• String of Arson Attacks on Predominantly Black Churches in 4 Southern States
    94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archangel125;48066887]A false flag operation would be equally strange, wouldn't it? Yeah, people hate these hate groups, but to actually burn down a black church - Or several - to make people think it's a hate group is a little too stupid to make any sense. On the other hand, it's not so unusual to imagine the hate groups themselves, or members of these groups, may be behind the attacks because they've seen all the events of the last two or three years involving racial tensions as attacks on their own race. Those are the terms in which these fools think.[/QUOTE] I agree that it's equally strange. I am in NO WAY trying to say it's what happened. But you can't discount it as a possibility. People are getting more and more extreme on BOTH sides, and it's not hard to imagine an extremist would false flag to make sure confederate flags get taken down, and it's not hard to imagine that it was an actual racist hate crime. I'm just saying we don't know anything for sure yet.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48066884]Do you have any actual evidence? If not, you're just basing this on opinions and assumptions.[/QUOTE] Well we have two options. 1: Black people burned their own churches to convince people that people who everybody already thinks are racists are racist. 2: White people in a part of the country that has a history of burning black churches burned them out of anger at the events that have transpired in racial issues in the past few weeks. One of those seems a lot more plausible than the other to me.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;48066921]Well we have two options. 1: Black people burned their own churches to convince that people who everybody already thinks are racists are racist. 2: White people in a part of the country that has a history of burning black churches burned them out of anger at the events that have transpired in racial issues in the past few weeks. One of those seems a lot more plausible than the other to me.[/QUOTE] 3) A group trying to stir the pot and start a race war are burning down random black churches to set everything off. 4) Extremist atheists using current tensions to burn down churches which would be blamed on hate groups I can go on, and on, and on, and on with things that are plausible. "More" plausible is just a condition of what you believe happened based on your opinions and assumptions. We need more evidence to say anything for sure.
I don't think this is the work of hate groups. Saying 'hate groups' implies an organized and goal oriented group of people. Dylann Roof was not part of a hate group last I read. It's nutcases who get excited when something in their area of interest becomes widely publicized. It feeds on itself, one crazy guy does something and other ones start thinking "yeah, I should do something..." and like a bunch of dominoes falling they do their thing one after another. One thing is usually true about organized groups and that is that because they are an organized group they have something to lose- their organization. That's why hate groups exist but don't actually do much except talk(and write) about things they hate. Imagine someone running an organization and allowing it to do this sort of thing, burn down a church, if anyone caught them it would be the end for them. The Feds would come down on them and everyone they are associated with. That's why people who go off like this are almost always outsiders, even to extremist groups.
[QUOTE=deadoon;48066878]I'm just saying that it is in poor taste to call this a good thing, rather than say something along the lines of "I feel it is quite traumatic for the communities which these churches served, but I hope that this will make people more aware of the domestic extremism that is occurring within America. If the recent events in which the confederate flag is being recognized for the symbol of racism it has become contrive to bring extremist elements of the white supremacist degenerates out of the woodwork, they can finally be exposed and eradicated." I would have never even commented on it. But saying that it is a good thing, and outright prefacing it as such is quite distasteful.[/QUOTE] I agree, it was a poorly worded post, but let's face it, a lot of people here aren't very good at getting their point across. No offense to anyone here, I myself have a hard time with it too. Just cut him some slack. If he had just worded it a little different I'm almost positive those boxes would be checkmarks.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;48066941]I don't think this is the work of hate groups. Saying 'hate groups' implies an organized and goal oriented group of people. Dylann Roof was not part of a hate group last I read. It's nutcases who get excited when something in their area of interest becomes widely publicized. It feeds on itself, one crazy guy does something and other ones start thinking "yeah, I should do something..." and like a bunch of dominoes falling they do their thing one after another. One thing is usually true about organized groups and that is that because they are an organized group they have something to lose- their organization. That's why hate groups exist but don't actually do much except talk(and write) about things they hate. Imagine someone running an organization and allowing it to do this sort of thing, burn down a church, if anyone caught them it would be the end for them. The Feds would come down on them and everyone they are associated with. That's why people who go off like this are almost always outsiders, even to extremist groups.[/QUOTE] Now that's a more reasonable argument. I don't think it was just one person, as several churches have been burned down, but the people involved may be members of a hate group and not officially endorsed by the group in their actions. Either way, this can and should flag the entire group as a domestic terror threat.
