Boy, some people see race in everything…
Chicago investigators are questioning four African-Americans after a Facebook Live video shows a group of people torturing a white mentally disabled man while someone yelled “F*** Trump!” and “F*** white people!”
Chicago police were made aware of the video Tuesday afternoon. A young African American woman streamed the video live on Facebook showing at least four people holding the young white man hostage.
In the video, the victim is repeatedly kicked and hit, his scalp is cut, all while he is tied up with his mouth taped shut….The victim is … believed to have been held hostage and tortured in an apartment in the 3400 block of West Lexington on the West Side, Guglielmi said.
(That’s “Fuck Trump!” and “Fuck white people!”, just in case you thought the phrases were “Free Trump!” or “Feel white people!”)
Now here is how the Associated Press initially reported the story:
Chicago police say they are investigating a video circulating on social media that shows several people beating a man at a residence. Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said at a news conference Wednesday that four suspects are in custody. Formal charges have not been filed.
Johnson says the victim, who has “mental health challenges,” is recovering. Johnson calls the video “sickening,” and Police Cmdr. Kevin Duffin says the suspects made “stupid decisions.” Officers were called to a residence on the city’s West Side Tuesday evening where they found signs of a struggle and damaged property.
Videos of the alleged incident were posted on social media. Police say it is too soon to make a determination if the attack was racially motivated.
“Police say it is too soon to make a determination if the attack was racially motivated.”
!!!
KABOOM!
There it is! The first head explosion of 2017!
[A brief pause while I mop, scoop, and re-fill…]
Meanwhile, ABC and NBC didn’t deem the incident newsworthy enough to include in their evening newscasts, and the “CBS Evening News“ was the lone network to cover the story yesterday, telling us this:
“Well, Chicago, which just had one of its most violent years ever, was the scene of another horrifying attack this week. A young man, described as law enforcement sources as developmentally challenged, was beaten, kicked, and tormented for half an hour.”
The report concluded by noting that the attack was streamed live on Facebook, that the victim “had been reported missing from his home in the suburbs,” was being treated in the hospital, and that four suspects were in custody.” Race? Hate crime?
The larger context of this is the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, in which the initial stage of the news media’s effort to assist Democrats with their fear-mongering regarding Trumps election was to report that dozens of “hate crimes” against Muslims and minorities had been alleged, possibly spurred by Trump’s election. All of these were credulously reported without police confirmation that the victims were targeted because of race, ethnicity or religion, and many were never verified, while some were later revealed as outright hoaxes.
Writes an angry conservative lawyer/blogger John Hinderaker:
“The Left’s insane hatred of Donald Trump has spun out of control, and there have been far too many instances of this sort of depraved violence. I don’t want to hear another damn word about “hate crimes” against minorities supposedly inspired by Donald Trump’s campaign or election, not unless they equal this level of depravity.”
Is it fair to attribute this horrific incident to over-heated anti-Trump rhetoric? Maybe not, but it is more fair than the post-election “White supremacists are attacking blacks, Muslims and Mexicans because of Trump” narrative the news media eagerly embraced for weeks. To reflect on the three installments of “Major Ethics Alarm: American Journalism Is Crumbling Before Our Eyes” yesterday (here, here, and here), this is more evidence, and of a particularly ugly stripe.
All that an ethical news source had to do yesterday was report the facts. The races of the people involved were obviously a material fact, since “Fuck white people!” was one of the things the torture victim was forced to say. Why would any competent and fair editor allow both the racial identification and what was said by the victim to be left out of the news report? The answer is that the editors and reporters involved were not competent and fair. They were biased and deceptive. They were hiding the ball, covering up, and deceiving their readers, or, in the case of CBS, their viewers.
Yes, when a news story is intentionally misrepresented to make it appear materially different than what it is, that’s fake news, as much as “John Podesta Tied to Child Sex Ring in DC Pizza Place” but worse, because it is more likely to deceive people like you and me.
This is why the public doesn’t trust the news media, and shouldn’t. This is why so many white Americans feel that there is a double standard being applied regarding racism, violence and hate—because there is, and it is being intentionally enforced by the news media. Recall that the news media insisted that George Zimmerman’s fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin was racially driven because he was a “white Hispanic-American” and his victim was black. But when four African Americans torture a white boy and make him shout”Fuck Trump!” and “Fuck white people!” as they stream it on Facebook, the mainstream media initially reacts with “Race? Hate? We don’t see any race or hate!”
The episode is also Exhibit A proving why Fox News, conservative talk radio and the right-wing websites, for all their own flaws and biases, are essential to prevent the mainstream media from getting away with this kind of attempted deception.
Condemning such reporting should be bi-partisan, and bi-racial, but I see scant evidence that it is. If African American activists and advocates, progressives and Democrats don’t find the unethical reporting of this episode infuriating and unacceptable, then they also can’t be trusted. It is only the fact that the news media believes its market wants this kind of slanted and misleading journalism that they continue to do it.
And at the risk of triggering a second explosion by even thinking about it, if “Police say it is too soon to make a determination if the attack was racially motivated” in a case where four blacks torture a white kid to shout “Fuck white people” isn’t the most ridiculous thing you have ever read in a news story, I’m not sure I want to know what the winner is—and Police Cmdr. Kevin Duffin’s statement that the suspects made “stupid decisions” is almost as bad.
Gee, Commander, which decisions are you referring to? Kidnapping a teen who is developmentally challenged? Torturing him? Forcing him to utter racist phrases? Streaming it on Facebook? The first thing that comes to your mind considering these acts is “stupid,” is it?
Ethics Alarms 
The left’s phony narrative that boils down to “white men bad, everything else good” is falling apart, and simply not accepted by the majority of Americans. However, the left is still firmly in control of most of the print and broadcast media of this country. They are trying to strengthen their hold over it now, so gaslighting, omissions, misleading headlines, and out and out lying are all fair game.
I heard a rumor that in Germany in the 1930’s, the ruling party had a phony narrative saying that one particular group of people were bad while the German people were good.
I wonder if anything bad came out of that…
Yes, whites are definitely the persecuted minority in America. Where is your concern for the demonization of Muslims in this country?
Chris: Muslims are “demonized” because their religion is prehistoric, does not speak at all to the modern world, and calls for — officially — the killing of all infidels. Christians and Jews and Buddhists (among all other non-Muslims) are infidels. Muslim terrorists use this language from the Koran as their rationalization for mass murder.
However, we cannot and must not group all Muslims together and ‘demonize’ the poor peace-loving Muslims, right? Wrong. When the peace-loving Muslims speak with one voice and get this hate-mongering, murderous language out of their holy book and religious thinking, then perhaps we infidels will begin to make distinctions among the peace-loving and the terror-loving Muslims.
Stand up you Muslim peace-niks! Be heard. We really do want to hear from you!
If you’re not hearing Muslims condemning terrorism, you’re not listening, and you’re not even interested in using Google to find them; bigotry is just more fun than being informed, I guess.
But you give away the game–you call on Muslims to not only condemn terror, you ask them to go back and eliminate language from their holy book! This is a standard that you know will never be met–by any religion–thus it exempts you from ever having to revise your ignorant opinion about Muslims. How convenient for you.
Not to mention your argument is beside the point, which is that demonizing a religious minority is wrong. “But what if that religion is really bad, and some are terrorists, and I’m too lazy to discover the basic fact that nearly all Muslim American organizations condemn the terrorists?” you ask. My answer to that is no, demonizing a religious minority is still wrong.
Is that an absolute, Chris?
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Point taken.
Okay, here’s what I find from preliminary research. Your response/defense is welcome. I do challenge you to find like passages in either the Bible or the Torah. I am especially fond of the later quotes from modern-day Islamic theologians who interpret the ancient text. And you call me a bigot? (I do advise you to read the whole article. I did, and was absolutely horrified.)
“The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
“Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.
“The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
“Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.
“Quran
Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran)
“The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous – the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) – and oppression (a variation of “z-l-m”) do not appear in the verse. The word used instead, “fitna”, can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
“Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
“Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
“Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
“Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
“Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
“Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
“Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
“Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).
“Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
“Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
“Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. The targets of violence are “those who disbelieve” – further defined in the next verse (13) as “defy and disobey Allah.” Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.
“Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
“Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah.” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”
“Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
“Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”
“Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”
“Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”
“Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
“[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers “wherever you find them”. Even if the context is in a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those “unbelievers” who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the ‘fighting’ of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)]
“Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “healing” the hearts of Muslims.
“Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.
“Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
“Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
“Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
“Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them.” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
“Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today’s devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith. The inclusion of “hypocrites” within this verse also contradicts the apologist’s defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad’s time. (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can’t Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam’s perpetual internal conflicts).
“Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”
“Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer?
“Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
“Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).
“Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).]
“Quran (21:44) – “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”
“Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
“Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.
“Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.
“Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”
“Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.
“Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..
“Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause.” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “rows” or “battle array,” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the “cause”: “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.
“Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of’Adn- Eternity [‘Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.
“Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such. Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org
Hadith and Sira
Sahih Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
“Sahih Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
“Sahih Bukhari (52:65) – The Prophet said, ‘He who fights that Allah’s Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause. Muhammad’s words are the basis for offensive Jihad – spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today. (See also Sahih Bukhari 3:125)
“Sahih Bukhari (52:220) – Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’
“Sahih Bukhari (52:44) – A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”
“Abu Dawud (14:2526) – The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
“Abu Dawud (14:2527) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
“Sahih Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
“Sahih Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”
“Sahih Muslim (1:30) – “The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”
“Sahih Bukhari (52:73) – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords’.”
“Sahih Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”
“Sahih Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”
“Sahih Muslim (20:4645) – “…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”
“Sahih Muslim (20:4696) – “the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'”
“Sahih Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”
“Sahih Muslim (19:4294) – “When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him… He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war… When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”
“Sahih Muslim (31:5917) – “Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: ‘Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?’ Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ‘Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger’.”
“Sahih Muslim (31:5918) – “I will fight them until they are like us.” Ali’s reply to Muhammad, after receiving clarification that the pretext for attack Khaibar was to convert the people (see above verse).
“Sahih Bukhari 2:35 “The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed).”
“Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
“Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
“Tabari 17:187 “‘By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.’ And they returned to their former religion.” The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.
“Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
“Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: Cutting off someone’s head while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ is not a ‘perverison of Islam’, but a tradition of Islam that began with Muhammad. In this passage, a companion recounts an episode in which he staged a surprise ambush on a settlement: “I leapt upon him and cut off his head and ran in the direction of the camp shouting ‘Allah akbar’ and my two companions did likewise”.
“Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
“Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 – “Embrace Islam… If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship.” One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad’s armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.
Notes
“Other than the fact that Muslims haven’t killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.
“The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam’s most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier “Meccan” verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones.
“Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran really says. They prefer a more narrow interpretation that is closer to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Some just ignore harsher passages. Others reach for “textual context” across different suras to subjectively mitigate these verses with others so that the message fits their personal moral preference. Although the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, these apologists speak of the “risks” of trying to interpret verses without their “assistance.”
“The violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni’s bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam’s Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today’s Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.
“Violence is so ingrained in Islam that it has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.
“Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.
“It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion’s most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death.
“The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves and resisted Islamic hegemony. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to “attack in self-defense”, this oxymoron is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.
“Some modern-day scholars are more candid than others. One of the most respected Sunni theologians is al-Qaradawi, who justifies terror attacks against Western targets by noting that there is no such thing as a civilian population in a time of war:
“It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar al-Harb [ie. non-Muslim people who resist Islamic conquest] is not protected… In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms.”
“Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad’s deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as “same day marriage”).
“One of Islam’s most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.” Elsewhere, he notes: “Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.”
“The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.”
“Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,” tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule – bound only by the capacity for success. (source)
“Muhammad’s failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought afterwards to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or ‘Apostasy wars’). Then the violence turned within. Early Meccan converts battled later ones as hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad’s own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter – a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others’ throats to this day.
“The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a religion of peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare…) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.
“This is what makes the Quran’s verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them literally, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them – outside of personal opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam’s holiest book either speaks to Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it’s little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community – even if most Muslims prefer not to interpret their personal viewpoint of Islam in this way.
“Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam’s most respected philosophers, understood that “the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force”, many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran’s near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. Believers in the West are often led to think that their religion is like Christianity – preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that the Quran and the bloody history of Islam’s genesis say otherwise.
“Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the “culture”, claiming that the father was merely following “the religion” and saying that the couple had to “discipline their daughter or lose respect.” (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious “holy pilgrimage” to Mecca by the Saudi king – without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.
“The most prestigious Islamic university in the world today is Cairo’s al-Azhar. While the university is very quick to condemn secular Muslims who critique the religion, it has never condemned ISIS as a group of infidels despite horrific carnage in the name of Allah. When asked why, the university’s Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb explained: ” Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day—even if he commits every atrocity.”
“For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.
“There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally… and too many others who couldn’t care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.”
TL;DR Most left wing apologists who apologize for Islam have no interest in reading the Qu’ran, the Hadith, or any of the other supporting documents. They also have no interest in consuming any of the polls, studies, or any other evidence that supports the notion that Islam is a totalitarian social arrangement with world domination ambitions.
The irony here is, you have left wingers running interference for what is arguably a far right wing ideology: Male supremacy, patriarchy, misogyny, hatred of jews, hatred of gays and lesbians, etc… are basic premises of Islamic cultural arrangements and jurisprudence (again, its a legal and political system as well as a religion). Its like a bunch of turkeys trying to defend Thanksgiving… it would be hilarious if the situation were not so grave.
Consider that self identifying with (or defending) criminal ideologies and / or openly following thug leaders will have consequences. Once of those consequences is that others will find you more than a bit sketchy… and quite reasonably so. And, before anyone starts foaming over that, consider that you’ve probably done it in the past – demonizing Nazis, communists, fascists, republicans, Trump supporters, NRA members, radical environmentalists, white supremacists, BLM and so forth. Of course, no individual is likely to trash ALL of those groups, but I’ll bet everyone has trashed at least one group at some point.
Great article, by the way.
Do you know any Muslims in real life?
What does that mean? Do you know any Republicans? Or just jihadists?
It means exactly what it says. Of course I know Republicans. Do I know jihadists? Of course not. What the fuck are you talking about?
Excellent points. I should have made them. Glad you did: they provide additional context for a real examination of Islam in the modern world, as (so you note) a legal and political system (with a modern historical record as well as an ancient one) in addition to being a religion.
I’m always amazed at how much of this stuff in the Koran. I went to Sunday School, and we read most of the old Testament. I didn’t come out of that think that I was expected to kill non-believers. But I don’t know how a Muslim could read that stuff and and NOT think he was expected to kill them.
It’s a partisan screed, Jack.
Most Muslims don’t come away thinking they’re expected to murder everybody. This is self-proving; if they did, we’d all be dead.
We’re not doing this. Do you think you’re the first person to quote scripture out of context to make a religion look bad? This is ridiculous, and far below the standards of this site. Bye.
You’re insane if you think I’m going to read all that. Alizia, is that you?
I did copy and paste a portion of your citation and entered it into Google to see where you got it from–I can see why you didn’t cite your source. Embarrassing. Why not post an article on black-on-white crime from Stormfront while you’re at it?
And you accused me of willful ignorance. What is out of context? The author of the article goes to some lengths to provide context. Your problem is that you don’t like the context so you reject the entire thing. And because you cannot defend your earlier comments you run from the discussion. Intellectual dishonesty. Cowardice. Bye.
PS I guess Jack can ding me if I’m so off the mark for this site.
My problem is that I didn’t read it, because it’s insanely long, and you’ve got a lot of nerve posting something that long and then expecting someone to read it.
I accused you of willful ignorance because you suggested that Muslims have not condemned terrorism, which is absolute bullshit. Every major American Muslim organization has done so. Muslims are the primary victims of terror from groups like ISIS; OF COURSE they’ve condemned terrorism. I’m not going to post a ten-page article proving that; Google is not hard.
