SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Army veteran, a recent college graduate and a student who once won a poetry contest by condemning prejudice stirred up by the Sept. 11 attacks intervened as a man screamed anti-Muslim insults at two women in Portland, Ore., on Friday.
[...] Two of the men — Taliesin Myrddin Namkai Meche, 23, and Rick Best, 53 — died in the attack, which occurred on a commuter train. The third, Micah David-Cole Fletcher, 21, was treated on Saturday for injuries that the police said were serious but not life-threatening.
Jeremy Christian, 35, of North Portland, Ore., was charged with two counts of aggravated murder in the attack and could face additional charges when he is arraigned on Tuesday. Mr. Christian, who the authorities said had a history of making extremist statements on social media, was ranting at, and talking disparagingly about, the two women, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
Source: The New York Times
President Donald Trump has released his first official statement on the attack in Portland, Oregon, more than 48 hours after the two victims died.
"The violent attacks in Portland on Friday are unacceptable," Mr Trump tweeted. "The victims were standing up to hate and intolerance. Our prayers are w/ them."
Source: The Independent
Portland law enforcement leaders were tightlipped Saturday about the investigation into Friday's attacks that killed two men on a light rail train but a federal official did say it was too early to label the incident a hate crime.
[...] Loren Cannon, special agent in charge of the Portland FBI office, [...]
"It's too early to say whether last night's violence was an act of domestic terrorism or a federal hate crime," he said. "However, in the coming days, the FBI, PPB and the prosecutors will work together to share information, leverage resources and make determinations about future criminal charges."
[...] Leaders of the Muslim community said they were thankful for the men who gave their lives to save the girls from harm. They have raised $50,000 toward a goal of $60,000 to help support the victims and their families.
Source: The Oregonian
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:46AM (44 children)
This is a terrorist act. The purpose was to make a political point.
The only reason it hasn't been labeled as such is that it wasn't someone with brown skin who killed.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:09AM (24 children)
From the description of the event I read, the man got into an argument, and eventually started stabbing. It wasn't premeditated, it wasn't calculated to further a political goal. It doesn't satisfy many definitions of terrorism:
TMB, if you are reading this, I think I have found a small bug with the spoiler tag. You need to add a line break (or probably a space character) between <spoiler> and a URL if you want the URL to be automatically converted to a hyperlink.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:28AM (7 children)
The question of premeditation is kind of a misdirection. The evidence is this guy had been working himself up to a constant state of agitation. It was only a matter of time before he popped off. The exact specifics of attack were probably not planned, but an attack was practically inevitable. Not unlike that guy in Chapel Hill [newyorker.com] who killed three muslim neighbors - the specific argument might have been the spark, but he had been piling up the mental kindling for months if not years.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:56AM (6 children)
"guy in Chapel Hill" doesn't appear to be Christian, or right wing, really.
"On Facebook, Hicks presented himself as a libertarian gun enthusiast and an “anti-theist” who wanted “religion to go away.” "
I did a search for his image. He looks white - a white bullet-head Neanderthal maybe. Alright, alright, he's white. But, you can do away with the "Christian", as well as "right wing".
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/craig-stephen-hicks-guns-anti-theism [talkingpointsmemo.com]
"Hicks declared his support for marriage equality and the LGBT community in general in several posts on his Facebook page over the years.
“I am not gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, pansexual, intersex, or asexual,” one recent post read. “I just support this crazy thought that everyone should have equal rights.”
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:29PM (3 children)
> "guy in Chapel Hill" doesn't appear to be Christian, or right wing, really.
Who said he was?
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
But, since you zeroed in on LGBTQ rights, funny thing, the alt-reich is all about support for teh gays, witness milo pedopolous.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:54PM (1 child)
The link was provided in the course of a discussion about "white, Christian, far right terrorists". This guy only gets one out of three - that was the whole point.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:10PM
Well, if talking about white christian terrorists is all that is required to start throwing links around:
Robert Dear [usatoday.com]
Sean Christopher Urbanski [fox2now.com]
Allen Scarsella [atlantablackstar.com]
Mitchell W. Adkins [washingtontimes.com]
James Harris Jackson [washingtonpost.com]
Jerad and Amanda Miller [foxnews.com]
Nah. But no one mentioned them, did they?
