To the "Silent Majority"

Put your money where your mouth is or pay the piper!

Published on May 27, 2004 By greywar In Politics

I frequently find myself being told either by individuals in conversation or informed by the media that most violent acts or unpleasant things in life are the action of the "vocal minority" or "extremist groups" who do not represent the "silent majority". This tired old saw is trotted out for everything from the reasons why the Democratic party is being hijacked by the left, the excuse for Islamic terror groups, to why Americans are fat bastards. Frankly I am tired of it. I will allow it has *some* uses within your own social groups. For instance when democrats talk amongst themselves about their party then by all means use the argument as an incentive to incite action. When you are talking to non-party members and use it as an explanation of why some recent statement was made or whathaveyou it loses it's impact. Police up your own chosen social group or get lumped in with them.

Recently Muggaz wrote an article depicting a possible future terror attack by U.S. based extremist groups. In the comments another analogy was drawn using the KKK as an example group. This perfectly illustrates my point. The reason that I don't buy into the agument is that the US doesn't *let* it's extremist groups run rampant on others nations soil! We keep the KKK here and well under wraps. They do not bomb Africa or target "jew-lovers" globally. As soon as white folks got tired of being associated with these psychopaths we as a society crushed them out to avoid the possible repercussions of allowing them to continue unabated. Enlightened self-interest. We as a society decided long ago that we keep our problems solved within our own borders. Our Christian fundamentalists are not out there flying passenger jets into Muslim owned skyscapers. None of these things happen. Yet the Muslim world seems to think that they get a pass by having someone giving a CNN interview condeming each recent terror act. Lip service is easy, actual action is difficult.

You folks get no more passes from me. If you are *truly* the "silent opposition" and not the "non-active supporters" or teror hows about actually moving your dead asses and stopping your own fucking neighbors? Take an example from Abu Ghraib, when that miserable bunch of fucking retards were exposed as shit-floaters in the US gene pool, we stepped on them! There were no parades on the "American Street" like we see from your side of the house. When we find a nest of domestic vipers in our national house they get squashed and fast. We don't wait for you to deal with our problems, so why would you think our patience with you would be infinite?

If someone who lives in your apartemnt as your roommate is pissing off your neighbors it will become incumbent upon *you* the person nearest them to reign them in. If you don't, guess what? Eventually you will pay the price right alongside them. This is the lesson we learned long ago. As an older civilization it is amazing to me that the Arab world has not learned this. Or perhaps they know it quite well and simply have no desire to flush out the vipers from their ranks? Something to think about. *Before* you get the eviction notice that your buddy earned you.

note: these were just easy targets for the venting of spleeange. the argument easily applies to right wing or any other brand of "extremists" who are tolerated or tacitly encouraged by the "silent majority".

Comments (Page 2)

Saint Ying

on May 28, 2004

I don't see how you can "understand" the reasoning behind flying airplanes into buildings with the intent to murder as many innocent civilians as possible.

Well I'll tell you one thing, it's not because they 'hate freedom'. And it's not rational at all. But any phenomenon on earth can and should be understood with the best of our ability. Just because your mind doesn't allow you the luxury and benefit of understanding doesn't mean you should lash out at those that want to know. When you add everything together and look at all the factors, the biggest of which is fundamentalist Islam, it definately does not appear as random or arbitrary violence. Your last sentance is absolutely dumbfounding. If I was a conservative totalitarian I would say that you need to be destroyed for such dangerous thinking, but since I am a benevolent leftist totalitarian, I reccomend a friendly, happy, kindly course of Stalinist reeducation in a happy happy village of friendly happy Siberians.

kingbee

on May 28, 2004

but since I am a benevolent leftist totalitarian, I reccomend a friendly, happy, kindly course of Stalinist reeducation in a happy happy village of friendly happy Siberians

awwwww comrade man...i hate cold weather. cant i get a transfer to guantanamo?

greywar

on May 28, 2004

which whitefolks did that?

Madine

on May 28, 2004

its foolish to suggest that the U.S. and the Middle East have or have had a similar abundance of dissenters and terrorists, but that the U.S. has dealt with its own

There are plenty of dissenters in the U.S. The difference is that neither the government nor the people support or tolerate violent "citizen initiatives".

If the U.S. population was largely sympathetic to extremists and dissidents, and if such groups were as abundant and powerful as they are in the middle east, the government would have a hard time containing them.

I thnk that is the point of greywar's article. If people don't want to be represented by a radical minority, they need to oppose that radical minority.

If it were as simple as a bunch of crack-pot terrorist killing indiscriminately, I think you and people who share your beleifs would have a lot more support from the International community.

There is a great deal of support in the international community to fight terrorism. Almost every country in the world supports the US's initiative to fight terrorism in some way.

Well I'll tell you one thing, it's not because they 'hate freedom'. And it's not rational at all. But any phenomenon on earth can and should be understood with the best of our ability.

A more specific way to phrase what Brad said would be, "It's absurd to cite government policy as a motive for indiscriminate murder."

shadesofgrey

on May 28, 2004

which whitefolks did that?

