Katy Perry in the aftermath of Manchester

[FireIceTalon]

Again, war and violence aren't the only problems of the capitalist system. Far from it. But you are right, the decrease in violent death, historically, has nothing to do with capitalism, I stated this earlier already. Capitalism is impervious to death or the human experience in general, its internal logic isn't guided by those things. It's guided by and in the direction of profit accumulation. People in the 3rd world get food and electricity? Great. Oh, they don't? Too bad. The profit system is indifferent to human need at best, in many cases though it is outright hostile towards it. Anything good that happens as a result is merely a footnote, and anything bad that happens is viewed as collateral damage, and then sold to us as our own enslavement under the guise "this is the best we got, there are no alternatives". You might buy it, but I don't.

Violence, also, is a rather broad and ambiguous term to use I think. Inequality, poverty, mass incarceration, private property, and exploitation of labor are all forms of violence - because these things would not exist without some entity that upholds them by force and violence (police, military), or at least the threat of violence thereof (bourgeois rule of law). So given that, there is no 'boogyman' here, I'm just calling it as it is: Capitalism is intrinsically a violent system whether you acknowledge this fact or not.

It is not like eliminating commerce and profits will reduce shortages, corruption and or greed.

Except, it will. Shortages, corruption and greed are result of capitalisms ever endless pursuit of profit and global expansion (though in the case of greed, it is more a result of the cultural aspect of capitalism as explained in Marx's concept of 'Commodity Fetishism'). Besides, there aren't shortages per se in capitalism, because we have enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter the entire planet's population many times over - and it can be done without exploitation and bosses. What you refer to is called 'artificial scarcity' or poverty in the midst of plenty. The reason this exists is because capitalist production is predicated upon capital accumulation, rather than human need and consumption. 'Shortages' of a particular good or service occur in certain places or in certain markets because it is not profitable to provide those things, regardless of the demand for them. This is a pretty easy and logical concept to understand, is it not? One does not even need to be a Marxist to know that this is how the capitalist system objectively operates. This just comes from an objective understanding of capitalism's internal logic, and following it to its logical conclusion.

[kandrathe]

Again, war and violence aren't the only problems of the capitalist system. Far from it. But you are right, the decrease in violent death, historically, has nothing to do with capitalism, I stated this earlier already. Capitalism is impervious to death or the human experience in general, its internal logic isn't guided by those things. It's guided by and in the direction of profit accumulation. People in the 3rd world get food and electricity? Great. Oh, they don't? Too bad. [u]The profit system is indifferent to human need at best,[/ul] in many cases though it is outright hostile towards it. Anything good that happens as a result is merely a footnote, and anything bad that happens is viewed as collateral damage, and then sold to us as our own enslavement under the guise "this is the best we got, there are no alternatives". You might buy it, but I don't.

Aha! So here is the crux of it. Commerce, and within that Capitalism is not empathetic to human needs, because it is not corporeal.

The people who operate within the economy, who can also choose to exhibit empathy, can make moral and immoral decisions. The immoral decisions can be both those of commission (e.g. selling/hooking kids on flavored tobacco products) or, those of omission (e.g. jacking up the price of life saving drugs because enough people will pay any price to not die.)

As a society, just like the rejection of what we consider immoral, we need to have laws to reject those things we cannot abide, like brothels filled with under aged sex slaves from Thailand. The morality of the overall society is reflected in its regulations. I'm not an anarchist, and so see an efficiently "well" regulated economy as crucial to protecting the common good, via the common laws, regulating what we hold in collectively common (e.g. air, water, land, roads, sewers, etc.)

Violence, also, is a rather broad and ambiguous term to use I think. Inequality, poverty, mass incarceration, private property, and exploitation of labor are all forms of violence - because these things would not exist without some entity that upholds them by force and violence (police, military), or at least the threat of violence thereof (bourgeois rule of law). So given that, there is no 'boogyman' here, I'm just calling it as it is: Capitalism is intrinsically a violent system whether you acknowledge this fact or not.