That's because the key factor wasn't who they were, but who they attacked.
Only your pussy, triggered mayo ass couldn't see that since you share their animus.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:57PM
Only in the most cynical way possible. They needed to illustrate that they're better than the brown people who worship a differently-branded desert religion somehow.
I'm not holding my breath for the "alt-reich" (as you put it) to come out in opposition of bathroom laws. Making the concession of gay marriage is acceptable to them. (Somebody must have realized that gay marriage does not cause anybody who wants to get straight married to lose anything.) They certainly hate us filthy gays and want us to die, but they just like to let us know they're in no particular hurry and fine if it's AIDS or poverty that does the job. Makes 'em feel like better people than their Moslem bogeyman that way.
And speaking of, Milo was the perfect LGBTQIFAOMGWTFBBQ poster boy for them. Yeah, this Milo guy, isn't he fantastic! Look at all those #salty tears he extracts from those leftist commies! And plus he proves our theory that LGBT identities are the result of childhood sexual abuse and are comorbid with pedophilia! What luck!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:53PM (1 child)
No, we cannot! That is how we spot the right-wing nut-jobs, Runaway! You of all people should know that, since it is what gets you tolerated, until you go on about abortion and women's armpits (or is that Eth?). "White Male (you forgot that part) Christians are the main source of terrorism in the America, so we cannot do away with those categories: they are useful. And useful because they correlate to reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:03PM
so keep running your mouth
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:34AM (9 children)
My understanding was that the attacker was harassing, with hate-filled language and possibly the threat of violence, two teenage girls, both brown, with one wearing a hijab. The three men intervened (as I might, as I despise a bully) and were stabbed for their efforts.
I agree this wasn't a "terrorist" (that term is thrown around with a lot of inaccuracy these days) act, but it was one fueled by hate and intolerance. Certainly heinous and, assuming the facts described are accurate, the attacker deserves to spend a long time in a small cell, alone with his hate.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:05AM (8 children)
security video from the train shows he'd made threats towards the driver (who sits in front in locked cab) as well.
This piece of white trash deserves to be blown from a cannon, his head retrieved, and set on a pike in Pioneer Courthouse Square for the crows to pick clean.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:10AM (7 children)
I disagree. Why give such a worthless piece of garbage the sweet release of death? Let him contemplate the fact that he will never see another free day ever again. Let him sit in his 6x9 cell and contemplate the stupidity and hate that put him where he will be *until he dies*.
I think that would be a much worse punishment. Killing him just lets him off the hook, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:29AM
I am for submitting his lousy ass for medical research, in lieu of those hapless animals who end up there.
He took a life; his is now forfeit. Hate to waste a perfectly good biomechanism. Maybe in his death he can make some repayment for that which he took.
If nothing else... organ donor.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:31AM (4 children)
The problem with that is, some sympathetic judge and/or parole board will set him free. The Lockerby bomber was turned loose eventually for "humanitarian reasons". Here in the states, a "life sentence" may mean as little as five years in prison.
Blow the sumbitch away, and he'll never be a worry to anyone again.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:38PM (3 children)
> The Lockerby bomber was turned loose eventually for "humanitarian reasons".
>
> Blow the sumbitch away, and he'll never be a worry to anyone again.
He had cancer and was basically permanently attached to an IV. He wasn't a worry to anyone.
So by your own logic his release was ok.
What, logic isn't really the point of your argument?
Who would have guessed?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:52PM (2 children)
How much intelligence did he possess? Was he capable of passing that intel on to Khadaffy, or any other interested parties? Terminal illness? Let the bastard terminate in a cell block. Don't turn him loose because you suddenly feel sorry for him.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:12PM
Again, not an argument that has anything to do with worrying about what he might do.
You are so twisted up you don't even realize when you are confirming the accusations against you.
