I don't usually post about politics on Facebook, but when I do it appears I feel the need to cross-post here. I've put a little context at the front, but the full FB post starts with "The rather narrow-minded scope of the US 'War on Terrorism'..." below the Great Orangle Squiggle of Infinite Justice.
Death and Taxes posted an interesting article on Monday called So, did you guys hear we caught a terrorist last week?" that discussed the arrest of Robert James Talbot, Jr. Mr. Talbot was arrested for planning to rob a number of banks in order to fund a revolution. He had a Facebook page where, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center article sourced by Death and Taxes, he posted the following:
That is exactly what I will have my men do during the heist. Same goes with the Muslims. Mosques are to be a blast! With three of my guys with FA [full automatic] AK’s [AK-47 semi-automatic rifles], we will send that white house worthless piece of dirt and his Muslim brotherhood a message they will never forget.
As Death and Taxes points out, this is not something that made the news. It wasn't covered on FOX. It wasn't covered on NBC. It wasn't covered on CBS. It wasn't covered on CNN. No one paid any attention to this, for two reasons:
First, we as a society no longer consider it terrorism if the terrorist is white.
Second, while law enforcement does consider it terrorism--the FBI was actively trying to prevent him from killing people--the apparent differences in high-level policy in the way "White Terrorists" and the "Official Terrorist Threat (TM)" are handled make "White Terrorism" a second-tier form of terrorism, at best.
The rather narrow-minded scope of the US "War on Terrorism" is unfortunate on a lot of levels. First, it's unfortunate because it targets a lot of people who have nothing to do with terrorism, they just happen to share the same skin tone and general religious views as the people we have decided are the Official Terrorist Threat (TM) (Patent Pending). Once upon a time when you talked about "terrorists" it was as likely you'd think about the Irish Republican Army as you would any other organization. Today if you talk about Irish terrorists you'd probably get the response "I didn't know the Irish were Moslem." From a purely tactical perspective, the way we view terrorism now robs us of our ability to correctly assess threat.
But it's also unfortunate because it robs us of our ability to look at our response in a truly objective manner to determine if it's just, if it's effective, if it's legal. It's a lot easier to tolerate waterboarding or drone-assisted assassinations if the only people being targeted are people you will probably never, ever, ever have any interaction with.
But there are plenty of pissed-off white guys in the US who believe there ought to be an armed revolution to make things right again. These pissed-off white guys can be liberals and they can be conservatives--there is a radicalized left AND right wing, folks, don't kid yourselves--but they are hardly EVER called terrorists on the news. If they were--if all these white guys were branded terrorists and treated EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that the Official Terrorist Threat (TM) (Patent Pending) is treated today--I'm absolutely sure our policies toward terrorism would change.
If we treated the Dangerous White Guy Threat the same way we treated the Dangerous Kinda Dusky Complexioned Guy Threat, it wouldn't be a situation where three FBI agents impersonate fellow believers in this guy's crusade, thereby gathering enough evidence to arrest him. Well, scratch that--it wouldn't be JUST that. It would also be law enforcement rounding up every single member of his church and questioning them for hours, or days, or weeks. It would be his relatives being put on the no-fly list because, you know, they're related to him. It would be the government bringing legal action against his employers because they were supporting terrorism. It would be the government going after political parties that received donations from him, because they were being funded by a terrorist. It would be the government going after CHARITIES that received donations from him, for the same reason. The Salvation Army Santa Claus being renditioned to an undisclosed donation because the terrorist put five dollars into the little red pail. It would be friends and acquaintances of his being waterboarded because they had contact with a terrorist and might know what his plans were. You know, just in case.
And I'm pretty sure every one of us knows someone who isn't that guy, but who sounds like him on occasion. Someone who is pissed off about the way the government works, someone who thinks the government is unfair, and unjust, and who talks about tyranny and oppression and corruption and who occasionally says "something ought to be done!" They've probably never said "we should violently overthrow the United States of America" and they probably don't even BELIVEE that should happen, but I'll bet they have quoted Thomas Jefferson's observation about the tree of liberty being watered with blood, and might actually own guns! I'm willing to bet that every single one of us knows that guy, and some of us ARE that guy. And those guys would be targets too BECAUSE THEY FIT A PROFILE. And because you know that guy, because I know that guy, well... we'd be targets too.
And then, THEN--if those guys were treated as "terrorists" instead of "troubled loners"--we would finally realize that what we are doing as a nation is going off the rails. Because we're trying to fight a threat by assuming an entire group of people are criminals and then clearing them on a case-by-case basis, and then doing so only with the greatest possible reluctance.
It's a shame and a disgrace and a terrible moral failing that, as a nation, this isn't considered a problem because it isn't really targeting white people. But there you are.