Each of these may require a treatise to analyze for root cause;

• Inequality,
• poverty,
• mass incarceration,
• private property, and
• exploitation of labor are all forms of violence

Where you lump them all up as horrors of your bogeyman, I see them as curable symptoms of the broader societal system, and also not intrinsically related to our economic semi free market. Much of the autocratic violence by government exists thru the neglect of citizens to hold their government account(abdication), or the willing assent to fascistic principles of using inappropriate force against its own citizens. If members of the police department are targeting and killing black people, it is because the general community is allowing it to happen. We are not so far gone down that road of authoritarianism where we couldn't reel this back to proper oversight and a community enforced equality.

Looking at just "Inequality", from whence does this originate? I believe many places, but I can enumerate some off the top of my head;

• Structural racism, or sexism
• Inheritance
• Educational
• Family cohesion
• Skills
• Personality types
• Ability

As we have discussed ad nausea, and agree that overall, it is unfair "socially" in the system to say favor "Pro Athletes" or even "Used Car Salesman" over "Public School Teacher". And, as a solution, I advocate the new social experiment of offering GUI (guaranteed basic income) going beyond the negative income tax (i.e. proposed by Milton Friedman and implemented by R. Reagan). This could easily be set at between $15000 to $22000 just using the meager percent of federal resources tossed inefficiently at poverty programs. If a person then chooses and is able to earn more their monthly stipend would be then reduced.

Obviously, Capitalism, being shut out of government run education, is not the issue when looking at the inadequacy of public school consistency, and pay equity. You can blame this on the authoritarianism, and inefficiency of our government, but it has zero to do with Capitalism.

Except, it will. Shortages, corruption and greed are result of capitalism ever endless pursuit of profit and global expansion (though in the case of greed, it is more a result of the cultural aspect of capitalism as explained in Marx's concept of 'Commodity Fetishism'). Besides, there aren't shortages per se in capitalism, because we have enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter the entire planet's population many times over - and it can be done without exploitation and bosses. What you refer to is called 'artificial scarcity' or poverty in the midst of plenty. The reason this exists is because capitalist production is predicated upon capital accumulation, rather than human need and consumption. 'Shortages' of a particular good or service occur in certain places or in certain markets because it is not profitable to provide those things, regardless of the demand for them.

The third leg of the supply-demand triangle of is price. If demand is high, but supply is low, then price rises. You may stop there and see this as the tyranny of the "haves'. However, in a free economy, other providers (baring a monopoly on supply) can compete for the customers, thus lowering price and profit to a viability equilibrium. It also, inspires creative entrepreneurs to innovate to find substitutes for that commodity. This is only a partial explanation, as most companies take in raw materials as demand increases and transform them into more valuable end products to be made available as needed within the economy. This is, as I recall, a fatal flaw in all Marx work on commodity. He lived in a less moral time with unregulated industrialism where highly exploited workers toiled in mills making cloth out of raw materials, and his ideas thus make sense only in the simplest of models where one can directly apply classical economic principles, such as the Labor Theory of Value, or Commodity Fetishism. Marx knew perfectly well that the labor theory of value could not be a complete account of value, which is why, on the very first page of Capital, he adds the qualifier "socially necessary", so the value of commodities is determine by the amount of socially necessary labor value. Even, now, Marxists have no resolution to the "transformation problem", when prices (if ever) do not converge on labor values. And, as any person marginally familiar with manufacturing knows, timing is everything. Marx's theory of the capital and the declining rate of profit fails to account for risk and the timing of consumption.

Marxists are like physicists stuck in a Ptolematic model of planetary motion. The physics are just better now, as is our understanding of price theory in modern economics.

This is a pretty easy and logical concept to understand, is it not? One does not even need to be a Marxist to know that this is how the capitalist system objectively operates. This just comes from an objective understanding of capitalism's internal logic, and following it to its logical conclusion.

Right! Capitalism, and well regulated free market economy allows almost any person to improve there lot through the application of their wits and labor. There is in fact, then an excess of wealth, allowing social democracies to siphon off private wealth to re-distribute to those less able (or willing) to find success.

As China aptly demonstrated; in the absence of Capitalism, and a free market, the economic system stagnates. When Capitalism, and a free market is allowed to flourish, the people are more prosperous, lifting billions out of poverty.

