In 1920, at the Republican National Convention, the party promised to pass an anti-lynching bill. They followed through on that promise in 1921 and passed a bill through the House of Representatives. Southern Democrats in the Senate filibustered the bill, and it died. In August of 1925, more than 50,000 Klansmen marched on Washington DC. Here’s a picture of how that looked:
Now, that is terrorism.
When members of the racial majority advocate and commit acts of violence against minorities, that is terrorism. Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano might not understand why it is terrorism. But that’s because he’s paid to be a moron. I never heard of a Klansman who thought Napolitano was an appropriately Anglo-Saxon name.
Staggering image.
Can’t be terrorism if it’s a white person murdering people of color. That’s just crazy shit that happens. Now if a person of color shoots up a military base, well that’s an attack on our way of life and thus terrorism.
Sure the logic is tortured, but people like Andrew Napolitano love torture.
Not fair. Napolitano opposes torture, and thinks Bush/Cheney should have been indicted for it.
Please place a warning symbol by such links, they hurt eyes and brain cells. I need to recover from disbelief these people exist. Wade Michael Page wanted to become a Klansman, he left the application form on his desk when he got fired from his job at a Harley-Davidson dealership in Fayetteville, NC.
Juan Cole has two excellent articles about Oak Creek shooting and impact on American society. He is connecting the dots.
How many citizens are living in fear of gun violence, burglary, hunger, unemployment or mental anguish?
Just goes to show you how well Nixon’s urban ethnic strategy worked. The guy is oblivious.
I read in a book about Italian Genealogy that Napolitano (literally person from Naples) has an alternate meaning as a slang term for Trickster.
I thought that was a preview of Tampa in a couple weeks…
The Klan slaughtered blacks and their allies of whatever color to prevent any efforts at political or social power.
That was indeed a decades-long campaign of terrorism against millions of people, starting during Reconstruction and running all the way to the late 20th Century.
That goon who shot up the Sikh temple just hated Muslims.
He wasn’t trying to intimidate anybody to stop or deter them doing anything in particular but existing, so far as anything now indicates.
That is no terrorism.
But of course it is about as evident a hate crime as you could find.
As to Fort Hood, that might not have been terrorism, either, contrary to the little foxes.
Most killing of enemies in war is not actually terrorism and the Fort Hood killer very likely saw things that way.
It’s all about intentions.
Anyway, the intent merely to slaughter people one hates doesn’t fit the definition.
The coercive intent referenced in the Fox article is a necessary condition.