Kind of like a certain president manbaby.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:58PM
I ask myself this about some people all the time. Some of the time I ask it about Runaway. And it is obvious that we cannot "blow away" Runaway because of his intelligence, but Brenda down at the Dew Drop Inn has no such reservations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:21PM
The problem with such protracted punishment if the matter of payment of the associated costs to keep him 1. alive and 2. in the USA.
If you wish to pay the full bill for such punishment yourself (or can round up enough volunteers), then go right ahead.
Where I object, though, is where you hold a gun to my head to extract funds from me to pay for keeping the person you want to punish fed and housed.
(Where restitution is not possible, I personally favor exile or execution. Yes, I will volunteer to pay for the cost of one bullet.)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:15AM (1 child)
He didn't "get into" an argument. There was not a conversation that got out of hand, or some perceived slight from one of the other passengers leading to an exchange of words, etc. You know, normal things that get one "into" an argument with someone else.
He was already "spun up". He saw the two girls, and was venting his vitriol at them. The other passengers made space for him, 3 of them tried to talk him down. That's not "getting into an argument". He was already well in the argument in his head, and it just broke out for everyone else to hear at that point.
(Score: 1, Troll) by takyon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:32AM
Was it a terrorible argument?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:35AM (2 children)
> It wasn't premeditated, it wasn't calculated to further a political goal.
I wanted to use the Daily Mail as the source for this; they link to a KOIN-TV story in which a woman who had been riding a train with the man the night before said of him:
-- http://koin.com/2017/05/28/video-stabbing-suspect-went-on-rant-night-before-attack/ [koin.com]
Back to the Daily Mail for a transcript of what the man said that previous night (the video may be at the KOIN page; I have not viewed it):
-- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4551550/Man-accused-Portland-attack-history-racist-rants.html [dailymail.co.uk]
They also quote some of what they say were Mr. Christian's Facebook posts (emphasis mine):
Those read, to me, as though he were contemplating physically harming people for political purposes (there's a fair bit more in that vein).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:28PM (1 child)
So where are the people on here that regularly decry religion as the source of all our woe, all our violence, etc.
Methinks that violent people will just use whatever excuse it at hand.
(Score: 2) by rcamera on Wednesday May 31 2017, @05:00PM
from that, we can gather that he's not a fan of christians that he doesn't perceive as "real christians". he probably also thinks he's a "real christian", but apparently doesn't think "christ's teaching of love, [and] charity..." apply to him.
besides, wan't this whole incident literally based on his intolerance for someone else's religion? FTFS, "... as a man screamed anti-Muslim insults..." is a dead giveaway. how was this particular act of violence NOT based on religion, in your opinion?
/* no comment */
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:39AM
Blerg. Who do you think you are, Bytram?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:59AM (9 children)
Terrorism is the use of violence against a civilian population for a political end. This was a solitary asshole who wound up killing a couple of good samaritans that tried to intervene. It happens more often than you might realize. This guy can probably thank Portland's victim disarmament law for the fact he's going to get a fair trial instead of a pine box.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:46AM (8 children)
Check.
Check.
Check.
So, yes, it is. Furthermore, when a muslim makes [theguardian.com] a random attack on an individual using a knife [express.co.uk], that is typically categorized as terrorism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:27AM (2 children)
"random individual" you say?
"It is thought multiple police officers were injured as the knifeman fought to get close to Parliament and inside the fence. "
I'm doing some thinking about the use of the word "terrorist" - and maybe you should do the same. That person didn't just go off, and hurt some random person, at all. He was on a mission, and those "random individual" you cite stood in his way.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:56PM (1 child)
I'm with Runaway on this one. This wasn't planned. Once you start muddying the definition of terrorism it starts getting applied to things that aren't terrorism. That's when you get tyranny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @06:07PM
You poor, sad, sad, man.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:48PM (3 children)
No, that's not a check at all. He attacked a handful of people in his immediate vicinity, do you even speak English?
"for a political end. - Check."
Nonsense! Again, I'm left wondering if you even speak English.