[FireIceTalon]

I tend to agree with the The Autonomists that Marxists need not (and should not) worry about the "transformation problem", because it is entirely irrelevant to class struggle and the social arrangements that comprise capitalism. Bourgeois economic theory is highly reductionist in its approach to understanding economics. Exchange is merely one way in which wealth is created, and of course, any exchange conducted today is structured upon capitalist relations of production. Markets are social relations, and therefore can NEVER be neutral as they are predicated upon oppression, hierarchy, power, and exploitation. Workers live and work under better conditions today than in Marx's day? Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to the larger Marxist point that capitalist apologists still have no answer for: workers are STILL exploited by capitalists. Nor does it change the way markets are constructed and how they fundamentally operate.

You accuse the LTV of being wrong because it states that labor is the only thing that effectively creates value (which is the case, at least for the things that MATTER), but yet bourgeois economic theory makes the error of assuming markets are a neutral, abstract concept of nothingness that can only be explained by prices. There is no such thing as "free market". It's pure absurdity, cause this is based on some utopian vision of capitalism where exchanges can be conducted without any burden whatsoever. You already acknowledged that I was right when I stated capitalism operates according to profit and NOT human need, did you not? Who defines what is to be sold and what is to be bought on markets? Definitely not consumers, as they want you to believe, but the dynamics of the market itself. Tautological? Yes, but that’s essentially one of the fundamental contradictions of liberalism: what is sold and bought is NOT what is necessary, and not even what people necessarily desire, but what is profitable.

The problem with non-Marxist theories of economics is that they tend to leave out class struggle and REAL WORLD social forces that DO exist and entirely invalidate their models. Again, they are overly reductionist. The narratives rarely or never match the real world material conditions.

As for all the symptoms I listed, if they were curable under the present social order, they would have been cured long ago. But they are not, because they are intrinsic to the capitalist mode of production. They don't exist in an abstract manner from one another, they in fact exist intersectionally. Things such as racism and sexism can only be conducive to the construction of and existence of a profit system, which is why capitalism and racism/sexism go hand in hand so effectively. You cannot have capitalism without racism. The for-profit prison system, with its systemic mass incarceration of minorities is one example of a near-endless list of examples of this symbiotic relationship.

And even if Marxists are like physicists stuck in a Ptolematic model of planetary motion, at least we are still within the CORRECT realm. Can't say the same for bourgeois economists, who aren't even economists or social scientists at all. They are priests passing themselves off as social scientists; with a utopian, pink-unicorn filled vision of how capitalism works, limited by their reductionist approach that completely ignores the various social forces which comprise markets and their workings.

The China example is anecdotal at best, because Cuba was the exact opposite of your hypothesis: Cuban citizens thrived far more and lived better under Castro than they did under US-backed capitalist dictator Batista, by almost any measure. The literacy rate under Batista, for instance, was roughly 70% (and thats a high end estimation). By 1961, it rose to over 97%. They also went from having a poor health-care system (any decent healthcare that did exist was available only for the rich) to having universal healthcare within a year. The only thing capitalism is worthy of being credited with is that it produced the resources and technological capacity for socialism, and eventually communism, to become materially possible, and that is all I will merit it with. It has far outlived its usefulness, and its desirability.

[kandrathe]

The China example is anecdotal at best, because Cuba was the exact opposite of your hypothesis: Cuban citizens thrived far more and lived better under Castro than they did under US-backed capitalist dictator Batista, by almost any measure. The literacy rate under Batista, for instance, was roughly 70% (and thats a high end estimation). By 1961, it rose to over 97%. They also went from having a poor health-care system (any decent healthcare that did exist was available only for the rich) to having universal healthcare within a year.

I'll post separately on some of the rest tomorrow, but you've made quite a few propositions that I don't believe are born out in reality.

The analysis presented in this paper indicates that a complete cancellation of Venezuelan assistance to Cuba would cause considerably less damage than the elimination of Soviet assistance in the early 1990s, with the fall in real GDP estimated at somewhere between 7% and 10%, compared to 38% after the breakdown of Cuban/Soviet relations.

The time period you describe had the USSR subsidizing almost 40% of the Cuban economy. Imagine how well off we'd be if we got such a bonus.