[QUOTE=archangel125;48066960]Now that's a more reasonable argument. I don't think it was just one person, as several churches have been burned down, but the people involved may be members of a hate group and not officially endorsed by the group in their actions. Either way, this can and should flag the entire group as a domestic terror threat.[/QUOTE] If it is a group, they most certainly should be flagged as domestic terrorists.
[QUOTE=archangel125;48066887]A false flag operation would be equally strange, wouldn't it? Yeah, people hate these hate groups, but to actually burn down a black church - Or several - to make people think it's a hate group is a little too stupid to make any sense. On the other hand, it's not so unusual to imagine the hate groups themselves, or members of these groups, may be behind the attacks because they've seen all the events of the last two or three years involving racial tensions as attacks on their own race. Those are the terms in which these fools think.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't surprise me if the motivation behind this were to create some kind of race war. These people are pretty fucking crazy. I really hope this doesn't provoke more violence in retaliation.
[QUOTE=archangel125;48066960]Now that's a more reasonable argument. I don't think it was just one person, as several churches have been burned down, but the people involved may be members of a hate group and not officially endorsed by the group in their actions. Either way, this can and should flag the entire group as a domestic terror threat.[/QUOTE] Another possibility is firefighters in the areas setting them to create a fire to put out. Some firemen end up getting addicted to the adrenaline rush of putting out fires, and it causes them to go out and start fires just to put out. The thing is, anything is possible in this situation, because everyone will automatically assume it's a hate group doing these acts. Nobody really expects it NOT to be a hate group, so it's kind of the perfect situation. It's why a false flag is much more possible in this situation than any other. It's also why, especially in this type of situation, we have to be extra careful NOT to jump to conclusions.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48067016]Another possibility is firefighters in the areas setting them to create a fire to put out. Some firemen end up getting addicted to the adrenaline rush of putting out fires, and it causes them to go out and start fires just to put out. [/QUOTE] At first I thought that was a bit of a stretch, but honestly that kind of makes sense. Why [I]wouldn't[/I] you assume this was racially motivated? One would have to be one hell of a sociopath though to specifically target six, predominantly black churches in four different states at roughly the same time solely so one could put out the fires and have everyone believe it was racially motivated and not suspect them. And usually sociopaths aren't that methodical. Maybe they needed a way to grant themselves more funding? Eh, this is starting to sound more like a stretch of the imagination. People definitely should keep an open mind on the matter though. We are very sparse on details.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;48067066]At first I thought that was a bit of a stretch, but honestly that kind of makes sense. Why [I]wouldn't[/I] you assume this is racially motivated? One would have to be one hell of a sociopath though to specifically target six, predominantly black churches solely so one could put out the fires and have everyone believe it was racially motivated and not suspect them. And usually sociopaths aren't that methodical. Maybe they needed a way to grant themselves more funding? Eh, this is starting to sound more like a stretch.[/QUOTE] You're not talking about sociopaths. You're talking about an adrenaline junkie. You would be surprised with what some of them can come up with. It's not about funding. It's about getting that adrenaline rush of fighting a fire. But what you put in that first line is what I'm really trying to emphasize: [I]Why wouldn't you assume this is racially motivated?[/I] That's why we need to be extra careful not to assume this. You could end up looking for the wrong people.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48067095]You're not talking about sociopaths. You're talking about an adrenaline junkie. You would be surprised with what some of them can come up with. It's not about funding. It's about getting that adrenaline rush of fighting a fire. But what you put in that first line is what I'm really trying to emphasize: [I]Why wouldn't you assume this is racially motivated?[/I] That's why we need to be extra careful not to assume this. You could end up looking for the wrong people.[/QUOTE] While the whole firefighter thing sounds really silly considering this happened over four different states, I definitely agree that people should look into other possible motives beyond racial ones.
