivation of the criminal. We don't know if that was the case here. It shouldn't be assumed in any case until its proven.

[JumpyTheFrog]

If he’s white, mentally ill.

Hispanic? A bad hombre

Black? A thug or gangster

Russian? Congratulated!

Muslim? Need I say it.

I’d like to point out that I hear (and read) people referring to criminals of all races as “thugs†or “gangsters.†I know some people think it is only applied to blacks, but that hasn’t been my experience. Maybe it is regional?

 

And you don’t seriously think, whatever your beliefs about Trump/Russia, that Americans would congratulate Russian bombers, do you? If you do, how is that not a stereotype or attempt to “other†people from the other end of the political spectrum?

[Sneezyone]

I have to be honest, as a mum this is almost always my reaction when a youngish person commits violent crime on this scale. I feel sorry for the mum because I think as a mum it would be the absolute worst thing possible to know the kid you loved birthed and raised went on to hurt others. Even more so as a homeschool mum because you would feel that it was all you.

 

As far as calling it terrorism I am ok for reserving that word for ideologically related crime no matter the ethnicity or political motivation of the criminal. We don't know if that was the case here. It shouldn't be assumed in any case until its proven.

I’m comfortable using the word terrorist because it’s clear to me that he targeted the black community until his means of delivery was thwarted by media attention. Edited March 21, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Ausmumof3]

I’m comfortable using the word terrorist because it’s clear to me that he targeted the black community until his means of delivery was thwarted by media attention.

If that's the case then likely he is a terrorist. I haven't seen that reported but obviously our media aren't going to be as up to date with the details.

 

Although they are all over the fact that he's homeschooled!

[umsami]

I always feel sorry for the families in these instances regardless of the situation, but I think it's rare for people to feel sorry for the families unless they identify with them.  

 

I rarely see people express sympathy for black criminals' families...what they must be going through, etc.  Same with Muslim families.  They are, as far as I can tell, assumed guilty unless overwhelming evidence proves otherwise.  

 

I'm wondering if people here are aware of the trial going on in Orlando of Omar Mateen's wife, Noor?? There was a lot more evidence towards the girlfriend of the Las Vegas shooter, BTW, but she has not been charged.  Similarly, the wife of the Boston Bomber was not charged, as well.

 

Mateen's wife is a known victim of domestic violence.

 

She was denied a change in venue...and people who knew victims were not excluded from the jury.

 

Somebody has to pay, right?

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/05/as-the-trial-of-omar-mateens-wife-begins-new-evidence-undermines-beliefs-about-the-pulse-massacre-including-motive/

 

 

[maize]

I'm not taking away from these kids' rights to feel this way, and have no idea of what their situation was, but this quote made me cringe. We already catch so much flack where I live about homeschooling now, and now this is just going to build into it more- especially coming from a homeschooler. Definitely making me go have a conversation with my kids to make sure I'm not overlooking any feelings of something similar in terms of isolation........

That...sounds like the inner experience of a significant percentage of teens, regardless of educational setting.

 

I was awfully lonely as a teen in school.

Edited March 21, 2018 by maize

[Ausmumof3]

That...sounds like the inner experience of a significant percentage of teens, regardless of educational setting.

 

I was awfully lonely as a teen in school.

Yep I agree. Even people who were the centre of everything in high school sometimes describe it as a lonely experience. I think because everyone is too scared of connecting on a real level. It's only as you get older and realise how much everybody has their insecurities that you get more open about this stuff.

[Sneezyone]

I always feel sorry for the families in these instances regardless of the situation, but I think it's rare for people to feel sorry for the families unless they identify with them.

 

I rarely see people express sympathy for black criminals' families...what they must be going through, etc. Same with Muslim families. They are, as far as I can tell, assumed guilty unless overwhelming evidence proves otherwise.

 

I'm wondering if people here are aware of the trial going on in Orlando of Omar Mateen's wife, Noor?? There was a lot more evidence towards the girlfriend of the Las Vegas shooter, BTW, but she has not been charged. Similarly, the wife of the Boston Bomber was not charged, as well.

 

Mateen's wife is a known victim of domestic violence.