If mainstream american supported the KKK tacitly in the same way the Arab street supports terrorism I would have to only say President David Duke. That is my point. Where is Duke now BTW? Oh yeah, jail. While the left certainly didn't nail the coffin shut on the KKK that simply would not have been possible if the rest of country had been backing them. Thats my point.

Greywar, You can't compare the KKK today with terror in the Middle East...it just doesn't work. Compare racial hatred and actions 100 years ago with what goes on in the Middle East today and maybe you've got a case. But for the comment on "President David Duke": no, he's long gone singing about his "Friend's with White Faces," but that didn't stop the elections of the late Strom Thurmond who was proud of having the longest fillabuster in history. What did he fillabuster? The Civil Rights Act. Also, Trent Lott was Senate Majority Leader and had some questionable race ethics. So while we may be more civilized today than the Middle East, or even than the US 100 years ago, we are not a perfect society.

Sorry, that was all a bit tangential.

shadesofgrey

on May 28, 2004

There are plenty of dissenters in the U.S. The difference is that neither the government nor the people support or tolerate violent "citizen initiatives".

The difference is that the US allows for the dissenters to enter the political realm freely.

"It's absurd to cite government policy as a motive for indiscriminate murder."

Terrorism is politically motivated, thus by definition the policy of some government is infact the *motivation* for the terrorist acts. Otherwise, it would simply be called mass murder. Whether *fighting* for freedom, self determination, human rights, or whatever it is that THEY perceive the injustice to be--terrorism is undeniablly politically motivated. Does that make it right? or moral? Absolutely not. And let me just interrupt everyone who disagrees with this right now...do not, I repeat, do NOT give me the line about being a terrorist sympathizer. It's a bullshit way to end an argument when you don't agree with what is being said. In order to fight terrorism, we must understand it. Understanding and condoning are not the same thing. You must know your enemy to defeat your enemy.

eieio

on May 28, 2004

In order to fight terrorism, we must understand it. Understanding and condoning are not the same thing. You must know your enemy to defeat your enemy.

I take a small exception to this.

Although, we need to know and understand the terrorists methodology to combat them, understanding their motivations is not required.
Now, understanding their motivations can be useful in correcting or changing the root causes of the behaviour, but is a secondary consideration when bombs are being blown up, planes are being flown into buildings, etc.

The prime consideration is stopping the terrorism, thus stopping the killing of innocent people. This can most effectively and quickly be done by examining methodology, not motivation.

Draginol

on May 28, 2004

Good to know that terrorists have such an advocate in Saint Ying.

Al Qaeda and the KKK have a lot in common in my view. I don't reallly care to "understand" where the KKK is coming from. The difference though is that the KKK doesn't have popular support in the United States amongst the civilian population and the government doesn't turn a blind eye to them.

Madine

on May 28, 2004

Terrorism is politically motivated, thus by definition the policy of some government is infact the *motivation* for the terrorist acts.

The point is that to make a connection between flying planes into the WTC and US foreign policy, you have to go outside the bounds of what is "reasonable".

David St Hubbins

on May 28, 2004

Although, we need to know and understand the terrorists methodology to combat them, understanding their motivations is not required.

I take enormous exception to this.

On the morning of Sept. 11 2001 I did not know who Osama Bin Laden was. I was vaguely familiar with Al-Quaeda, but to be honest there seems to be too many terrorists groups in the middle east; they all blur into one another after a while. After work on Sept. 11 I went home and googled. I needed to know why this happened and who the Osama guy was. It turns out he had issued a 'fatwa' against America; the reasons stated were: 1) American support of the State of Israel in the Palestinian conflict; 2) American military bases on Saudi Arabian soil; 3) 500,000 lives lost during the Iraqi embargo. Thanks to the invasion of Iraq, you can add a fourth reason why there are 18,000 Al-Quaeda members today who would love nothing more than to burn America to the ground, and that shoe has yet to drop.

I distinctly remember seeing Netenyahu on TV that day saying "The real reason for this attack is they hate our freedom" Hmmmm. I also remember Dan Rather telling the tens of millions of viewers that "The real reason they attacked us is we're winners and they're losers". Hmmmm. Since then, President Bush has stated numerous times that the attack occurred because "They hate our freedom" Hmmmmm.

I doubt that 1 in 50 Americans could give a coherent, logical reply if you asked them why 9/11 occurred. And I don't blame them, when their President and their media feed them this baloney. 9/11 didn't occur because these guys are a bunch of crazy A-rabs. I've seen polls indicating that over 50% of Americans believe Iraq was behind it, which is of course both sad and bogus.

To suggest that it is irrelevant *why* 3,000 people died that day is beyond stupid; it's stupid, multiplied by obtuse, raised to the power of ignorant. Here in the civilized world it is hard to picture what actions could justify the deaths of 3,000 civillians, but over in the Middle East 3,000 dead is just another bad week. 3,000 dead viewed within the context of 500,000 deaths caused by the US led embargo on Iraq gives you a more accurate picture of what we're dealing with here. The implications of this idea that 'nothing the USA has done could possibly justify 9/11' are dangerous. America is no angel and it's actions are not beyond scrutiny. To me, when people are unwilling to question why something happens to them, its because deep down they know that their actions might have something to do with the consequences.