Visually, it looked like this...



And...



After the failure of continued subsidy by USSR, the percapita GDP sank to below 1955 levels under Bautista. Not so much a Cuban miracle, but more of an economic slight of hand. Now that Venezuela is also out of the hand outs business, they are clamoring to normalize relations with the US. And, yes, we should do that to benefit the Cuban people.
More later.

[FireIceTalon]

China and Cuba are open to interpretation (even Marxists have disagreements with one another on what they were, as well as what they have become). However, The Soviet assistance of Cuba isn't really relevant though to my larger point regarding capitalism or socialism, since the revolutionary countries will tend to stand in solidarity with one another regardless (at least in theory). It doesn't seem logical to have expected the Soviets to do otherwise any more than the USA's 'Marshall Plan" to aid Western Europe following WW2. Socialism is, after all, an intermediary stage between capitalism and communism - it isn't the end goal and it's a period when the working class must defend itself from reaction. Also, Cuba had the largest imperialist and capitalist super-powers right in its backyard, the same country that imposed an economic embargo on it that did far more to harm the Cuban people than it did to defeat 'socialism'. The bottomline is, the proletariat will always struggle and fight for its rightful ownership of the means of production and its self-determination so long as capitalism exists. The US empire learned this the hard way from the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion when the Cuban people firmly said NO to capitalism and imperialism.

Everything else in my previous post objectively describes capitalisms operations, in material reality. And you know this, in your heart of hearts, regardless of whatever capitalist propaganda/apologism you wish conjure up in your next reply to me.

[kandrathe]

It is relevant when you profess Cuba as an example of how Cuba uplifted it's people when it was firstly not them, and secondly temporary until the aid from the Soviets ended. With no investment into growth or economic markets as they had few trading partners other than the Soviet block. Yes, part of that is on the US for the embargo, but also them for continued belligerence for 50 years. Cuba has been in economic stasis cocooned by the false prophets bearing Marxist zeal. As they continue to move away and allow reform, their GDP per capita will improve above $11K. For comparison, the Cayman Islands are four times that. The Caymanians enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of Switzerland. How's that Capitalism oppression going in the Caymans?

[FireIceTalon]

The Caymanians enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of Switzerland.

A very certain sector, namely the wealthy, perhaps. But unfortunately, your rose colored glasses fail to see that wherever there are rich, there is bound to be poor and oppressed people also, which leads me to...

How's that Capitalism oppression going in the Caymans?

I would say, pretty fucking well actually.

It's pretty funny you use the biggest tax evasion haven on the planet, a country that invests next to nothing in social programs because it invests almost all of it in luxury hotels and banks. It's the perfect example of how wasteful and useless a system capitalism is.

And you say capitalism is getting better? No. About 65 people in the world own the same wealth as half the poorest people on the planet do, and while inequality between countries might be less than it used to be, it certainly isn't WITHIN them. So using any single country to drive your point home is moot - that is precisely the point: capitalism is a global problem, and not a national one that begins in any particular country.

Lastly, why haven't you responded to everything else I said about how capitalism works in reality? Is it perhaps because you have no refutation to what I said, because you know its the truth? Maybe you are starting to realize that any defense of this archaric, oppressive system is an untenable political position?

[kandrathe]

Stress Led to Domestic Violence . The Boden's seem to be in the Cayman news often. I see you need to get out of Wyoming more often. There are many expats who migrate to various tropical paradises, then end up in a struggle due to poor planning or vices. I suspect this is the case with the "invaders" from up north scrapping out a subsistence living catering to the businesses or the tourists.

Those 65 are meaningless unless they move that wealth into something productive. Entropy rules. Wealth that is unused is like hoarding a lifetime supply of biscuits. By the time you get around to eating them they are inedible. Those few wealthy only have the power to determine how that wealth is spent. Let's take Bill & Melinda Gates as an example. The got wealthy due to his deal with IBM for an operating system. IBM used some of their wealth to take a risk on Personal Computers, a ludicrous concept for a company structured to fill big refrigerated rooms with big iron.