"Furthermore, when a muslim makes [theguardian.com] a random attack on an individual using a knife [express.co.uk], that is typically categorized as terrorism. "
And that's why I said normally I'd be the first to agree with you. The term is misused badly by the propaganda complex we call the media. There is a huge and glaring... I want to call it a bias but that's too soft. In fact, it might not be going too far to suggest that the handbag media, and their masters, are hip deep in terrorism themselves. No, I'm not saying they take any direct part in the initial violence, but they sure do try to amplify and shape and control the terror that results and use it for their own political ends.
So there is this pathetic display where any lone nutcase going off is immediately terrorism (as long as it's an Arab, or a muslim) but they resist using the word to describe the actions of the US state or those that are viewed favorably today in DC, even when they clearly and explicitly fit the definition of terrorism.
I said at the time and I stand by it - the elevation of 'terrorism' as a category somehow far more scary and requiring an entirely different response from simple 'crime' was a mistake. Terrorists are a subset of criminals. They should not be made any more glamorous or any more feared than any other subset of criminals. This whole meme that terrorism is a new threat and we have to break our own laws and quit being who we were in response to them is effectively surrendering to them, it's giving them an incredible amount of power, power they shouldn't be given, power NO ONE should be given.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:05PM
Absolutely agree. I should have read your post before writing my own reply.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:47PM (1 child)
You seem to have missed my ultimate point, which is the hypocrisy in whether an act is labeled as "terrorism" or not. In the minds of many people, Muslims commit acts of terror, while Christians commit mere acts of violence.
All I really suggested is equal treatment. If the solution is to downgrade lone wolf attacks that are currently branded as terrorism to ordinary criminal acts, then, yes, I can get behind that. But let's see it happen first.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:49AM
Anytime you see the word 'terrorist' used you should challenge that classification, you should demand justification. You were doing the opposite, misapplying the word then justifying it by the misapplication of others. Two wrongs do not make a right.
(Three lefts sometimes do make a right, but that's a different subject.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:02PM
Yeah, see, I think your argument is backwards here. The problem is NOT that this should be called a "terrorist" attack. The problem is that attacks perpetrated by Muslims are often categorically branded as "terrorism," even when ties to larger political organizations or proof that those were the primary motives are lacking.
To my mind, the entire point of using the term terrorism is, well, to cause terror. That necessarily requires EITHER a series of ongoing attacks from someone still at large OR direct affiliation with an organization that can pose an ongoing threat. Otherwise, such events aren't effective "terrorism." There's no reason to feel unsafe if an isolated lone attacker is behind bars or killed (and thus the threat is removed). Just because a violent act is associated with a political viewpoint shouldn't mean it's "terrorism."
(And yes, I know my viewpoint doesn't necessarily accord with official FBI definitions or whatever. But this seems to accord with the root of where the word comes from.)
This is becoming an increasing problem these days with the rise of more and more "lone wolf" attacks. Many such attacks have tenuous ties to larger political movements (if any at all). Nevertheless, if the attacker is Muslim, ISIS will claim responsibility, the media and politicians will portray any vague ties with any suspicious people around the person as proof of "terrorist links." The implication of such connections is that the larger organization is the one who threatens MORE such attacks. But if the larger organization had no direct control, how can it reliably threaten such attacks? In which case, it seems odd to term it "terrorism," other than terror trumped up by the media and politicians as part of a reaction.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:17AM (5 children)
Terror. I'm thinking about that. Christian is obviously a douchebag, scum of the earth, white supremacist. A "terror" attack requires a few things, it seems to me. A goal, some planning, maybe some logistics support, which indicates collusion and conspiracy. This particular freak appears to be a loose cannon. He doesn't appear to be a member of a terror organization. Just some random violence here, born of his hatred for anything non-white.
I think giving him the title "terrorist" gives him to much dignity, to much credibility.
At most, maybe Christian is an indicator that white supremacist violence MIGHT be on the rise. The last white supremacist we heard from was that Roof asshole. Have I missed anyone in between these two? Lanza, a few years back.
Seriously, how much white supremacist violence is there? They seem few and far between, they lack coordination, and there are no quasi-official groups claiming credit for the acts committed.
I prefer to refer to this as just some nutter, who should have been drowned when he was a puppy. Let me just do a quick search . . .
