Does White privilege exist when discussing terrorism?

There have been many examples of this but the one I really want to look at is the Vegas shooter. If you go on social media such as the bbc news facebook page or other news outlets where they allow comments by the public many people have argued that he's not a terrorist and the reason they give is that to be a terrorist you must be acting under a political or religious motive. Even though the police investigation is still ongoing to find out his motive. Even when I point out that under Nevada law he is a terrorist as a motive is not needed they still defend him.
'act of terrorism means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population'.


A few weeks later we have the crash in London where a car mounted the pavement and injured 11 people. As soon as it was reported that a car hit pedestrians and as soon as pictures were released of the 'offender' being an ethnic minority large amounts of people on social media were branding him a terrorist and blaming islam and muslims etc etc . EVen though at the time there was no political or religious motive found these people were quick to brand him a terrorist. Turns out he just crashed and there was no terrorism involved.

SO why are these people ready to defend the white murderer and proclaim he is innocent until proven guilty of terrorism but when it is an ethnic minority they state that he is guilty until proven innocent? why do they apply different rules depending on the colour?

I don't get your last paragraph........and how not proclaiming him a Terrorist defends him....

A "psychopathic nut" is not a step up from a "Terrorist.." I'd think in many eyes.

Surely a guy that is believed to have died for a cause however delusional is a step up from nutter...No ??

Try to be less sensitive is my advice.

I think with it's prevalence, terrorism is associated with Islamic extremism at the moment, particularly ISIS.

While the attack may fit the definition of terrorism, I think the distinction would be whether he's involved in any network or acting alone.

People may use past acts to inform their thinking, yes.

Scottrf wrote:I think with it's prevalence, terrorism is associated with Islamic extremism at the moment, particularly ISIS.

While the attack may fit the definition of terrorism, I think the distinction would be whether he's involved in any network or acting alone.

People may use past acts to inform their thinking, yes.

That's the loose definition I would say hence why the IRA were seen as a terrorist organisation with emphasis being only organisation whereas Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton were seen as lone nuts.

Yes, or at least a common goal/objective.

LionsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I think with it's prevalence, terrorism is associated with Islamic extremism at the moment, particularly ISIS.

While the attack may fit the definition of terrorism, I think the distinction would be whether he's involved in any network or acting alone.

People may use past acts to inform their thinking, yes.

That's the loose definition I would say hence why the IRA were seen as a terrorist organisation with emphasis being only organisation whereas Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton were seen as lone nuts.

But a fair few of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks were in fact generally thought to be people acting alone (or an isolated cell). I know ISIS has claimed responsibility, but they also did for Las Vegas IIRC, and there's been little evidence of their active involvement in some of the more recent attacks.

I take Scott's point about a shared ideology, but for me there's an element of certain people/media pushing the "terrorist=muslim" line. For instance after the June attack on a mosque, the Times front page was:
Heading: Jobless 'lone wolf' held over attack on mosque.
Sub-heading: Father of four had suffered mental health problems, say family.

Similar descriptions were made of Jo Cox's murderer. One suspects that had it been a Muslim bombing a church, or shouting something about his ideology before shooting a politician opposed to it, the wording would have been quite different.

My personal view is that terrorism should refer to politically or ideologically motivated attacks. So Brevik and the two examples mentioned above should be described as such, whereas the Las Vegas shooter's motivations appear unclear so far, so the label shouldn't apply to him.

Good post MFC.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I think with it's prevalence, terrorism is associated with Islamic extremism at the moment, particularly ISIS.

While the attack may fit the definition of terrorism, I think the distinction would be whether he's involved in any network or acting alone.

People may use past acts to inform their thinking, yes.

That's the loose definition I would say hence why the IRA were seen as a terrorist organisation with emphasis being only organisation whereas Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton were seen as lone nuts.

But a fair few of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks were in fact generally thought to be people acting alone (or an isolated cell). I know ISIS has claimed responsibility, but they also did for Las Vegas IIRC, and there's been little evidence of their active involvement in some of the more recent attacks.

I take Scott's point about a shared ideology, but for me there's an element of certain people/media pushing the "terrorist=muslim" line. For instance after the June attack on a mosque, the Times front page was:
Heading: Jobless 'lone wolf' held over attack on mosque.
Sub-heading: Father of four had suffered mental health problems, say family.

Similar descriptions were made of Jo Cox's murderer. One suspects that had it been a Muslim bombing a church, or shouting something about his ideology before shooting a politician opposed to it, the wording would have been quite different.