But this is great. Michael Ejercito compares white men in America to Jews in Nazi Germany. I ask if he’s concerned about actual demonization against an actual religious minority. You respond by…engaging in actual demonization of said religious minority, provided by an openly bigoted source that you were too embarrassed to cite. Thank you for proving my point.
You are dead wrong. And if you really wanted to engage rather than pontificate, you would have read the material I found at your suggestion. Go ahead and stay lazy. That’s what you want. Just stop pretending you are interested in facts. I’m gone for good this time, so go on and slander me all you like.
You are dead wrong. And if you really wanted to engage rather than pontificate, you would have read the material I found at your suggestion.
What? When did I suggest that you find a 7,000 word, 13-page (on Google Docs) rant from a bigoted hate site and then demand I read it? I suggested that you Google examples of Muslims condemning terrorism, since you weren’t aware of any, and that’s what you think I meant? You’re a ridiculous person.
By the way, I skimmed. This is one of the verses that your source thinks proves Islam is a hateful political ideology so different from every other major religion:
““Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Wow, how awful that Islam, unlike Christianity, believes that non-believers will go to Hell!
“Where is your concern for the demonization of Muslims in this country?”
Was this sarcastic?
No. Do you think Michael’s comparison between white men in America to Jews in Nazi Germany was sarcastic? For the record, I don’t.
Prior to the rise of the Nazis, Germany’s record regarding the treatment of the Judenvolk was much better in France, let alone Russia. In 1892, I doubt anyone would have suspected that Germany would in half a century launch a war to exterminate European Jewry- such a thing would be done by Russia or Poland, if it happened at all. Even in the days of the Weimar Republic, Jews were accepted.
Would have been a candidate for “Things that will help Trump get elected”
Now, it simply keeps normal Americans (you know, the ones from whom the media gets a paycheck) reminded how corrupt the dying main stream liberal media is. In the past, people went back to sleep (back to the business of living, that is) pretty quickly after an election. I don’t believe that is the case for quite so many this time. The Zeitgeist is different this time (I hope and pray)
People are sensitive to this sort of hypocrisy after the past election cycle. A smart media would simmer down and give the snooze button time to work. Perhaps they don’t know any other way to report. GOOD.
#thiswillgetTrumpreelected
I’m just holding out hope that this is some sort of unbelievably distasteful hoax.
I’m not going to say that it’s impossible to be a hoax… But it would buck the trend. I could list off the top of my head dozens of politically or racially motivated hoaxes… But they all came from the left. Maybe it’s the bubble I’m in, but from my experience, when a conservative was found to have been dishonest, it’s usually an embellishment as opposed to the calculated, planned out, media supported deceptions the left comes out with.
CNN dedicated a fair part of the evening to the story.
And they also mentioned exactly why the police were unable to say if this was a hate crime. The victim had apparently been in the company of his attackers for one to two days beforehand, given the long period of time before the attack happened they prefer to investigate what happened during that time.
But, of course, any Fox News watcher only needs to know white person attacked by black people to reinforce their prejudices and feel smug.
Idiotic comment. Not as bad as deery’s but still idiotic. I’ll give you the same pass I’m giving him. After this, I won’t cite this to show your bias has eaten your brain, but I’d have a check-up if I were you. Quick.
“And they also mentioned exactly why the police were unable to say if this was a hate crime. The victim had apparently been in the company of his attackers for one to two days beforehand, given the long period of time before the attack happened they prefer to investigate what happened during that time.”
How does that possibly explain why police were “unable to say” that four blacks torturing a white kid and making him say anti-white slogans was “race-related” or a hate crime? As a prosecutor, I could get an indictment for that based on the video alone. It is by definition a hate crime. What possibly could have occurred that would change that conclusion? Do they think the kid asked to be tortured until he said that? Is that CNN’s theory and yours?
Do you listen to yourself?
And this, is the comment of an ASSHOLE:
“But, of course, any Fox News watcher only needs to know white person attacked by black people to reinforce their prejudices and feel smug.”
It was a white kid with disabilities TORTURED on Facebook by four blacks to get him to say anti-white racist slogans. Your statement above distorts the facts, and impugns independent and objective viewers.
In fact, screw it. I’m suspending you from commenting unless you retract this. It’s insulting and offensive. E-mail me an apology and retraction, or you won’t have your comments posted until February.
Really–how dare you?
valkygrrl said, “But, of course, any Fox News watcher only needs to know white person attacked by black people to reinforce their prejudices and feel smug.”
valkygrrl, you’re nothing but a trolling Political Hack.
What would your reply to me be if I said something like this…
Any inner city black person only needs to suspect that a black person “might” have been attacked by a white person to reinforce their prejudices, feel smug, and give them cause to riot in the streets and destroy property.
Well it was certainly above the fold news this morning. My guess it occurred too late to make the regular evening news, and someone getting beat up and released isn’t really “breaking news” worthy of a breathless report. Two football players in Ohio were kidnapped, raped, and tortured, rescued by SWAT, and still didn’t make the evening news, so I think the threshold can be rather arbitrary, to say the least.
If the allegations are true, then the perpetrators certainly need to go to jail. It looks like a hate crime to my eyes, with a personal element, since at least one person knew this person well. But I highly doubt these guys voted, or even thought about voting a day in their lives. Mostly kids shouting out slogans they thought were provocative, and they were right. But they were caught, thank goodness, and I’m sure justice for them will be harsh and swift, if the allegations are correct. Maybe they will even get the same punishment as that story you wrote about, where that the white football player, with help from his teammates, rammed a hanger up a disabled black boy’s anus and got a slap on the wrist, to a very muted reaction from most of the media. Somehow I doubt it.
As for the police reaction, aren’t we always condemning everyone for “rushing to judgment” when we see video after video of black people being gunned down on video? Perhaps the police wanted to actually conduct an investigation before issuing proclamations about possible motivations? Perhaps they simply didn’t want to be hung up on their own petard as far as torture allegations went. Considering their own recent history, perhaps they are just being careful? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/opinion/chicagos-grim-era-of-police-torture.html
You should not even try to justify any of this, Deery. Out of respect for you, I’m going to forget you wrote it: regulars here get three passes per year when they disgrace themselves. Using this–“As for the police reaction, aren’t we always condemning everyone for “rushing to judgment” when we see video after video of black people being gunned down on video?” as the equivalent of a video of a white kid being tortured to shout anti-white slogans is the very definition of “knee-jerk.”
I also promise not to haul this ridiculous comment out to use later to question your objectivity and logical faculties.
Let us never speak of it again.
“regulars here get three passes per year when they disgrace themselves.”
I think you should pin this post. I’ve done some dumb things myself, and it might help to remember 3 strikes and yer out.
Yikes, I think I already used one up yesterday! 🙂
Then there are foul balls.
I’m not sure I am regular enough to get three passes. But I think I’ve earned one at least…
Nah, Dan, you get three.
“As for the police reaction, aren’t we always condemning everyone for “rushing to judgment” when we see video after video of black people being gunned down on video?” as the equivalent of a video of a white kid being tortured to shout anti-white slogans is the very definition of “knee-jerk.”
Hmmm, I consider both of them to be clear examples of “Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”
I won’t justify the crime, if things shake out as alleged. But I am carefully looking at all the knee-jerk outrage, over a guy who was beaten up, will recover easily from his injuries, with the perpetrators currently caught and arrested, and the muted reaction that is expected from some people when someone is actually killed or severely injured by actual actors of the state who routinely get no jail time, or even fired from their jobs.
I don’t even see the need for a “kabloom.” Looks like justice is being fully served in this case. No one is rising to their defense. No one is suggesting that if the guy had been more polite, nothing would have happened to him. I am fairly confident that these four people will have the book thrown at them if all the facts hold up (or even if they don’t; see Central Park 5). The media is breathless over the story. Some foolish people are even trying to link BLM to the story, as if any crime committed by black people is somehow the responsibility of Black Lives Matter. It just seems like a blatant attempt to draw false equivalencies in people’s minds. *shrugs*
The kaboom is justified by the ridiculous statement that this isn’t definitely a racially motivated crime.