 

She was denied a change in venue...and people who knew victims were not excluded from the jury.

 

Somebody has to pay, right?

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/05/as-the-trial-of-omar-mateens-wife-begins-new-evidence-undermines-beliefs-about-the-pulse-massacre-including-motive/

EXACTLY. And the default response is so predictable. What would cause such a nice young man to throw away his life and potential? Oh, those poor family members must be shocked! I don’t enjoy pointing out the discrepancies, I feel compelled to do so. This is not OK and it has wide-ranging implications for how both the court of public opinion and our justice system treat people. Edited March 21, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Laurie]

"conservative survivalist circles ..

 

involved in a group called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), a Bible study and outdoors group for homeschooled kids that included monthly activities such as archery, gun skills, and water balloon fights. Conditt and his younger sister would usually attend the activities along with 15 to 20 other kids, according to Schultz.

“A lot of us were very into science; we would discuss chemicals and how to mix them and which ones were dangerous,†said Schultz, who is now a house painter. “We were into weapons and stuff. A lot of us did role-playing, and RPG [role-playing games]; we’d have foam weapons and act out a battle.

...

 

 

 

When I read this, the first thing that crossed my mind was an episode of Counting On (Duggar children) when some of the older kids went to a survival school.   I hadn't paid much attention to the episode at the time other than I'm not an outdoorsy type and don't like bugs so I thought it was creepy.  But today, the creepy feeling isn't about the bugs.  I looked up the episodes of Counting On to see if I could find the school that they attended, and in one photo I saw an instructor's vest with the school name.  It's called Sigma 3, and after looking at the school's website I feel sick to think that people aren't just training to survive getting lost in the woods or something...the website even includes military manuals for things like Urban Ops!    

 

The Austin bomber was at war with his community.  Maybe he started out just playing war "games" with his friends, but I think it would have been wiser to spend time doing things like car washes to help others instead.  If this is a trend with youth groups, I think the leaders need to have one of those "Come to Jesus" moments.

[EmseB]

When I read this, the first thing that crossed my mind was an episode of Counting On (Duggar children) when some of the older kids went to a survival school. I hadn't paid much attention to the episode at the time other than I'm not an outdoorsy type and don't like bugs so I thought it was creepy. But today, the creepy feeling isn't about the bugs. I looked up the episodes of Counting On to see if I could find the school that they attended, and in one photo I saw an instructor's vest with the school name. It's called Sigma 3, and after looking at the school's website I feel sick to think that people aren't just training to survive getting lost in the woods or something...the website even includes military manuals for things like Urban Ops!

 

The Austin bomber was at war with his community. Maybe he started out just playing war "games" with his friends, but I think it would have been wiser to spend time doing things like car washes to help others instead. If this is a trend with youth groups, I think the leaders need to have one of those "Come to Jesus" moments.

If this is the case I think one can make the Boy Scouts sound pretty militant if you word it right. Or you could make different cosplay groups sound pretty unbalanced. We have some friends involved in something like a Christian toastmasters (public speaking being a primary focus) and I read an antitheist description of it one time that made it sound like the Branch Davidians reincarnated.

 

Anyway, my point being that you can really make a lot of benign things sound horrible if one of its members does something awful.

[IfIOnly]

Just read an update that after viewing video diaries on the bomber's cell, police don't believe the bombings were associated with any ideology, nor were they hate crimes. He was a troubled young man who would have gone on to kill if not stopped. They believe they now have all the bombs accounted for and that none remain out for delivery. What a horribly sad situation.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/21/us/austin-explosions/index.html

Edited March 22, 2018 by IfIOnly

[butterbean]

"conservative survivalist circles ..

 

involved in a group called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), a Bible study and outdoors group for homeschooled kids that included monthly activities such as archery, gun skills, and water balloon fights. Conditt and his younger sister would usually attend the activities along with 15 to 20 other kids, according to Schultz.

“A lot of us were very into science; we would discuss chemicals and how to mix them and which ones were dangerous,†said Schultz, who is now a house painter. “We were into weapons and stuff. A lot of us did role-playing, and RPG [role-playing games]; we’d have foam weapons and act out a battle.