My personal view is that terrorism should refer to politically or ideologically motivated attacks. So Brevik and the two examples mentioned above should be described as such, whereas the Las Vegas shooter's motivations appear unclear so far, so the label shouldn't apply to him.

And that is the point I am making, there seems to be a push that muslim attacks= terrorist and white attacks= unknown. It boils down to white privilege in my view.

In 2014..... 51% of all terrorist acts were attributed to ISIS or Boko Haram alone....

Not that the white privilege argument can ever be debunked (You can't disprove a negative) But if a certain group is responsible for the majority of terrorist attacks it will frame a certain view of future incidents......Warranted or not..

I read up somewhere about this the other day and until you find out anyones motives you shouldn't be using the T word. If your going to class that as terrorism then you could be into murky waters of classing near enough every crime as terrorism

Lots of vehicle attacks recently, hence the presumption.

White privilege is essentially an academic exercise that people jump on anytime there is a negative or perceived negative against a non white person.

Ent wrote:Lots of vehicle attacks recently, hence the presumption.

White privilege is essentially an academic exercise that people jump on anytime there is a negative or perceived negative against a non white person.

not at all.

Person A who is white shoots and kills 59 people in Vegas- general public state that he is not a terrorist as no motive has been proven.

Person B who is non-white crashes his car into pedestrians - general public state that its a muslim terrorist attack even though no motive has been proven (and his religion was never proven either).

The motive for person A and person B was not proven in either case yet the public (not all) were happy to instantly brand 1 of them as a terrorist and funny enough the person they branded was the non-white guy.

It's kind of like if a friend tells me Tottenham have scored and I ask if it was Harry Kane.

I'm assuming but it's probably a good guess based on statistics. Okay it might not be palatable but that's how it is.

Balance of probabilities suggest that mass shootings in America are lone wolf attacks and the prevalence of vehicular attacks by Islamic extremists suggests they are terrorist related, it has nothing to do with skin colour but why the attacks happened.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:Lots of vehicle attacks recently, hence the presumption.

White privilege is essentially an academic exercise that people jump on anytime there is a negative or perceived negative against a non white person.

not at all.

Person A who is white shoots and kills 59 people in Vegas- general public state that he is not a terrorist as no motive has been proven.

Person B who is non-white crashes his car into pedestrians - general public state that its a muslim terrorist attack even though no motive has been proven (and his religion was never proven either).

The motive for person A and person B was not proven in either case yet the public (not all) were happy to instantly brand 1 of them as a terrorist and funny enough the person they branded was the non-white guy.

To be fair though...

If a white boy hits an Asian it is generally regarded as a racist attack......

If an Asian hits a white it is generally regarded as just an attack.....Because apparently reverse racism doesn't exist according to modern convention...

So White people get painted as racists.....

It isn't all one way Muscular........Not suggesting though that the argument "White privilege" (Vulgar term) is necessary totally flawed.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:Lots of vehicle attacks recently, hence the presumption.

White privilege is essentially an academic exercise that people jump on anytime there is a negative or perceived negative against a non white person.

not at all.

Person A who is white shoots and kills 59 people in Vegas- general public state that he is not a terrorist as no motive has been proven.

Person B who is non-white crashes his car into pedestrians - general public state that its a muslim terrorist attack even though no motive has been proven (and his religion was never proven either).

The motive for person A and person B was not proven in either case yet the public (not all) were happy to instantly brand 1 of them as a terrorist and funny enough the person they branded was the non-white guy.

Yes at all, there have been 3 ramming attacks in London this year - what do you expect the public to think when it happens again?

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:Lots of vehicle attacks recently, hence the presumption.

White privilege is essentially an academic exercise that people jump on anytime there is a negative or perceived negative against a non white person.

not at all.

Person A who is white shoots and kills 59 people in Vegas- general public state that he is not a terrorist as no motive has been proven.

Person B who is non-white crashes his car into pedestrians - general public state that its a muslim terrorist attack even though no motive has been proven (and his religion was never proven either).

The motive for person A and person B was not proven in either case yet the public (not all) were happy to instantly brand 1 of them as a terrorist and funny enough the person they branded was the non-white guy.

Yes at all, there have been 3 ramming attacks in London this year - what do you expect the public to think when it happens again?

I agree with that but I would counter by saying what do you think the public would be saying if the Vegas shooter was Asian or Arabic? He would instantly be labelled a terrorist even if no motive was found.

And what if the car driver in London was a white man.

That is the white privilege I am talking about.