They aren't sitting on it like some crotchety dragon Smaug. And it's not like there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world. When the first human combined a sharp stone with a straight stick into a spear, they turned two random objects into something with more value than the materials or labor used. This is why with more people and more technology we increase productivity and increase the GDP. My complaint is often the frivolous nature by which we squander the wealth we do have.

Don't worry. I will get back to the above later. This is just hard to do on my phone.

P.S. A little more research; Caymans population is 59,967 with about 1200 in poverty is ~2% .

Compared to;

• ~15% in the US, or
• 7.7% in Switzerland, or
• ~15% in Cuba.

[Ashock]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ma...ith-islam/

Maajid Nawaz: Stop Saying Violence Has Nothing To Do With Islam
4 June 2017, 14:07


Stop Saying Violence Has Nothing To Do With Islam
This caller, Muhammad, phoned Maajid Nawaz to say Islam has nothing to do with violence. Maajid disagrees.
03:29
0



This caller, Muhammad, phoned Maajid Nawaz to say Islam has nothing to do with violence. Maajid disagrees.

Following last night's London terror attack, Maajid Nawaz wants people to stop disassociating terrorism and religion - because they are undeniably linked.

Muhammad phoned into Maajid Nawaz's LBC show to ask people to say "Islam is not the problem".

The caller said:"Islam has nothing to do with violence. How can somebody say that Islam has anything to do with violence?"

Maajid replied: "Well it has something to do with it, doesn't it Muhammad? Not everything, not everything, but something."

"When the prophet Mohammed said: 'I have been ordered to fight the people until they declare there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger', That's clearly got something to do with violence doesn't it?" Maajid suggested.

Muhammad said he would need to know the context of the sentence before he could fully agree.

"Ok, So let's agree that context is important," Maajid said. "Interpretation is important, but let's not pretend it's got nothing to do with violence because making the argument that we need context acknowledges that we're having a discussion about violence and placing violence in its context within Islam. That's different to saying violence has got nothing to do with Islam."

Muhammad said that for vast majority of Muslims in the UK, violence played no part in the their lives. They were working and raising families as normal. Maajid pointed out that while that may be the case, three attacks have happened in the UK this year with the attackers religious belief playing a part. A link must be acknowledged.

"It's as unhelpful as to say it is everything to do with Islam, because it is Islam. I think let's be realistic and acknowledge that there is a connection, it's something to do with Islam. Not nothing, not everything, but something."

Maajid explained why the link must be first acknowledged and then understood.

"Why this is so important is because when listeners hear Muslims like yourself say it's got nothing to do with it, they think that you're trying to shirk responsibility and sidestep the very important task that faces all of us to challenge extremism within our mosques and our communities.

"Of course, that may not be what you intended, but it sounds like that to listeners who are not Muslims, it sounds like you're making excuses so as to not go about doing the work that all of us have to do, which is to challenge extremism."

[Quark]

A link must be acknowledged between Christianity and terrorism!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...6485587473
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2..._sean.html

Or are you just making excuses?

(This was brought to you by spending only 30 seconds googling, but I know that spent effort destroys your world view).

[Lissa]

A link must be acknowledged between Christianity and terrorism!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...6485587473
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2..._sean.html

Or are you just making excuses?

(This was brought to you by spending only 30 seconds googling, but I know that spent effort destroys your world view).

Unfortunately Quark, you can't change a bigot's mind with facts. Ashock won't bother to look at contrary information that clashes with his bigoted views. Extremists, no matter their race, creed, religion, are a problem, but Ashock won't think that if they believe as he does.

[Bolty]

Right, extremists never realize they're extremists. They don't wake up one day and think "you know, maybe my black-and-white world view is based on an emotion that I've reinforced by primarily soaking myself in echo chambers that only validate my opinion, and I'm failing to realize the world is actually complex shades of grey that does not contain easy, simplified answers to its problems."

Instead, extremists all believe that they've "seen the light" that the masses are too ignorant/stupid to understand, that they have found the "one true way," and everyone on Earth could be made to understand if they were just educated enough in their worldview. Thus, extreme measures are justified to draw attention to these viewpoints.