...

a lot of children who were part of RIOT carried knives and learned how to shoot guns at gun ranges, but she didn't recall bombs or bomb-making being a specific topic of discussion at RIOT.

RIOT events also included 30 minutes to an hour of Bible study, Schultz said."

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/austin-bombing-suspect-mark-anthony-conditt?utm_term=.ey407q55Gm#.clPQLbkkyE

I'm having a hard time imagining a Muslim bomber attending a similar program through a madrasa not having this information put forth  as proof of radicalization. 

 

You got your information from BUZZFEED?  Seriously?  And you believe what they reported?  Buzzfeed?  The website full of self righteous millennials that have shown time and time again their hatred of Christians.  So I'm sure anything they report on having to do with Christians is accurate and thorough.

 

What a crock.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You got your information from BUZZFEED?  Seriously?  And you believe what they reported?  Buzzfeed?  The website full of self righteous millennials that have shown time and time again their hatred of Christians.  So I'm sure anything they report on having to do with Christians is accurate and thorough.

 

What a crock.

 

 

It appears that they got several quotes and facts for their story, in what way do you think the story is incorrect?

 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Slartibartfast

[Catwoman]

You got your information from BUZZFEED?  Seriously?  And you believe what they reported?  Buzzfeed?  The website full of self righteous millennials that have shown time and time again their hatred of Christians.  So I'm sure anything they report on having to do with Christians is accurate and thorough.

 

What a crock.

 

Ummm.... welcome to the forum? :confused:

 

What an incredibly harsh and unfriendly first post.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Ummm.... welcome to the forum? :confused:

 

What an incredibly harsh and unfriendly first post.

Just what I was thinking.

[BlsdMama]

I’m including his family for the same reason that every other terrorist’s family is scrutinized. Good for geese, good for gander. It disgusts me to see the pity party rolled out for these folks in a way that would never happen in other cases.

 

Wow. That assumes a lot. Like a 23 year old isn’t responsible for his own actions and we must somehow blame the parents?

[SKL]

I’m comfortable using the word terrorist because it’s clear to me that he targeted the black community until his means of delivery was thwarted by media attention.

 

According to what I have read, the victims included 2 "black men," 2 "white women," and 1 "Hispanic person."  (Quotes because Hispanic is not a race and so the labels are not exactly comparable).  I don't think we know that he targeted the black community.  True, the two who died were black, but I don't know how the bomber could have predicted that his non-black victims would survive.

 

It does sound like terrorism to me, not because of race, but because he wanted to terrorize people.  He wanted people to be afraid that any piece of mail could be a bomb.  Whether it meets an official definition does not matter to me.

Edited March 22, 2018 by SKL

[Guest]

If there was no political motive then technically the description "terrorist" would not apply.

[Seasider]

According to what I have read, the victims included 2 "black men," 2 "white women," and 1 "Hispanic man." (Quotes because Hispanic is not a race and so the labels are not exactly comparable). I don't think we know that he targeted the black community. True, the two who died were black, but I don't know how the bomber could have predicted that his non-black victims would survive.

 

.

Yes, I thought the victims were diverse.

[hornblower]

If there was no political motive then technically the description "terrorist" would not apply.

 

doesn't have to be political. Could be social, incl religious.  For ex attacking women's spaces or targeting people of a certain race or sexual orientation would qualify, even if there's no obv political motive per se. 

 

Watching the world burn - as this person apparently said - could be interpreted as an anarchist goal which would be political.

 

fwiw acc to FBI "there is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives†(28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). 

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

• Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

[Sneezyone]

Wow. That assumes a lot. Like a 23 year old isn’t responsible for his own actions and we must somehow blame the parents?

It assumes that this guy and his family shouldn’t be given any more boo hoo treatment than any other mass killer/terrorist. If that’s a lot, so be it.

[Guest]

 

doesn't have to be political. Could be social, incl religious.  For ex attacking women's spaces or targeting people of a certain race or sexual orientation would qualify, even if there's no obv political motive per se. 

 

Except I would argue that targeting people for those reasons is still based on political motivations.