This guy has to go all the way back to 1984 to compile a list of ten terror attacks committed by - let me get this straight - "radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups." Those three terms include a lot of people, three different groups that may overlap, but the terms are not synonymous. Hell, there are "far right" groups in countries with no white population.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men [alternet.org]
I'm thinking about this, but I'm not inclined to dignify the asshole with any title. He's just a common dirtbag in my mind.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:01AM (4 children)
This should give you a better sense of how this goes. Not just in the US, but worldwide. Oh, and you're welcome.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619 [globalresearch.ca]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:21PM (1 child)
First, the article is rather dated - four years ago, a number of terror attempts had not yet been incubated. Published in January, and the Boston Marathon bombing happend four months later. Ooops - sorry, it has apparently been updated to include the Boston Marathon. But, then, the author(s) go on to discount that bombing as "murders", not terrorism. Do I need to go further to demonstrate that the article is terribly slanted in favor of a political view?
Second: The article attempts to segregate US born Muslims from Arabic Muslims, and further, to segregate Muslim terrorists from Arabia. To what purpose? If a native born white or black American who is Muslim shouts "Allah Akhbar!" during the commission of a terrorist act, he doesn't count as a Muslim? WTF? Again, the article is slanted in favor of a political view.
The article states, "Moreover, different groups have different agendas about how to classify the perpetrators", and then they fall into the trap of pushing an agenda. A Muslim is a Muslim, doesn't matter what color he is, what language he speaks, what kind of costume he wears, or what country he was born in. If a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, as the Tsarnaev brothers did, they are Islamic terrorists. They do not have to belong to some select club within Islam to qualify as an Islamic terrorist.
So, I smell political agenda in this article, and I go to Global Research "About" page. "Global Research Centre for Research on Globalization". Hmmmm. Right there, you have a giveaway. I am no globalist. Globalists are going to paint a rosy picture of a future with one world government (ultimately) with everyone on earth happily singing Kumbaya. I veiw globalization as a dystopia, no better than the world portrayed in the novel, '1984'.
Now, you do realize, I'm not enamored with the government's security theatre. I'm not happy about very much of the government's agendas, overseas. I was very unhappy about the invasion of Iraq, which directly led to the birth and growth of DAESH. There are a lot of things I don't like about the current state of affairs. But, I am adamantly opposed to globalization. And, you'll forgive me for not taking Global Research seriously.
No, Muslims are not responsible for every bad thing that happens in the US. But, Muslims are responsible for more than their fair share. And, Islam is incompatible with our form of government, our form of justice, our way of life. Islam grants liberty to exactly no one. While I am famous (or infamous) for opposing the gay rights movement, you have never heard me calling for gays to be thrown from the top of the Empire State building. Islam is a totalitarian form of government, which Islam wants to impose on you and I.
https://www.politicalislam.com/totalitarian-islam/ [politicalislam.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:22PM
Again the mental black-hole calls the kettle black.
You complain that the center for global research which cites facts from the FBI and Interpol is biased.
And then you justify your bigotry by citing a website authored by a guy with a degree in physics [politicalislam.com] who has been widely identified as a guy who is cashing in on the anti-islam scam. [splcenter.org]
Clearly your citation a much higher alt-quality source.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
The link I gave you was an accident - it's one of several pages I had opened. This one is much better - https://www.politicalislam.com/political-islam-totalitarian-doctrine/ [politicalislam.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @06:10PM
Yeah, that's what she said!
One cannot help but wonder if this is also true for all of Runaway2000's reference material.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:16AM
The only terrorist aspect in this is that it helps the other side. All of other checkboxes do not match. First and foremost, it looks not premeditated.
If you want to find a better parallel, think about the guys who killed Luca Massari, a taxi man who accidentally ran over their dog, which according to how some people react, justifies an eternal ban on all animal rights movements.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:03PM (1 child)
You have that backwards. Its not the skin color of the victim that matters.
When the killer is white, its not terrorism, its due to mental health problems.
When the killer is brown, then its terrorism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:57AM
Because many people from white communities act as individuals. While many from "brown" communities act as a collective. This has consequences when judging the patterns of how people act.