When Black Lives Matter are filmed telling their white supporters to go to the back of the crowd and the liberal media hardly reports it............Then that is Black privilege right ??

When Denzil and Halle say it is a great day for black people when they win an oscar that is okay.......Yet you know that there would be hell to pay if a white actor said it about his race.....That is Black privilege right ??

Life isn't perfect kid.............But what we can do is try to be a little more objective....Life is too short...

You should stop generalising so much.....You're beginning to sound like ONETWO.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When Black Lives Matter are filmed telling their white supporters to go to the back of the crowd and the liberal media hardly reports it............Then that is Black privilege right ??

When Denzil and Halle say it is a great day for black people when they win an oscar that is okay.......Yet you know that there would be hell to pay if a white actor said it about his race.....That is Black privilege right ??

Life isn't perfect kid.............But what we can do is try to be a little more objective....Life is too short...

You should stop generalising so much.....You're beginning to sound like ONETWO.

So you are trying to debunk the idea of white privilege where ethnic minorities (in this case Asian and arab) are branded as criminals and terrorists in situations where white people wouldn't because Denzil Washington said on tv 'that this is a great day for black people' when he won an Oscar?

You are trying to suggest that people are inheritently racist because they assume an man of ethnicity crashing into people in London was a terror attack because there have been 3 terror attacks involving ethnic men crashing into people in London this year.

It's ridiculous. Victim culture.

Think you've got it all mixed up MM and it has more to do with what's happened lately than anything else, when the first attack happened with someone ploughing into a load of people, nobody really knew what happened, then it was confirmed as a terrorist attack, then it happened again, and again and in different countries so in these times (unfortunately) people are going to jump to that conclusion, what was really good to see was the media reporting straight away when they found out that it wasn't a terrorist attack (which if 'white privelige (god i hate that term)' was involved wouldn't have been the case 'whitey doesn't want to look stupid now'

A lone gunman in America isn't exactly shocking news these days (again unfortunately) and as i've mentioned above it's not at this moment terrorism as it just seems like a nutjob killing people (was dunblane a terror attack, the school shootings that occur, a riot (like london) etc etc).

Derbymanc wrote:Think you've got it all mixed up MM and it has more to do with what's happened lately than anything else, when the first attack happened with someone ploughing into a load of people, nobody really knew what happened, then it was confirmed as a terrorist attack, then it happened again, and again and in different countries so in these times (unfortunately) people are going to jump to that conclusion, what was really good to see was the media reporting straight away when they found out that it wasn't a terrorist attack (which if 'white privelige (god i hate that term)' was involved wouldn't have been the case 'whitey doesn't want to look stupid now'

A lone gunman in America isn't exactly shocking news these days (again unfortunately) and as i've mentioned above it's not at this moment terrorism as it just seems like a nutjob killing people (was dunblane a terror attack, the school shootings that occur, a riot (like london) etc etc).

I think if the gunman in vegas was Asian/Arabic he would be labelled as a terrorist even if no motive was found.

I would also add that the vegas gunman is a terrorist under Nevada law.

I don't think your entirely wrong there, not with the climate around the world at the moment that is basically 'where is the next attack coming from? 'what form will it be this time?'

This is why i think it was important for newstations to report as soon as when things have been cleared up (like the car the other day).

It's that the one that says it's a terrorist if it causes terror to the general public? if so then really a drunk driver out of control is a terrorist too :-)

Muscular-mouse wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When Black Lives Matter are filmed telling their white supporters to go to the back of the crowd and the liberal media hardly reports it............Then that is Black privilege right ??

When Denzil and Halle say it is a great day for black people when they win an oscar that is okay.......Yet you know that there would be hell to pay if a white actor said it about his race.....That is Black privilege right ??

Life isn't perfect kid.............But what we can do is try to be a little more objective....Life is too short...

You should stop generalising so much.....You're beginning to sound like ONETWO.

So you are trying to debunk the idea of white privilege where ethnic minorities (in this case Asian and arab) are branded as criminals and terrorists in situations where white people wouldn't because Denzil Washington said on tv 'that this is a great day for black people' when he won an Oscar?

You took that from my post..

Wow...Really.

Derbymanc wrote:I don't think your entirely wrong there, not with the climate around the world at the moment that is basically 'where is the next attack coming from? 'what form will it be this time?'

This is why i think it was important for newstations to report as soon as when things have been cleared up (like the car the other day).