 

In this case there is no obvious motive or targeting of specific groups.  Sometimes people do awful things for their own reasons.

 

[Sneezyone]

According to what I have read, the victims included 2 "black men," 2 "white women," and 1 "Hispanic man." (Quotes because Hispanic is not a race and so the labels are not exactly comparable). I don't think we know that he targeted the black community. True, the two who died were black, but I don't know how the bomber could have predicted that his non-black victims would survive.

 

It does sound like terrorism to me, not because of race, but because he wanted to terrorize people. He wanted people to be afraid that any piece of mail could be a bomb. Whether it meets an official definition does not matter to me.

The lethality if his bombs decreased when he was forced to change the delivery method. He could no longer target anyone in particular because of the attention on suspicious packages in that area. He was, essentially, forced to branch out. I get it, I do, it’s easier to blame mental illness than entitlement and rage in these sorts of instances but it begs the question why only mentally ill people like him are randomly rampaging and killing people. Edited March 22, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Except I would argue that targeting people for those reasons is still based on political motivations.

 

In this case there is no obvious motive or targeting of specific groups. Sometimes people do awful things for their own reasons.

 

I think it’s time to stop suggesting that the targeting of society (any segment of it) is not, in and of itself, a political move/statement. That very narrow definition of terrorism only benefits one group. Edited March 22, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

I think it’s tine to stop suggesting that the targeting of society (any segment of it) is not, in and of itself, a political move/statement. That very narrow definition of terrorism only benefits one group.

 

Calling all acts of violence terrorism kind of distorts the meaning.

 

[SKL]

The lethality if his bombs decreased when he was forced to change the delivery method. He could no longer target anyone in particular because of the attention on suspicious packages in that area. He was, essentially, forced to branch out. I get it, I do, it’s easier to blame mental illness than entitlement and rage in these sorts of instances but it begs the question why only mentally ill people like him are randomly rampaging and killing people.

 

I don't know if he was mentally ill or not, but I tend to assume that when there is no rational reason to do something extremely harmful, somebody is probably crazy (regardless of color).

 

Not sure what your point is.  It seems like you are asking why only crazy people do crazy things.  Or are you saying only white crazy people do crazy things?  There are no people of color who have killed people without an obvious rational motive?

[Sneezyone]

Calling all acts of violence terrorism kind of distorts the meaning.

 

No, it doesn’t. Randomized acts of mass violence that create terror is a pretty basic definition that does not exclude crazy white men.

[Guest]

The lethality if his bombs decreased when he was forced to change the delivery method. He could no longer target anyone in particular because of the attention on suspicious packages in that area. He was, essentially, forced to branch out. I get it, I do, it’s easier to blame mental illness than entitlement and rage in these sorts of instances but it begs the question why only mentally ill people like him are randomly rampaging and killing people.

 

But why do you assume his actions were based on entitlement?  When someone starts sending around bombs with no obvious motive or reason, it is somewhat reasonable to think that something could be off mentally. 

[Sneezyone]

I don't know if he was mentally ill or not, but I tend to assume that when there is no rational reason to do something extremely harmful, somebody is probably crazy (regardless of color).

 

Not sure what your point is. It seems like you are asking why only crazy people do crazy things. Or are you saying only white crazy people do crazy things? There are no people of color who have killed people without an obvious rational motive?

No, I’m saying ‘the crazy’ is the go-to option/explanation for white perps, which is convenient, because then we can scapegoat everyone else for acts of terror. These acts are no less terroristic.

[Sneezyone]

But why do you assume his actions were based on entitlement? When someone starts sending around bombs with no obvious motive or reason, it is somewhat reasonable to think that something could be off mentally.

Why not? No one presumed crazy for the DC sniper, it was an evil heart. This kid can’t be evil?

[SKL]

No, I’m saying ‘the crazy’ is the go-to option/explanation for white perps, which is convenient, because then we can scapegoat everyone else for acts of terror. These acts are no less terroristic.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish.  The guy blew himself up.  He is dead.  He doesn't care what you call him and nobody else really cares either.

 

I agreed that his acts were intended to terrorize.  So what?  He's done and I haven't heard anyone was working with him.