From what I've seen, the causes come in three forms:

1. Lack of education or lack of exposure to other cultures / points of view. The poor and uneducated in all countries of the world make good targets.
   
2. Belief in intellectual superiority, the "I'm so smart that I can see this and others can't" feeling that drives many people. Anti-vaccers fall into this a lot; people with advanced degrees that should know better but still think they've stumbled upon some "secret" that makes them superior to the sheeple.
   
3. The need to belong, probably the strongest pull of all. An extremist belief system makes you "belong" to a group made up of others holding that position, giving you status and a feeling of belonging that all humans crave. Good example of that one German who went from being a Neo-Nazi to an Islamist terrorist, something that's reportedly somewhat common. He didn't really believe all that much in the ideal, he just needed to belong to something bigger than himself and latched onto groups that would accept him.
   

The extremists never really figure out that us "ignorant masses" just kind of shake our heads and go "oh, ffs." As this forum attracts extremists from all ends of the spectrum, you sorta have two options: ignore the trolling, or else make it clear to other readers that extremist positions are just that, extreme. But you should never expect to actually convince an extremist that they are an extremist; from my experience, it's just not doable over an anonymous medium such as the Internet. In a real-life relationship it's very difficult, but eventually possible over time if you make sure that the extremist believes they came to a different conclusion themselves and that you didn't "push" the idea onto them.

You use gentler tactics like showing them other positions and cultures and just generally waking them up to the knowledge that everything is, as I've mentioned, shades of grey. If life had easy answers to big problems, don't you think those solutions would have already been tried throughout human history? Is it really that somehow YOU, this one genius individual, has finally figured it all out and if you could just get humanity to listen to you, the world would be so much better? Really? Ego plays a huge role here, as just admitting that you might be wrong is very difficult to do.

[Ashock]

A link must be acknowledged between Christianity and terrorism!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...6485587473
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2..._sean.html

Or are you just making excuses?

(This was brought to you by spending only 30 seconds googling, but I know that spent effort destroys your world view).

Just because they are white, does not mean that they are killing in the name of Christianity. That would be convenient, I understand. Even if they were, no one says there are no psychos among christians, but consider the pure numbers, or is that too complicated?

Islamic terrorists kill in the name of Islam. Is that not clear to you? Islam has a problem. It's problem is that unlike Christianity, it can not go through reformation. Why would it? Koran is the "perfect" book. Perfect can not and should not be reformed.
Mohammed, being it's prophet is naturally idolized, as he is the teller and prime follower of that perfect book. Therefore, his behavior, as in being a rapist, pedophile and a mass murderer (all historical facts, btw) is considered to be perfectly acceptable by an uncomfortably large portion of the world's muslim population.

If you would like to continue believing that christian "terrorists" are a significant problem, and muslim terrorists are just isolated individuals who need jobs, be my guest. I have no cure for blindness. Neville Chamberlain, did not get cured either.

[FireIceTalon]

A link must be acknowledged between Christianity and terrorism!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...6485587473
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2..._sean.html

Or are you just making excuses?

(This was brought to you by spending only 30 seconds googling, but I know that spent effort destroys your world view).

Just because they are white, does not mean that they are killing in the name of Christianity. That would be convenient, I understand. Even if they were, no one says there are no psychos among christians, but consider the pure numbers, or is that too complicated?

Islamic terrorists kill in the name of Islam. Is that not clear to you? Islam has a problem. It's problem is that unlike Christianity, it can not go through reformation. Why would it? Koran is the "perfect" book. Perfect can not and should not be reformed.
Mohammed, being it's prophet is naturally idolized, as he is the teller and prime follower of that perfect book. Therefore, his behavior, as in being a rapist, pedophile and a mass murderer (all historical facts, btw) is considered to be perfectly acceptable by an uncomfortably large portion of the world's muslim population.

If you would like to continue believing that christian "terrorists" are a significant problem, and muslim terrorists are just isolated individuals who need jobs, be my guest. I have no cure for blindness. Neville Chamberlain, did not get cured either.

What a load of revisionist bullshit. Christian terrorists kill in the name of Christianity, just as Muslim terrorists kill in the name of Islam. Your post is nothing more than the typical Islamaphobia rhetoric that says one kind of terrorism is bad and another kind of terrorism is acceptable, or isn't terrorism at all....