The kaboom is justified by the ridiculous statement that this isn’t definitely a racially motivated crime.
Oh, it probably is…or maybe not. Perhaps the victim was shouting out anti-black statements and pro-Trump before the video started rolling, and that it was started the attack (still wrong anyway, but perhaps a bit mitigating). He was hanging out with perpetrators for days before anything happened, so it doesn’t appear to be reflexively anti-white on their part. That was probably part of the hesitation. Police normally don’t have a problem charging black people with hate crimes: Law enforcement agencies identified 5,814 known offenders in the 5,928 bias-motivated incidents. Of these offenders, 52.4 percent were white and 24.3 percent were black or African-American. , or twice the population rate.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released
deery said, “He was hanging out with perpetrators for days before anything happened, so it doesn’t appear to be reflexively anti-white on their part.”
You just wrote that as if it’s proven fact; l you are making an assumption to justify your opinion. That statement will come back to haunt you too.
In all honesty; you’re showing signs of Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome.
You just wrote that as if it’s proven fact; l you are making an assumption to justify your opinion. That statement will come back to haunt you too.
Zoltar, do better.
He was hanging out with perpetrators for days before anything happened, so it doesn’t appear to be reflexively anti-white on their part.”
That’s the scuttlebutt. But that is also why police are supposed to investigate and not jump to conclusions, to separate fact from fiction. People on here seem to castigating the police for bothering to slow down and actually look at facts before releasing inflammatory statements they can’t take back. Which is quite the switch.
deery said, “Zoltar, do better.”
You first.
deery said, “That’s the scuttlebutt.
Scuttlebutt ain’t nothing compared to the actual video which is evidence that it was racist and violent. Scuttlebutt is nothing but assumptions. Scuttlebutt is why many rioted in Ferguson and Baltimore and scuttlebutt is why there have been murders of police officers across the USA. You want to live your life based on scuttlebutt, that’s your choice, most of the time it will just make you look foolish.
deery said, “But that is also why police are supposed to investigate and not jump to conclusions, to separate fact from fiction. People on here seem to castigating the police for bothering to slow down and actually look at facts before releasing inflammatory statements they can’t take back. Which is quite the switch.”
“Fuck white people!” was racist in context to what was going on, the video is evidence and proves that fact, period! You show me a police officer that is saying that kind of shit while shooting a black man and I’ll say hes a racists in a heartbeat.
You say they were “hanging out”, that sounds so innocent; this person could have just as easily been tied up, abused, and beaten for a couple of days, you don’t know, I don’t know yet you are one developing opinions based on assumptions not me, I’m talking about what is actually in the video.
Actually, I don’t know. But as I’ve said repeatedly, that’s why the police investigate. But since they have identified the people, arrested them, and charged them with a variety of crimes, including hate crime charges, that is up to a judge or jury to decide now.
Whaddaya know? Justice can work! In less than 24 hours, no less!
deery said, “As for the police reaction, aren’t we always condemning everyone for “rushing to judgment” when we see video after video of black people being gunned down on video?”
Maybe Jack won’t haul this ridiculous comment out later as a true representative of your lack of objectivity and logical faculties, but I will. Words have consequences.
So let me get this right, you’re saying that there is “video after video of black people being gunned down…”? Really? We must take that statement in context of this particular incident, and since you brought it up, you must be implying that the shooters of these black people on all these videos you claim exist were all white people and they were all yelling or forcing their victims to shout something extremely racist like “Fuck Black People”. Show me all these equivalent racist videos of black people being gunned down by white people. I’m not saying these videos don’t exist, I’m saying prove your video claim with equivalent racists remarks.
It’s not a rush to judgement when phrases like “fuck white people” are right there in the video for everyone to hear – it was racist – period.
Zoltar, you once again (intentionally) misread and/or misinterpret things I’ve clearly stated.
Hmmm, I consider both of them to be clear examples of “Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”
That’s it, and all. Someone gets killed on video, in what clearly looks like police wrongdoing (no racial motivation needed), and we are told to “wait for the full investigation” and “we don’t know the whole story.” It’s been what, less than 24 hours for this story, and we think we have all angles covered, with some people I’ve read even calling for the death penalty (for a battery, with non-permanent injuries).
Given that the perpetrators are safely in jail, charged, with no one excusing or supporting their actions, and the victim is safe and sound, it seems like a tempest in a teapot, and as I’ve stated above, an obvious attempt to draw some false equivalencies. Dumb people are going to commit crimes. What more needs to be said?
deery said, “Zoltar, you once again (intentionally) misread and/or misinterpret things I’ve clearly stated.”
Do tell, deery; how did I misread, whether intentionally or not, and misinterpret the things I your words that I quoted. As you try to concoct your reply to this request, try to remember that I’m not the one that improperly used police shootings that were not clearly racist as a direct comparison, you are – it was a deflection.
FYI: You show me video of a police officer, white person, any non-black, that is saying that kind of shit while shooting a black man or forcing a black man to say “fuck black people” while beating him into submission and I’ll say he’s a racists in a heartbeat. I have no double standard in this regard, it’s racism, period.
P.S. Where are the videos supporting your claim?
I am going to try to be very patient with you.
If you have one video where someone looks to be doing something unambiguously in the wrong, let’s say shooting someone in the back. But people say, “hey, wait for the investigation, let’s not rush to judgment. Why are you so angry? etc.” Even though it seems to be a pretty clear violation from the tape.
And then another situation, which also looks to me to be a pretty clear crime, but those same people don’t want to wait even 24 hours before they are calling for the death penalty, blaming BLM and/or Obama, even though we have less than clear circumstances about what might have occurred in totality, mostly just rumors.
I find it to be a bit ironic, and perhaps a bit hypocritical. You obviously don’t. Ok. *shrugs*
deery said, “If you have one video where someone looks to be doing something unambiguously in the wrong, let’s say shooting someone in the back. But people say, “hey, wait for the investigation, let’s not rush to judgment. Why are you so angry? etc.” Even though it seems to be a pretty clear violation from the tape.”
You will not find anything from me where I said anything along the lines of don’t rush to judgement when the police officer shot the man in the back, it was very clear to me that he violated the law; however, there was nothing in that video where he was shouting “fuck black people” thus proving racists intentions and if you care to notice, that’s what I focused on from the start.
deery said, “And then another situation, which also looks to me to be a pretty clear crime, but those same people don’t want to wait even 24 hours before they are calling for the death penalty, blaming BLM and/or Obama, even though we have less than clear circumstances about what might have occurred in totality, mostly just rumors.
I find it to be a bit ironic, and perhaps a bit hypocritical. You obviously don’t. Ok.”
You can shove your BS implications.
Reread my comments or don’t I don’t give a damn; I’ve explained myself and you are making implications about me that do not reflect my opinion or what I’ve written. I’m done talking to you, go away mad if you like, but do go away.
You will not find anything from me where I said anything along the lines of don’t rush to judgement when the police officer shot the man in the back, it was very clear to me that he violated the law; however, there was nothing in that video where he was shouting “fuck black people” thus proving racists intentions and if you care to notice, that’s what I focused on from the start.
You inserted yourself into the narrative, not me. I don’t recall mentioning you at all., and you made the original response to me, not the other way around. You also inserted some racial intentions, when I explicitly said that was irrelevant. So insert yourself, claim arguments I did not make, and then get all huffy and insulted? Alrighty.
deery said, “You inserted yourself into the narrative, not me. I don’t recall mentioning you at all.”
deery,
I’m going to give you one chance to reread your comments to me above and then revise your words that I just now quoted. You only get this one chance, don’t waste it.
deery,
I’m going to give you one chance to reread your comments to me above and then revise your words that I just now quoted. You only get this one chance, don’t waste it.
I stand by what I wrote. I first commented yesterday at 12:21pm. There is no mention of you at all in the comment. You quote me at 2:10pm. So, yes, you inserted yourself into the narrative, and then wanted to get huffy when no one was even thinking about or quoting you at all. I’s all up there for you to see and review, if you like.