It's that the one that says it's a terrorist if it causes terror to the general public? if so then really a drunk driver out of control is a terrorist too :-)

my understanding of the Nevada law is if someone INTENDS to cause MASS harm to the general public;

act of terrorism means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:I don't think your entirely wrong there, not with the climate around the world at the moment that is basically 'where is the next attack coming from? 'what form will it be this time?'

This is why i think it was important for newstations to report as soon as when things have been cleared up (like the car the other day).

It's that the one that says it's a terrorist if it causes terror to the general public? if so then really a drunk driver out of control is a terrorist too :-)

my understanding of the Nevada law is if someone INTENDS to cause MASS harm to the general public;

act of terrorism means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population.

So it is not enough that white people repudiate any violence..

Let us start a petition saying the Vegas shooter is a terrorist..

Then everything will be good in the World.

Come on really??

See again it's open to interpretation, is an armed robber a terrorist as he's using coercion and violence that will cause bodily harm or death if demands aren't met, same with kidnappers etc.

I think we're way off point though and that your getting wound up by something that shouldn't wind you up.

The Vegas shooter was a piece of scum that everybody has acknowledged is a piece of scum

The 'terrorist' on the bridge was shown to not be a terrorist and we all breathed a little sigh of relief happy that this time it wasn't.

Derbymanc wrote:See again it's open to interpretation, is an armed robber a terrorist as he's using coercion and violence that will cause bodily harm or death if demands aren't met, same with kidnappers etc.

I think we're way off point though and that your getting wound up by something that shouldn't wind you up.

The Vegas shooter was a piece of scum that everybody has acknowledged is a piece of scum

The 'terrorist' on the bridge was shown to not be a terrorist and we all breathed a little sigh of relief happy that this time it wasn't.

Under their statute law it needs to be MASS harm, so mass killings or mass GBH committed intentionally. I am sure there will also be case law detailing exactly what constitutes mass but I am sure killing 58 people and injuring 500 more will fall under that category.

The point I am making is that the vegas shooter is not being classed as a terrorist by the public because he is white. If he was Asian or Arabic he would be classed as a terrorist even if no motive was found. White privilege.

It's not like governments have watch lists or anything is it, you'll find that every attacker labelled as a terrorist was on.

Muscular-mouse wrote:The point I am making is that the vegas shooter is not being classed as a terrorist by the public because he is white. If he was Asian or Arabic he would be classed as a terrorist even if no motive was found. White privilege.

You have no evidence for that statement. No one is disputing the classification of the crime under Nevada state law more so the more standard definition of terrorism.

What you are doing is pathetic and promoting victim culture.

He's not being classed as a terrorist by some because single person shootings happen often in America so it's not as much of a shock, the driver was at first because this type of thing has been done by terrorists on an alarmingly regular basis.

A bit like me checking on the kids if they're out in the garden and a big group of 'yoofs' walks past, most won't do anything but because we've had trouble before I always think, these might be a bunch of b*strds, 8/10 times i'm wrong but cause it happened a lot it doesn't turn that thinking off.

Gotta agree with Ent as well i'm afraid, these types of things do promote victim culture which doesn't help anybody

It's one of the best things about being white, knowing that if I go on a killing spree this afternoon I'll only be called a nutcase and not a terrorist.

Galted wrote:It's one of the best things about being white, knowing that if I go on a killing spree this afternoon I'll only be called a nutcase and not a terrorist.

Well it has a big effect on your family as the parents or family members of a terrorist are often seen as terrorists themselves.

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:The point I am making is that the vegas shooter is not being classed as a terrorist by the public because he is white. If he was Asian or Arabic he would be classed as a terrorist even if no motive was found. White privilege.

You have no evidence for that statement. No one is disputing the classification of the crime under Nevada state law more so the more standard definition of terrorism.

What you are doing is pathetic and promoting victim culture.

The evidence is how the man who crashed into the public in London was INSTANTLY branded a terrorist by many people on social media, he was an ethnic minority.

If an arab killed 58 people in vegas by shooting them you would not be making the statement that hes not viewed as a terrorist because shootings happen a lot in the USA, he would be branded a terrorist even with no motive.

That isn't evidence for that conclusion.

Evidence for that conclusion would be an Arabic lone gunman being instantly branded as a terrorist- not a hypothetical.

Even at that the most active terrorise group around is Isis.

People would have assumed the crash was a terror attack before the driver left the vehicle.

He was classed as a terrorist as that was the terrorists go to way of commiting their atrocities, bit like how the IRA used to be suspected when anything happened and how all Russians were spys during the cold war or how you think different coloured M and M's taste different but really they're all the same (apart from the blue, they go some funky stuff in them)