And everyone thought I was dumb when I said that racism is just as bad as it was 60 years ago
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;48069658]And everyone thought I was dumb when I said that racism is just as bad as it was 60 years ago[/QUOTE] well that's because you're wrong
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;48067115]While the whole firefighter thing sounds really silly considering this happened over four different states, I definitely agree that people should look into other possible motives beyond racial ones.[/QUOTE] The smart money is still on hate though.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;48071294]The smart money is still on hate though.[/QUOTE] And the intelligent money is on not jumping to conclusions before more evidence comes out.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48066939]3) A group trying to stir the pot and start a race war are burning down random black churches to set everything off. 4) Extremist atheists using current tensions to burn down churches which would be blamed on hate groups I can go on, and on, and on, and on with things that are plausible. "More" plausible is just a condition of what you believe happened based on your opinions and assumptions. We need more evidence to say anything for sure.[/QUOTE] I have never heard of an "Extremist athiest" burning down a church what alternate reality do you live in [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] The most these people do is argue with a priest about their intellectual superiority not commit hate crimes
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48071634]I have never heard of an "Extremist athiest" burning down a church what alternate reality do you live in[/QUOTE] Varg Vikernes comes to mind
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48071634]I have never heard of an "Extremist athiest" burning down a church what alternate reality do you live in[/QUOTE] So because you've never heard of it, it means it isn't even possible? I live in the reality where things are possible, and we can't know things for certain until we have evidence.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48067016]Another possibility is firefighters in the areas setting them to create a fire to put out. Some firemen end up getting addicted to the adrenaline rush of putting out fires, and it causes them to go out and start fires just to put out. The thing is, anything is possible in this situation, because everyone will automatically assume it's a hate group doing these acts. Nobody really expects it NOT to be a hate group, so it's kind of the perfect situation. It's why a false flag is much more possible in this situation than any other. It's also why, especially in this type of situation, we have to be extra careful NOT to jump to conclusions.[/QUOTE] So either a number of firefighters across multiple strictly southern states near-simultaneously decided now was the time to develop hero syndrome (an uncommon psychological complex) and all happened to target predominantly black churches in an otherwise completely colorblind crime, or this MIGHT have something to do with the massively heightened racial tensions and omnipresent media coverage of the conflict over a heavily worshiped ([I]also[/I] strictly southern) symbol. What makes a false flag MORE likely anyway? If someone spray painted "BLACK LIVES MATTER" on a confederate war memorial (as someone did just recently), does that mean it was probably racist white dudes since they would gain more from it than an actual black protester trying to send a message? Could you even form any kind of opinion on it or who the culprit was? I don't think you're as afraid of deduction as you say you are, dude.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48071639]Varg Vikernes comes to mind[/QUOTE] Varg Vikernes in an Odinist and a huge racist who hates Christianity because it was made by brown people, not an extremist atheist.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48071667]So because you've never heard of it, it means it isn't even possible? I live in the reality where things are possible, and we can't know things for certain until we have evidence.[/QUOTE] It's almost as if you're defending white hate groups or affiliates by trying to somehow push the idea that it wasn't them. [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Taepodong-2;48072052]Varg Vikernes in an Odinist and a huge racist who hates Christianity because it was made by brown people, not an extremist atheist.[/QUOTE] Is the new Norse religion not really about believing in god or gods, though?