I recall now why I rarely respond to you. The discussion always ends up being bogged down into these stupid little personal spats that hold very little interest for me. Have a good day.
But, of course, any Fox News watcher only needs to know white person attacked by black people to reinforce their prejudices and feel smug.
Ever hear of the knock out game? It is not a bad prejudice if the facts back it.
I find your hypocrisy astounding here, Val. All of the unproven (and proven hoax) ‘racist attacks on minorities by white supremacists’ (whoever they are), called out by the media as a false crisis, and you think the left does not act the same?
Holy crap, there is VIDEO of this incident, already endorsed by the police as legitimate, and the time spend beforehand in the company of the attackers does not matter as to whether this is a hate crime. The words and actions shown would have instigated riots had the races been reversed, and you know it!
Liberals never seem to eat their own dog food. This is why most decent folks are waking up and throwing liberals out of office.
[This comment has been trashed because the commenter has been suspended for a comment Ethics Alarms views as dishonest and offensive to the site and the host. pending a retraction and apology]
Here’s my favorite double standard quote from a New York Post article:
‘One local community activist in Chicago, Andrew Holmes, has chosen to label the incident a “hate crime,” saying it fits within the law’s basic parameters.
“In so many ways this was a hate crime because of what they said to him — saying he’s with Trump,” Holmes told the Sun-Times. “When you make a person say, ‘I love black people,’ that’s a hate crime all the way.”
Holmes said he ultimately hopes the video does not spark racial backlash.
“Let the chips fall where they may, and let the judicial system work,” he added.’
When’s the White Lives Matter demonstration set to begin? Let the judicial system work? Huh? When are we going to hear that from Al Sharpton or BLM or Jesse Jackson? Let the judicial system work? Give me a break.
When’s the White Lives Matter demonstration set to begin? Let the judicial system work? Huh? When are we going to hear that from Al Sharpton or BLM or Jesse Jackson? Let the judicial system work? Give me a break.
It isn’t a double standard to say “let the judicial system work” in a case where one can reasonably assume it will work just fine, and to not say the same when one has a reasonable expectation that it will not work the way it’s designed to. The BLM movement believes that violence against blacks by police officers and others has not been fairly prosecuted; I suppose if a group of whites had similar concerns, they could start a White Lives Matter movement.
RIght… But are those fears REASONABLE? I just can’t bring it in me to think that the proper way to govern is to give into every mania, phobia, and unreasonable idea. The proper thing to do when Aunt June starts seeing spiders that aren’t really there crawling up her walls isn’t to fumigate her damned house. The claims of BLM aren’t completely unfounded, but their rhetoric regarding it, and their courses of action are insane.
I’m sorry but anyone that thinks that BLM accusations are credible, but this video isn’t, needs to really dig down and evaluate their worldview.
I’m sorry but anyone that thinks that BLM accusations are credible, but this video isn’t, needs to really dig down and evaluate their worldview.
Who thinks this? I haven’t seen anyone say this video is not credible.
Jeffrey Toobin, on CNN, came close. He said that because the “Fucks” were bleeped out on the version of the video CNN played, he couldn’t be sure that the statements were racial in nature. He really said that.
Good god. Chalk that one up to “bias makes you stupid.”
Exactly.
When’s the White Lives Matter demonstration set to begin? Let the judicial system work? Huh? When are we going to hear that from Al Sharpton or BLM or Jesse Jackson? Let the judicial system work? Give me a break.
Yes, lol, where is the All Lives Matter and White Lives Matter people on this. It’s almost as if they aren’t a real movement, but instead exist solely to antagonize and be reactionary against BLM.
There is no official BLM spokesman. But several prominent BLM supporters have already spoken up about the crime. Here is what Shaun King had to say:
In Chicago, at least four young black men and women did something truly awful. On a damn Facebook Live video made public Wednesday, they allegedly kidnapped a mentally challenged white man, beat him, humiliated him, cut his hair, and yelled “f–k Donald Trump” and “f–k white people” while filming it for the world to see.
I just arrived back in America this morning after a week away and just watched the video moments ago. It’s awful. I have deep empathy for the victim. Twenty years ago, a racist mob of young white men beat me so badly that I missed 18 months of high school recovering from three spinal surgeries and fractures to my face and ribs.
I hate violence. Nearly a 100 people are killed with guns per day in this country. Every 98 seconds someone is sexually assaulted in this country. Hate crimes are on the rise from coast to coast. Our incoming President of the United States admitted that he sexually assaults women. Women all over the country came forward to allegedly confirm it. His first wife, in a sworn deposition, said that he raped and brutally assaulted her. Ivana Trump later said she didn’t want the allegation to be considered in a literal or criminal sense.
This country is sick.
However, I see thousands of white folk online asking me why I’m not speaking out about it.
Beyond the fact that I literally just got back in the country a few hours ago with my wife and five kids, my answer is simple. As soon as I clicked on the first official story about the incident, I saw that four people had already been arrested for it. If more people were involved, whether it was two more black folk or 20, guess what, they’ll be charged and arrested, and convicted, and sentenced, and jailed for it as well. We will see their mugshots and videos of them walking into court with jail clothes any minute now. That’s how justice works in America.
This country does not need me to speak out on crimes committed by black folk because nobody in this country is held more responsible for the crimes they commit, and even the crimes they don’t commit, than black folk in America. Right now, young black men in America are incarcerated at a rate higher than South Africans were at the height of Apartheid.
I speak out on injustice. What happened to this man in Chicago was terrible. It was criminal. I hate it, but guess what — justice was swift. It was miraculously swift.
Justice is always swift and easy when black folk mess up…
Chris and Deery. You both seem to be suffering from irony deficiency disorder. You’re ready, willing and able to see no parallels when they’re big as day. I’m speechless. Your comments make my point.
Why aren’t there people shouting “Burn it Down!” and “No justice no peace?” rather than waiting for the judicial system to do its work?
You two are amazing. I guess you truly believe America is (white) racist and out to make black people’s lives miserable. FYI, I don’t think that’s the case.
Why aren’t there people shouting “Burn it Down!” and “No justice no peace?” rather than waiting for the judicial system to do its work?
But why shout and protest when the justice system is so obviously working in this case, and quickly too? I can pretty much guarantee there would be almost no protests if the police officers involved in video shootings were arrested and charged as swiftly as these four were.
So you’re equating this self-filmed kidnapping and assault incident to a police shooting of a civilian. And so you really think that if these kids are found not guilty there will be riots and looting.
So you’re equating this self-filmed kidnapping and assault incident to a police shooting of a civilian. And so you really think that if these kids are found not guilty there will be riots and looting.
Nope, not equating, just drawing some parallels.
If these kids were acquitted, would there be riots? No. If happened over and over again, and the perpetrators failed to be even arrested, let alone found not guilty? Maybe. Or if Duke wins over Maryland? Definitely. Or if Maryland wins over Duke? Expect those riots!
But does it happen “over and over again?” For no reason?
Good ACC joke though.
And besides, when the justice system works at a normal pace but at what BLM and their ilk consider less than acceptable speed, at least in Sanford Florida or Ferguson Misssouri or Baltimore Maryland, everybody screams bloody murder. So why should we assume the peaceful reaction is a result of timing?
I think it was when the police announce their plan to investigate themselves, and already issue statements saying that nothing is wrong. Plus, the very repetitive nature of it all. Give white people 100+ years of black people assaulting white people and being acquitted on a regular basis, and my guess is you would probably see a riot or two. Just hazarding a guess.
So you’re equating this self-filmed kidnapping and assault incident to a police shooting of a civilian.
You invited that comparison when you asked, “Why aren’t there people shouting “Burn it Down!” and “No justice no peace?” rather than waiting for the judicial system to do its work?” You knew you were inviting that comparison when you said that, so why are you being willfully obtuse?
And do you really not understand what the purpose of a protest is? Do you see anyone, anywhere, protesting when someone accused of hurting someone else is swiftly arrested and there is no public argument about whether they committed a crime or whether the alleged victim was responsible for what transpired? It boggles the mind that certain conservatives think that those who protest excessive force by police should also protest against…what? The existence of criminals? Criminals are not an organized group that responds to public pressure. The police are. What would a protest against this horrific act actually DO? Get the nation’s young torturers to sit down and revise their policies?