 

Honestly I don't understand a motive for making this about race.  I mean the guy was white, we get it.

 

Are you implying white people are generally allowed to hop around the country killing black people?  Stats say 52% of serial killers are white, while 68% of victims of serial killers are white.  46% of serial killers do it for the fun of it.  (Most would say that is crazy.)  A pretty high percent have one or more attributes that point to mental problems.  https://www.statisticbrain.com/serial-killer-statistics-and-demographics/

[Guest]

No, it doesn’t. Randomized acts of mass violence that create terror is a pretty basic definition that does not exclude crazy white men.

 

And it still distorts the generally accepted meaning of the word terrorist.  I am not sure why you think calling them mass murders/shooters/serial bombers is letting them off the hook. 

 

While you are at it, you may want to look more closely at the statistics of who commits mass shootings and murderers.  Hint: all races are represented at about the % of the population.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/10/what_the_white_mass_shooter_myth_gets_right_and_wrong_about_killers_demographics.html

Edited March 22, 2018 by ChocolateReign

[Sneezyone]

I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. The guy blew himself up. He is dead. He doesn't care what you call him and nobody else really cares either.

 

I agreed that his acts were intended to terrorize. So what? He's done and I haven't heard anyone was working with him.

 

Honestly I don't understand a motive for making this about race. I mean the guy was white, we get it.

 

Are you implying white people are generally allowed to hop around the country killing black people? Stats say 52% of serial killers are white, while 68% of victims of serial killers are white. 46% of serial killers do it for the fun of it. (Most would say that is crazy.) A pretty high percent have one or more attributes that point to mental problems. https://www.statisticbrain.com/serial-killer-statistics-and-demographics/

I’m not implying anything. I’m flat out saying that I find the reflexive move to sympathize with terrorists of this sort unfair, the lack of attention the case initially received unfair, and reductive definitions of terrorism self-serving and unfair. But you’re right, he’s dead. Good riddance. Edited March 22, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

And it still distorts the generally accepted meaning of the word terrorist. I am not sure why you think calling them mass murders/shooters/serial bombers is letting them off the hook.

 

While you are at it, yu may want to look more closely at the statistics of who commits mass shootings and murderers. Hint: all races are represented at about the % of the population.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/10/what_the_white_mass_shooter_myth_gets_right_and_wrong_about_killers_demographics.html

I think it lets them off the hook because there is no pathologizing of the group the way there is in other situations. I also never said these folks were any more likely to commit these offenses. If you reread my posts, you’ll find that I think (and said) that letting these folks off the terrorist hook perpetuates the myth that some people are more likely to be terrorists than others.

[SKL]

I’m not implying anything. I’m flat out saying that I find the reflexive move to sympathize with terrorists of this sort unfair, the lack of attention the case initially received unfair, and reductive definitions of terrorism self-serving and unfair. But you’re right, he’s dead. Good riddance.

 

I think it received lots of attention once the cops started thinking it was a serial bomber. 

 

And of course nobody knew the perp was white until after he was dead.

 

[SKL]

I think it lets them off the hook because there is no pathologizing of the group the way there is in other situations. I also never said these folks were any more likely to commit these offenses. If you reread my posts, you’ll find that I think (and said) that letting these folks off the terrorist hook perpetuates the myth that some people are more likely to be terrorists than others.

 

So you're mad because this guy's behavior hasn't led to a declaration that all white people are terrorists?

[Sneezyone]

I think it received lots of attention once the cops started thinking it was a serial bomber.

 

And of course nobody knew the perp was white until after he was dead.

 

Did I say otherwise? I suggested (see also PP) that this was slow to be id’d as a serial bombing because of who the initial victims were. Edited March 22, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

So you're mad because this guy's behavior hasn't led to a declaration that all white people are terrorists?

I’m angry that disparate treatment continues to be accepted, perpetuated and excused.

[SKL]

Did I say otherwise? I suggested (see also PP) that this was slow to be id’d as a serial bombing because of who the initial victims were.

 

I don't think so.  I don't think it's usually any faster when the first victim is a white person.