Here in Canada, we had a Jewish school firebombed recently. Predictably, our Prime Minister said this was an attack on all Canadians, and an attack on our way of life. Coincidently, this attack occurred about a week after Israel assasinated that Yassin fellow. The firebombers actually left a note explaining this was in retaliation for the Yassin killing. So when my Prime Minister tells me this was an attack on all Canadians and our way of life, it is a fucking outrageous lie. And when politicians blatantly lie to me, I start asking lots of questions.

Is an American military base in Saudi Arabia, halfway around the world, so necessary that Bush is willing to risk the lives of all Americans? Is it not time to tell Israel 'Cut a deal. Now'? Have the actions of the American government been beyond reproach? Do Americans realize that their government's blind support of Israel, a country half way around the world, endangers the lives of all Americans?

In a recent poll guess what 70% of Europeans viewed as the biggest threat to world peace? Al Quaeda? Nope. Crazy A-rabs who hate our freedom? Nope. Geroge Bush? Nope. It's Israel. Reflect on that for a moment.

Do I believe we should kowtow to the terrorists demands? No. It's not that simple. Anyone read about what happened in Thailand last month? Thailand is a 93% Buddhist nation but there are 4 million Muslims in the south and they're Wahhabi Muslims (ie the really militant ones). Anyhoo, a bunch of these bozos decided to raid the local police station to get weapons and ammo. Trouble was, the Thai police were tipped off and waiting for them. The Thais dont (fiddle) around; they shot over 100 of them on the spot. Why did the muslims do this? There is a movement to create a Muslim superstate across South East Asia, so in this case there was no 'cause - effect' per se.

I'm a pretty bright guy and a I read a lot. And I'm willing to concede that the questions of terrorism and the Iraqi invasion may be too big for me to get a handle on, which means it's probably beyond the grasp of many of us to gain a full understanding of the picture. But we can try. ABQ, baby. Always Be Questioning. Remember, the real enemy is bullshit.

Suggested replies, cut and paste as necessary:
-You hate freedom
-You hate America
-You hate Israel
-You love terrorists
-WHO CARES WHY THEY DID THIS YOU ARE A COMMIE PINKO APPEASER DIE DIE DIE
-You are a French frog
-You are blacklisted forever
-You are saying America deserved to be attacked
-Go to hell

kingbee

on May 28, 2004

If mainstream american supported the KKK tacitly in the same way the Arab street supports terrorism I would have to only say President David Duke. That is my point. Where is Duke now BTW? Oh yeah, jail. While the left certainly didn't nail the coffin shut on the KKK that simply would not have been possible if the rest of country had been backing them

in fact, mainstream america DID tacitly support the kkk. to the extent that the klan that operated with virtual impugnity during the 1980s. dont kid yourself into thinking otherwise. a videotape of klan members killing 5 people and injuring 11 others in broad daylight was shown on national news in 1979, yet no one firing the murder weapons was convicted for murder.

the klan was considered dead until the mid-1920s when it came back with a vengeance, gaining membership estimated at minimum 3 million to as many as 9 million. it was powerful enough that klan kandidates for governor took office in 4 states (two of which were california and oregon).

throughout the 60s and 70s, klan murderers were acquitted in cases that have been reoopened only in the past 10 years including the terrorist bombing of a church in mississippi in 1964 and the assassination of medgar evers in 63.

eisenhower attempted to sway earl warren's decision in brown vs board with a whispered plea at a dinner in the whitehouse. j edgar hoover focused the fbis efforts against martin luther king jr instead of the klan

kingbee

on May 28, 2004

Suggested replies, cut and paste as necessary:

you forgot one...

thats a much more intelligent and logical response than ive been able to formulate to date. thanks

jeblackstar

on May 28, 2004

Draginol, there are places inthe United States where the KKK does indeed have the support of the local populace and the local law enforcement.

Cheers

eieio

on May 28, 2004

David
After reading your post, I fail to see why you feel understanding the terrorists motivations is required. It seems that you do feel it is required given your quote of my statement. The closest answer I can find in your post is that attempting to understand the motivation is to assuage some undefined guilt that US citizens may be feeling.

If you continued to read my post, and I'm sure you did, you also saw that I believe motivation can be useful to prevent or deter future occurences. But that doesn't negate the fact that the immediate threat to life must be stopped. And that is best acheived by "Who did it?, Where are they?, How can we get them?"

I think of it as similar, in a way, to triage. If a patient's heart has stopped beating, you do what is neccesary to get the heartbeat back and save his life. Then comes the search for the cause to prevent future occurences. In the case of triage, neither invalidates the other, but, to use the comparable terms in this discussion, methodology must come before motivation.

Some people give the impression that the motivation is the only factor that counts and is the only one worth considering. Anyone who thinks otherwise is "beyond stupid; it's stupid, multiplied by obtuse, raised to the power of ignorant" to quote your words.

Saint Ying

on May 28, 2004

Suggested replies, cut and paste as necessary:

you forgot one...

thats a much more intelligent and logical response than ive been able to formulate to date. thanks

I second that.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!