Chris. I do not think the BLM “narrative” is legitimate. You do. I do not think blacks are being hunted down by an out of control police. Your argument above is misdirection. Let me spell out the equivalence for you: If misbehavior by white cops against black people justifies rioting by black people, why does misbehavior by black people against white people not justify rioting by white people?
Frankly, I’m surprised BLM hasn’t issued some statements saying these kids were justified in doing what they did because of slavery and Jim Crow. The woman on CNN did, essentially.
Again, what’s your solution/prescription for the problem? Reducing interactions between sketchy behavior and police doesn’t seem to be working real well in Chicago. What is it you want done? I’m all ears.
Let me spell out the equivalence for you: If misbehavior by white cops against black people justifies rioting by black people, why does misbehavior by black people against white people not justify rioting by white people?
Rioting isn’t justified, ever, and I never suggested it was. Nor does BLM, at least not officially (though some members of BLM have).
But I really think you can figure out the distinction in your own question. Here’s a hint: it involves the word “cops.”
Give up? Ok, let me be clear, since I apparently didn’t spell it out well enough earlier: people don’t protest against people. At least, not if they’re smart. If they’re smart, people protest against *institutions.* OK, sometimes they are protesting against specific individuals–Obama, Trump–both those individuals are still the heads of institutions. They have social power. People do this because they want something to change. The people boycotting the book company publishing Milo’s screed are doing so because they want the company to stop publishing shit like Milo’s, because they think his views have the power to reach and empower other bigots. (Granted, I think they’re wrong to boycott the whole company; I have no idea which publisher puts out Ann Coulter’s hateful garbage, and I don’t care. I’d rather they didn’t publish it, and if I were the head of a publishing company I wouldn’t. But they’re in it for the money, and such is life; I’m not gonna decide to not read good books put out by the company for that reason.)
The police are an institution. They have social power. Protests against the police can, have and do cause change.
The criminals who tortured this mentally disabled man while forcing him to say anti-white slurs are not an institution. They have no social power. They have been arrested. Protesting against THEM will do nothing. They have no policies to change. They are likely going to jail.
Riots are typically not effective as a form of protest and cause more damage to the very communities the rioters claim to be demanding better treatment for. But even rioters aren’t stupid enough to riot when undisputed criminals committing crimes and then being punished in a way that nearly everyone, including themselves, sees as fair and appropriate.
Do you now understand why people protest over allegations of unjust police violence, but not over crimes that everyone knows are wrong and that are swiftly and fairly punished?
These people are not an institution, but I completely diagree that they do not have social power. They are using the exact same language and sentiments as the most vocal and widely publicized BLM and Anti Trump movements. BLM and the Anti Trump movements are treated with legitimacy by both the most of the media and the Liberal party, and have very real social impact and social power. When people put themselves forward as activists for change, they have a responsibility for the change that they activate through both their words and deeds. Protests and proposed policies that say that the color of your skin makes you dangerous, evil or a murderer are pure bigotry, and should be unequivocally condemned. Too often this viewpoint is instead being legitimized as being not only correct, but necessary for a more just society. And when young, impulsive and angry people are told by the leaders that they respect and trust that one group of people is waging an literal war against them, a natural outcome is some of them will become violent towards people they view as the enemy.
I am sure that there are many complicated factors in what lead to this specific attack, but clearly the video is intended to evoke fear and bigotry. The hypocrisy on the part of many of the people and institutions on reporting it immediately as a hate crime is necessary to point out. I don’t think defining hate crimes as a separate crime is the best way to build a more just society (I happen to agree it veers dangerously close the thought crime) but since we as a society have decided to call specific attacks that are intended to spread bigotry a hate crime then we need to be consistent about it.
Chris, I really admire you. Even though you seem to be a bit of an odd man out on most the issues here, you are an incredibly smart and fair advocate for a side that I disagree with on many of their proposed solutions to making the world a better place. The conversation about this stuff is vital, and I am so glad that this site and this comment section continues to debate things in a such a passionate and lively way. I think it is one of the few places left where I can find multiple viewpoints arguing in good faith about solutions to the many problems we face today.
Are there any websites or articles someone who supports the BLM could point me to? I would like to understand the positive impact that people see in it better, and most of what I encounter with it is so overwhelming negative that I do see it as an agent of bigotry, not justice.
Thanks for the compliments. I take your point about BLM being an “institution,” and so a counter-protest against BLM by those who want to see the organization change (or just go away) would make sense. That said, I’ve seen no indication that the boys who committed this particular crime are affiliated with BLM, or that BLM approves of it.
Protests and proposed policies that say that the color of your skin makes you dangerous, evil or a murderer are pure bigotry, and should be unequivocally condemned.
I think some protesters have used this rhetoric, but I don’t think it’s the overall narrative of BLM. What proposed policies are you referring to?
To be honest, I don’t fully identify with BLM and don’t follow them too closely, but their official website is blacklivesmatter.com. I think their overall goal of reducing excessive police violence and promoting awareness of racial discrimination is a positive one.
Frankly, I’m surprised BLM hasn’t issued some statements saying these kids were justified in doing what they did because of slavery and Jim Crow.
Then you don’t actually know what the leaders of BLM have been saying, and are listening to the wrong voices. Though I don’t necessarily identify with BLM, I am more familiar with them than you are, and I would be VERY surprised to hear them say this was justified, because that would be totally out of character. (Again, a few nutjobs who identify with the movement aside.)
The woman on CNN did, essentially.
The word “essentially” is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence.
She did come close, Chris. To his credit, Don Lemon was aghast, but she kept saying, “This is horrific and of course terrible BUT…Donald Trump has said terrible things on Twitter, and blacks in the US are under terrible stress, etc. etc. Her general point was they were wrong, but they were provoked. To kidnap a disabled kid and torture him.
Lemon said at one point, “Somehow I don’t see these kids paying close attention to the campaign…”
Ugh. Why do I defend anyone anymore? Everyone is just the worst.
1) Welcome to my world.
2) Don’t get discouraged.
3) This is the problem: the crazies and the demagogues not only drown out nuance, they give it a bad name.
This bias/double standard exist everywhere in the media. I saw a news story last night about a European-American soldier home on leave from Afganistan who was beaten half to death by a mob of hooligans shouting anti-army rhetoric while he was walking down the street in Philadelphia. Not once in the report did they mention the racial, ethnic, or color composition of the mob, but all of us viewers were “to be on the lookout for these suspect.” ON THE LOOKOUT FOR WHAT? Kind of important facts to be left out of the report. The term “hate crime” was never mentioned. Even when the reporting lead to no conclusion other than this man had been singled out for a particular reason. There is a point at which all this political correctness ceases to be just the nice thing to do and becomes absurd. We’ve reached that point. Everything in moderation.
I guess hearing about this later when it was already a charged offense was better because there weren’t any questions like this. Sheesh. America.
I don’t see how this is not a hate crime. I know that media, and government prosecutors, are slow to consider black on white crime as hate. (Maybe because there is sadly so much of it to start with), but in a case where anti-race slogans are shouted out during an attack, it seems to cross into it. Whether the person stayed with them ahead of time really should not matter (in many cases, that’s baiting, luring or just getting a victim to let down their guard around them).
Even outside that…it’s just wrong. Torturing or attacking a special needs person is much like taking advantage of a child.
“I don’t see how this is not a hate crime.”
It is… But it’s politically loaded to admit it, so they’re going to cover as much of their ass as possible until there isn’t even a shadow of a doubt. It’s… inefficient. Especially considering the scope of the available evidence. But I have faith in the system to get the truth out.
“slow to consider black on white crime as hate. (Maybe because there is sadly so much of it to start with)”
It’s not, really. black on white is more common than white on black, but that might be a necessity of statistics (If someone is going to hurt someone randomly, they’re most likely to hurt the majority demographic, regardless of the race of the perpetrator.) But both white on black and black on white crime is eclipsed by orders of magnitude by intra-racial crime, that is, white on white or black on black. Why? Because you’re much more likely to hurt a family member than an associate, and despite a slowly changing trend, we’re still more likely to associate with members of our own races. And then the group you’re much more likely to hurt an associate than a total stranger. Statistically.