[QUOTE=Cone;48071915]So either a number of firefighters across multiple strictly southern states near-simultaneously decided now was the time to develop hero syndrome (an uncommon psychological complex) and all happened to target predominantly black churches in an otherwise completely colorblind crime, or this MIGHT have something to do with the massively heightened racial tensions and omnipresent media coverage of the conflict over a heavily worshiped ([I]also[/I] strictly southern) symbol.[/QUOTE] The fact that you act like the only possibilities are the ones I mentioned as examples shows that you're missing the entire point. [QUOTE]What makes a false flag MORE likely anyway? If someone spray painted "BLACK LIVES MATTER" on a confederate war memorial (as someone did just recently), does that mean it was probably racist white dudes since they would gain more from it than an actual black protester trying to send a message? Could you even form any kind of opinion on it or who the culprit was? I don't think you're as afraid of deduction as you say you are, dude.[/QUOTE] As a matter of fact, it COULD have been a hate group who did it to try and paint BLM activists as people who don't have any respect for history or the dead. A false flag is more of a possibility in these situations because everyone knows EXACTLY who people are going to assume did it. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48072200]It's almost as if you're defending white hate groups or affiliates by trying to somehow push the idea that it wasn't them.[/QUOTE] Not at all. It could very well have been hate groups. That is also a very likely possibility. In light of recent situations (people assuming Freddie Gray must have been beaten because there's no way he could have hit his head hard enough in the back of the van to do any damage, Hands up, don't shoot, etc...) where people have been jumping to conclusions and have been dead wrong, I think we ALL need to learn to wait for the evidence to come out before we start unleashing our opinions of what happened and creating ignorance.
To clarify my remarks, I do think racism is a foundation here, it's just I don't think it's [i]organized[/i] racism, ie a racist hate group. Think of it like someone who is paranoid about government surveillance doing some kind of attack. Obviously it's a mental thing(paranoia) but the basis is anti-government activity. Timothy McVeigh would be an example of what I mean. Was he part of some organized group when he did his crime. I'd say no, that him and his friend were off on their own, although they may have started by affiliating with members of such groups.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48071634]I have never heard of an "Extremist athiest" burning down a church what alternate reality do you live in[/QUOTE] Stalin? Mao? They did a whole lot more than burn down churches. With that said, this seems like a racist attack. I'm not sure why we would try and come up with some other, less likely, explanation.
Guys we really need to be looking for the extremist atheist adrenaline junkie firemen, they're most likely the real culprits here. These attacks match their profile to a T.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48072200] Is the new Norse religion not really about believing in god or gods, though?[/QUOTE] This post led me on a 20 minute wikipedia digging session on everything related to radical nordic paganism and its ties to the white supremacy movement and now I'm just exhausted
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;48069658]And everyone thought I was dumb when I said that racism is just as bad as it was 60 years ago[/QUOTE] 60 years ago blacks were being murdered and lynched on a regular basis. That isn't happening today. 60 years ago, whites were being brutally beaten and in some cases [URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers'_murders]murdered[/URL] for supporting blacks. That isn't happening today. 60 years ago, blacks were disenfranchised and rampant racism prevented them from even going to vote if they were registered to vote. That isn't happening today.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48072868]The fact that you act like the only possibilities are the ones I mentioned as examples shows that you're missing the entire point. As a matter of fact, it COULD have been a hate group who did it to try and paint BLM activists as people who don't have any respect for history or the dead. A false flag is more of a possibility in these situations because everyone knows EXACTLY who people are going to assume did it. Not at all. It could very well have been hate groups. That is also a very likely possibility. In light of recent situations (people assuming Freddie Gray must have been beaten because there's no way he could have hit his head hard enough in the back of the van to do any damage, Hands up, don't shoot, etc...) where people have been jumping to conclusions and have been dead wrong, I think we ALL need to learn to wait for the evidence to come out before we start unleashing our opinions of what happened and creating ignorance.[/QUOTE] Hey man, if it makes noises like a horse and beats it's hooves like a horse...well it's probably safe to assume it's a horse and not a zebra.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48073951]Hey man, if it makes noises like a horse and beats it's hooves like a horse...well it's probably safe to assume it's a horse and not a zebra.[/QUOTE] You're right. Go into a court house and use that logic to try and prove someone guilty. See what a judge tells you. It's not like we already have a problem with people jumping to their own conclusions and being wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.