In America, Christian and white terrorists get a free pass. Whenever one of them blows up an abortion clinic, a black church, or stabs people on a train, they get passed off as simply "being insane or crazy". They are not labeled as terrorists, yet if a non-white person or person of a different religion commits the same or a similar act, everyone throws the word terrorist around in heartbeat. What these idiots dont know is, white nationalist terrorists are a far greater threat to public safety here than terrorists from overseas are. You are far more likely to be a victim of domestic terrorism than you are of Islamic terrorism. FACT. I know its hard for white supremacists like yourself to swallow, but white people can be terrorists also, and here in America, they are in fact far more likely to be so than anyone else. In fact, if we go back through the entirety of human history, I'd say white people probably have the biggest monopoly on terrorism by a far margin - from the Vikings, to ancient Rome, to The Inquistion and scouring of Native american populations en masse, to the African slave trade, to the "war on terror" and US imperialism, fucking A.

Something else you fail to understand, A "psycho" and a terrorist are NOT the same thing. If that were the case then every terrorist regardless of affiliation could justify their actions, and that is almost never the case. Terrorists have a certain politically driven agenda they want to carry out and know FULLY WELL what they are doing, as opposed to someone who just simply "went off the deep end" and exploded in a fit of rage due to a build up of pressures (perceived or real), depression, stress, anxiety, or some other social and/or economic factor....but I'm tired of white nationalists (whether in the name of Christianity or not) committing what are essentially terrorist acts but being given a free "insanity" pass for it. Fuck that shit, they are not insane. They are terrorists, plain and simple.

The guy who killed two people in Portland on that train was EVERY bit as much a terrorist as a member of ISIS is. FACT.

[Ashock]

Oh and here's another list. This is just from the last couple of weeks, not something painstakingly compiled from the last 20 years and not even counting Manchester:

Some of the terrorist attacks during Ramadan 2017 include:

May 27 — Charchino, Afghanistan — Group fighting in favor of imposing Islamic law ambushes checkpoint, kills 11.
May 27 — Qadis, Afghanistan — Taliban kills 14, injures 17.
May 27 — Khost, Afghanistan — Taliban suicide bomber targets U.S-backed National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF), which includes army and police units, killing 18, woundin six others, including children.
May 27 — Kacha Khuh, Pakistan — “Honor Killing” — Brother hacks 18-year-old sister with axe to death for denying to abide by pre-arrange marriage.
May 27 — Marawi, Philippines — Jihadists kill 19 including women and a child.
May 28 — Marawi, Philippines — Jihadists murder 8 for “having betrayed their faith.”
May 28 — Ramo Adey, Somalia — Jihadists bury man to his neck, stone to death for adultery
May 28 — Mosul, Iraq — ISIS sets hospital ablaze and kills a dozen young people inside.
May 28 — Mosul, Iraq — ISIS kills at least 40 women and children trying to flee besieged city.
May 28 — Shirqat, Iraq — ISIS rocket attack kills three children and their parents.
May 28 — Gumsri, Nigeria — Boko Haram kills at least seven villagers.
May 28 — Shakhil Abad, Afghanistan — Islamic extremists kill district governor and his son inside their home.
May 28 — Baqubah, Iraq — Suicide bomber kills 3, injures up to 16 others outside court.
May 29 — Nguro, Nigeria — Boko Haram beheads five people.
May 29 — Ghat, Libya, — Suspected Islamic terrorists kill 1, injure 4.
May 29 — Shirqat, Iraq — Islamic shrapnel dismembers a child, injures 7.
May 29 — Baghdad, Iraq — 17 killed, 32 wounded — ISIS launches suicide attack against ice cream parlor frequented by families who were breaking their Ramadan fast.
May 29 — Baghdad, Iraq — 14 killed, 37 injured. ISIS attacked Shiites.
May 30 — Mattani, Pakistan — Islamist gun down four peace committee members.
May 30 — Peshawar, Pakistan — Suspected jihadist shoots leader of Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-i-Islami group while he was leaving a mosque.
May 30 — Shifa, Iraq — Mass grave found with 60 ISIS torture victims, including women, elderly.
May 30 — al-Joura, Syria — ISIS mortar kills 14, including children.
May 30 — Bay Hassan, Iraq — ISIS kills 3 Iraqi guards, wounds six others.
May 30 — Baghdad, Iraq — Jihadists kill 7, injure 19 in a blast.
May 30 — Baqubah, Iraq — A bomb explosion at mosque kills 7, wounds 6.
May 30 — Hit, Iraq — Fedayeen suicide bomber kills 8, injures 10.
May 31 — Kaya, Nigeria —Boko Haram kills 14.
May 31 — Fafi, Kenya — Suspected al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab burns down school, kills one teacher.
May 31 — Bab el-Beid, Iraq — Suicide bombers kill 3 civilians, including a child.
May 31 — Hit, Iraq — Shahid suicide bomber kills 3, injures 7.
May 31 — Mosul, Iraq — ISIS kills 34 for trying to leave the city.
May 31 — Mangai, Kenya — al-Qaeda-linked bombers kill 8.
May 31 — Kabul, Afghanistan — Suspected Haqqani Network kills at least 150, Wounds more than 460, including 11 Americans.
May 31 — Sinjar, Iraq — ISIS kills 2, injures 2.
June 01 — Abala, Niger — Jihadists kill 6 guards.
June 01 — Al-Hazm, Yemen — Terrorists kill 6, wound 15.
June 01 — Behsud, Afghanistan — Suicide bomber kills 1, wounds 4.
June 01 — Oldenburg, Germany — Muslim kills one for smoking during Ramadan and refusing to fast.
June 01 — Zanjili, Iraq — ISIS kills 7 for trying to flee caliphate.
June 02 — Kolofota, Cameroon — Islamist use two girls as suicide bombers killing 9 and wounding 30.
June 02 — Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia — Jihadist beheads one man.
June 03 — Marawi, Philippines — Islamic sniper kills 70-year-old man.
June 03 — Halabsah, Iraq — Four suicide bombers kill 1, injure 3
June 03 — London, England — Three Jihadists plow into pedestrians, then stab people, killing 7, injuring 48.
June 03 — Zanjili, Iraq — ISIS kills 43 for trying to flee caliphate.
June 03 — Lower Munda, India — Hizb-ul-Mujahideen kill 2 security troops, injure 4
June 03 — Nawabshah, Pakistan — Alleged victim’s brother-in-law kills two people for alleged adultery.
June 03 — Kabul, Afghanistan — Suicide bombers kill 20, injure 87
June 04 — Kandahar, Afghanistan — Afghan police insider attack leaves six dead, one injured
June 04 — Spini, Pakistan — Two Shiites from Hazara minority group killed.
June 04 — Talibul, Moula, Pakistan — “Honor Killing” — Father kills 18-year-old daughter for allegedly “having an affair.”
June 04 — Zanjili, Iraq — Wave of suicide bombers kills 32, injures 24.
June 04 — Quaidabad, Pakistan — Jihadis kill 1 barber.
June 05 — Melbourne, Australia — ISIS-linked migrant from Somalia kills man, takes prostitute hostage, an injures 4.
June 05 — Baghdad, Iraq — Terrorist mortar fired into family home dismembers 10-year-old boy, injures 4.
June 06 — Lower Munda, India — Hizb-ul-Mujahideen kill 2 security troops, injure 4
June 06 — Paris, France — Jihadist wounds cop with a hammer outside Notre Dame cathedral.
June 06 — Herat, Afghanistan — Terrorist kill 7, injure another 16 near the northern gate of the Great Mosque of Herat.
June 07 — Mosul, Iraq — Islamic State massacres 160 civilians trying to flee city, according to United Nations.

Hey, it IS holiday season.

[kandrathe]

The guy who killed two people in Portland on that train was EVERY bit as much a terrorist as a member of ISIS is. FACT.

He is also probably a psychopath. Some terrorists are also psychopaths, and probably a higher than average amount might be considering the major criteria for the diagnosis.

[Ashock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjxhLlBX5j0

Good insight here from someone who really knows. All of her segments are worth a watch.