This is unbelievable. The blatant double standard in the press is something beautiful to watch. Fox News was all over it declaring it a hate crime. I am sure Sean Hannity said something to the effect of “See!!! Blacks can be racists, too!!” but considering that I would rather have my fingers chewed by rats than watch him, I am not sure what he said.
CNN, though, spent a lot of time on it. For instance, Don Lemons discussed this case last night on CNN. He characterized it as dumb, stupid behavior, but would not say that constituted a hate crime. Jefftey Toobin, that great legal mind, was not sure if constituted a hate crime, both stating that more information is needed.
Lemons and Toobin were rightly disturbed, though they characterized the whole thing as ‘stupid’ to video the attack and post it to Facebook live (we get to see and hear what happened, along with the camera-person laughing in the background).
Here is the video:
Lemons, then, turned to his panel and the Parallel Universe opens up for all to see. lSymone Sanders declared (beginning at the 10:04 mark) that we ‘cannot go about callously classifying things as a hate crime. Motive here matters.” The exchange is fascinating. For some real fun, check out Sanders’ comments at the 13:48 mark. Apparently, this is Trump’s fault.
Lemons is thoroughly bewildered and confused that people could commit this kind of atrocity against other people (apparently, Nazi Germany, Rwanda, The Killing Fields are a distance memory). Sanders doubles down, though, declaring that we, as a society, need to have a conversation about the nasty things young people have seen over the last year especially in response to Matt Lewis’ comments that the discussion would be very different had 4 White-Americans had done this to an African American beginning at the 17:09 mark. Beinart agrees with Sanders, at the 19:20 mark where Trump’s comments created this environment.
jvb
It’s just barely possible that this reaction by the Chicago P.D. would explain why Chicago, with a population roughly a third of New York City’s, has a murder rate right at twice as high. Great police work.
1) This was definitely an anti-white hate crime. I am not sure if crimes targeting people with disabilities specifically for their disability are counted as hate crimes, but they should be, and in that case, the attackers should be charged with both.
2) I don’t know what more evidence the Chicago police require to consider this a hate crime. Do they have a history of labeling anti-black crimes, or other anti-minority crimes, as hate crimes more quickly than this? I don’t know. If so, I can see why they should be accused of hypocrisy; if not, this charge seems unfair. It is possible that the Chicago police are always just as reluctant to label crimes as hate crimes, no matter who is targeted or who the perpetrators are.
3) I’m not sure how the Associate Press can be blamed or tarnished as hypocrites for reporting the police’s statement accurately. Should they have editorialized and called this a hate crime anyway? Should they have sought out the views of others to get someone who would say it was a hate crime to provide balance before publishing? These aren’t rhetorical questions. I am sure there are media figures who have leapt to label anti-black crimes as hate crimes who won’t do so here, but I’m not sure the AP is among them. If not, accusing them of hypocrisy and double standards is unfair.
No, but they had to mention the race of the victim and attackers, right? The comment about race didn’t make sense without that information, for one thing. The initial report could have been about four whites torturing a black teen.
The AP article said the police had not revealed the races of the suspects at that time. I haven’t watched the video, and won’t–are the races obvious? If so, I agree that the AP should have reported the races of the suspects.
The races were obvious on the video. If you could stand watching it.
I won’t, but I’ll take your word for it.
This reminds me of the time when, after dropping my son off at school on 9/11 and listening to NPR report the second plane hitting the Twin Towers. NPR said then that it was “only fair to reserve judgement about whether this was a terrorist attack.” W-H-A-T?
Sometimes it is a res ipsa loquitor situation, and it is not a rush to judgment to call it for what it so clearly is.
Good old NPR, E2. More fun that a barrel of monkeys.
I think Jack has fairly consistently questioned the efficacy of “hate crimes” as a basis for increasing penalties. I’m not a fan of “hate crimes.” I think the penal statutes are pretty serviceable as they’ve come down to us over the centuries.
Frankly, i think “hate crime/not a hate crime” nothing more than a distraction.
I agree with you on letting the statutes rule as is. Murder is murder and kidnapping is kidnapping, and assault is assault. Why is it worse to murder someone because of their race/ethnicity than it is to murder someone for their money? I’ve never understood why we must now make this distinction, and am willing to get a history lesson.
Except murder is not murder, nor is assault assault. Why do we have distinctions between 1st and 2nd degree murder? The victim is just as dead, whether no matter what the murderer thought beforehand.
Hate crimes don’t affect just the victim, but the community to which that victim might have belonged to, creating a widespread chilling, terrorized effect. It therefore gets enhanced penalties for that as well. I can see why hate crimes laws draw criticism, but I think ultimately it is justified.
I wonder if conservatives would be more amenable to hate crime legislation if we simply classified it as terrorism.
I’m on record here as holding that “hate crime” legislation is a terrible idea, and punishes thought. As in the controversy in Texas with then Governor Bush, when he opposed hate crime legislation that would have made the murder of James Byrd a hate crime as opposed to just an ordinary dragging a man by a chain around his neck until; his head cam off crime. If someone could prove that he killed Byrd out of love, that should make the act any less heinous.
Hate crime holds that treating a human being inhumanly out of race/gender/religious hate is somehow worse than doing it because, say, you like killing people. The law is a good example of applying political correctness “logic” to crime, and political grandstanding on the left to trap conservatives who correctly say, “WHAT? This is absurd!” so the Left can say, “SEE!! You don’t really, really, really hate racism as much as we do!”
I hate hate crime legislation, like I hate all thought crimes.
Agreed. In Texas, hate crimes are dealt with in the punishment phase as an enhancement for the thoughts behind the vicious act. More particularly, there is a greater punishment for hate crimes. That effectively creates different classes of victims of violent crimes. If my neighbor is beaten to death with a lead pipe in a hate crime, the accused faces a stiffer punishment than if my neighbor is simply beaten to death with a lead pipe because the accused had a bad day. Same crime; same injuries; same victim, but different outcomes or punishments.
Stated differently:
Victim A, a white male, beaten to death with a pipe. No implication of hate. The accused is convicted and sentenced to the maximum penalty for that crime.
Victim B is a black male, beaten to death with a pipe because of his race. The accused is convicted and sentenced to a harsher penalty because of the racial motivations of the accused and the minority status of the victim. How is that justifiable?
jvb
I thought deery covered these arguments with his reference to premeditation? We already punish people more harshly based on the thoughts (motive) of the criminal at the time. By your logic, why should we punish criminals more harshly for premeditation? After all, it’s the same crime, right?
And why have terrorism laws? We punish Islamic terrorists more harshly for their hateful views than we would if they simply killed because they liked killing people. We do this because terrorism is a danger to whole communities, not just the immediate victims. The exact same is true of hate crimes.
“I thought deery covered these arguments with his reference to premeditation? We already punish people more harshly based on the thoughts (motive) of the criminal at the time.”
I think you are conflating Intent with Motive.
One is an act of will, a blatant disregard of the legal system, and does warrant consideration for harsher punishment. Don’t conflate Will with Thought, though they both occur in the brain.
“And why have terrorism laws? We punish Islamic terrorists more harshly for their hateful views than we would if they simply killed because they liked killing people. We do this because terrorism is a danger to whole communities, not just the immediate victims. The exact same is true of hate crimes.”
Bzzzzt.
We don’t punish Islamic terrorists more harshly for their hateful views. This is a straw man you’ve tried to sneak in to change the flavor of the discussion. Won’t work.
We punish them more harshly, because, though their attacks may only kill a handful, their *intent* is to harm the entire nation in order to compel the nation to come into line with their views. They are types of an act of war and in the case of domestic terrorism, they are a type of insurrection if not full blown.
We punish them more harshly, because, though their attacks may only kill a handful, their *intent* is to harm the entire nation in order to compel the nation to come into line with their views.
And hate crimes often are committed with the intent to harm entire communities in order to spread fear among those communities. They are often intended to compel others to come into line with their views.
I just don’t buy it. Hate is worse than greed? Hate because of race is worse than hate because of jealousy? Greed and jealousy don’t lead to hate? Hate has been entrenched into entire societies purely because of jealousy and greed and feelings of powerlessness.. Jealousy and greed and powerlessness led in a direct line to the rise of Nazism in the 1930s.
So all the “motives” are intertwined. I don’t see that race/ethnic/gender hate stands alone as a motive. Ever. Where did that race/ethnic/gender hate come from? Something else is believed or taught to make that hate. So what, exactly, is the point? To lead to Federally-authorized death penalties? That is a completely different discussion.
It has nothing to do with a crime being “worse,” it has to do with the specific danger of the crime. A guy who beats someone to death because he had a personal grudge against him is dangerous to people he holds grudges against. A guy who beats someone to death because he is gay is a danger to all gay people. More danger = harsher punishment. It’s the same reason we punish premeditated murder harsher than crimes of passion–most people can understand what it’s like to lose our temper, but it’s much harder for most to imagine planning out and executing a murder. Making premeditated murder a more serious crime demonstrates that society is less tolerant of such a crime than we are of murder as a crime of passion. It also serves to alienate murderers who employ premeditation, and divides them off from the rest of society.
Terrorism laws send the same message: terrorists are not tolerated, not understood, and are divided from the rest of society; their crime is not just against their victims, but against a free and healthy society. Hate crime laws serve this purpose as well.
Again, I wonder if people would be more comfortable if we just call hate crimes what they are: terrorism.
Not a big fan of the “hate crimes” either but I understand the logic which I’ve found it hard to articulate. That is a good explanation Chris. I get that – guy who beats his wife less of a danger to society than a guy who beats up a stranger because he hates women.
But why is he more of a threat than someone who beats up strangers because he likes beating up people?
Good point. Or why is a guy from North Dakota who beats up every red head he sees less of a threat than a guy who beats up every pacific Asian islander (assuming they’re protected). I guess because we want to discourage violence towards groups that have been historically discriminated against. Which gets back to your point about policing thought.
I originally had the same thought, but if these 4 are charged with a hate crime, for targeting a demographic that isn’t historically discriminated against (assuming it was b/c of the victims race, and not his disability), then it doesn’t really hold water. I don’t know that the targeted group has to be identified as “protected”.
Still bothers me, the knee jerk hesitation to constitute what was, by the video alone, clearly a hate crime…
I think the principle that bigotry is destructive to society is a healthy one for a society to hold and promote. Hate crime laws are a good way to do that without infringing on speech.
That is, beyond question, the best and perhaps only valid argument for hate crime laws.
I also like it, I confess, because it is consistent with the reason legalizing pot and other drugs is destructive and foolish.
Thanks, though it will not surprise you that I disagree on the drug thing.
“More danger = harsher punishment.”
This sure sounds like a sibling to Pre-Crime…
If someone kills a black man because he wants to kill a black man, and he’s caught, he is NO DANGER to any more black people. How on earth does this calculation make sense at all?
On the flip side, if a man kills a black man because he wants to kill a black man, and he isn’t caught, he may very well be LESS OF A DANGER than a man who just wants to kill and isn’t caught…
This reversal weakens your argument further.
Has anyone ever told you that you’re exhaustingly pedantic?
Has anyone ever told you you are colossally illogical?
Yes.
You should listen to those people.
Probably not a bad place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
Just watched CNN, where Don Lemon, who presumably is sober, refused to to accept that this met the definition of hate crime, and Bernie Standers’ ex-press secretary tried to blame Donald Trump for the incident.
Didn’t just try, she did.
She sure did, and it was pathetic. Let’s see who else lines up with this “explanation.”
I thought Lemon did a fairly decent job, actually, letting what’s-her-name rant herself into embarrassment.
Well, it’s all settled now. Apparently the police commissioner had a convenient change of heart and the thugs are now being charged with hate crimes. Boy would I like to be on that jury!
Are you sure it was a convenient change of heart, and not the result of more evidence?
This entire conversation makes me sad. I’m going to lie down awhile.
I’ve seen the same thing dozens of times in different contexts.
This actually gives me hope – that while there may be incompetence, there isn’t a double standard.
The bar that has been set for something to be classed as a “hate crime” during initial investigation has been set grotesquely high. Those complaining about this case have a valid reason for their outrage.
Still, if it’s fixed within 24 hrs, as it has been, the foul is in appearance.
The problem is, is that “hate crimes” are all about appearances. The crime is not just to the proximate victim, but to others of the same identity group who have justifiable reason to believe that they are in danger too. It is an assault, deliberately putting others in fear, that is the intent. Such mens rea can be a pain to prove.
The difference between torturing a guy because he’s white, as opposed to torturing a white to make all whites afraid. Personally. I think the former should qualify as a hate crime, the latter as terrorism, but my understanding of the way the Federal law is being interpreted is that the former attracts no additional penalty, the latter only being classed as a hate crime.
“Still, if it’s fixed within 24 hrs, as it has been, the foul is in appearance.”
That’s the appearance of stupidity and blindness, a form of the appearance of impropriety. Still to be avoided. Elizabeth 2’s comparison to the “let’s not leap to conclusions” reaction when plane #2 hit the Twin Towers is dead on.
I think we’re in vehement and vituperative agreement.
Oh yes, and another issue. There’s too much fear of labelling something as “racially motivated” unless it rises to the level of hate crime. Here, yes, racial motivation (at least partly) was obvious. The thing speaks for itself. res ipsa loquitur.
“A dismembered body was found Saturday, hands bound with barbed wire, with multiple bullet wounds to front and back. A police spokesnan would not confirm that they suspect foul play at this stage of the investigation.”
I first heard about this on NPR yesterday and they described the event in detail and labeled it a hate crime. They used the phrase “hate crime” numerous times.
The only outrage here should be about the crime itself.
I also encourage everyone to stop watching network news and start listening to NPR.
How can anyone trust NPR? Did you see the former NPR anchor tell us that “Make America Great Again” was a racist dog-whistle? id you read the post about NPR editing Ted Cruz to make him seem like he was saying something he wasn’t? Have you listened to all those features making illegal immigrants sound like they are heroes? How about this? Remember Juan Williams getting fired because he dared to be the in-house liberal for Fox News?
I like NPR; hell, I’m probably going to be ON NPR again in the next week or so. But it is hardly unbiased, and if government funded propaganda is the most reliable news source we have—and you’re right, it may be—that’s trouble.
I didn’t say it was unbiased. I also didn’t argue that it was perfect. I WILL argue, however, that it has the best news programming around. Other news networks should aspire to have the faults that NPR has.
I agree with you. You need a filter to listen to NPR, but you need one with every news outlet. (My son the millennial has NPR locked into his car radio… even he knows how to use filters and choose a good news station…)
But if it is taxpayer supported, it HAS to be unbiased, or at least try. I don’t think it does try.
“I don’t think it does try.”
Hence, it should be defunded. NPR does not even pretend to be anything but Liberal these days. It is a badge of honor to them.
They have been exceeded by the MSM this past year, I will admit. But they were there first, and that is an accomplishment.
It should be de-funded even if it were objective and 100 per cent unimpeachable. Same with PBS.
I disagree with you there.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/12/21/from-the-when-ethics-alarms-dont-ring-files-the-non-sexual-coat-hanger-rape/#more-36257
Circumstances alter cases. These two crimes are by no means identical, apart from the racial aspects. But they’re pretty darned similar.
Somehow I suspect that the perps here will not just get years of probation and hundreds of hours of community service. Or even just a few years in jail, with probation on top of that. Or anything even remotely comparable to the sentences 3 white guys got for sexually and physically assaulting a disabled black guy.
Point? The hanger case was an outrage, and if the perps in the Chicago case get the book thrown at them, it won’t be. The former doesn’t call for lesser punishment for the latter.
They are also in different jurisdictions.