What's new

A terrorist tried to bomb a US airport last week, didn't know? Guess his race

s28

ODI Debutant
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Runs
9,388
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/11/terrorist-donald-trump-airport-bomber-estes-asheville/

THE AIRPORT BOMBER FROM LAST WEEK YOU NEVER HEARD ABOUT

Shaun King
October 11 2017, 10:10 p.m.

IT’S STRANGE HOW some things really catch on and go viral and others don’t. These days, nothing quite makes a story blow up — no pun intended — like the president’s fixation with it. That’s why it’s so peculiar that what sure looks like an attempted terrorist attack was narrowly thwarted at an American airport this past Friday without so much as peep from Donald Trump about it. No tweets. No nicknames for the alleged would-be-terrorist. Nothing. You’ll see why in a minute.

On past Friday morning, at 12:39 a.m., security footage from the Asheville Regional Airport in North Carolina showed a man walking through the front doors wearing black clothing and a black cap, while carrying a bag. “Based on a review of the video, the individual walked near the entrance to the terminal, went out of sight momentarily, and was then seen departing the area without the bag,” according to the criminal complaint.

Following the Transportation Security Administration’s protocols, airport security allowed a bomb dog to sniff the bag for explosives and the dog signaled to the team the presence of dangerous materials in the bag. The concourse was then shut down. The street leading to the airport was shut down. And Asheville Regional Airport officials found themselves in a dangerous emergency situation.

What investigators eventually found in the bag was AN/FO (Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel Oil) explosives that, according to the criminal complaint, have been used “in a number of terrorist-related incidents around the world. When AN/FO comes into contact with a flame or other ignition source it explodes violently. Nails or ball bearings are often items added to the device so as to increase the devastation inflicted by the explosion.”


In fact, sharp nails and bullets were found in this improvised explosive device. Whoever built it designed the bomb to cause horrific bodily harm. Before disarming it, authorities discovered that the alarm attached to it was scheduled to go off at 6:00 a.m. that morning just as a fresh round of travelers was scheduled to arrive at the airport.

The man who planted it, it turns out, openly admitted to authorities that he was “preparing to fight a war on U.S. soil” and that this bomb was but one part of that war.

Little Fanfare

I bet you never heard about it. I keep an eye on these types of incidents closely and I didn’t hear about it. Someone who follows me online who happens to live in Asheville sent me the story this morning — shocked that it hadn’t gotten any play at all beyond a few mentions in the local paper and some isolated pickup by a few national outlets.

As soon as I clicked on the article, it all made perfect sense.

The story didn’t go viral and Trump didn’t tweet about it because the bomb was not placed by an immigrant, or a Muslim, or a Mexican. It was placed there by a good ol’ white man, Michael Christopher Estes. Unlike the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, whose motive is still hard to discern, Estes wanted to be very clear that his ultimate goal was to accelerate a war on American soil.

Sorry if it sounds like you’ve heard this story before. I’m as tired of writing it as you are reading it, but you know good and well that if Estes was a young Muslim — hell, if he had ever even visited a mosque in the past 25 years — that Trump would be tweeting about him right this very moment to tout how essential a Muslim ban is for American safety.

A Muslim attacker’s mugshot would become a meme across the conservative media. Mainstream American outlets would be covering the heroic bravery of those who thwarted the terrorist plot. We’d all be seeing footage of the perpetrator being walked from the police car to the jail and from the jail to the court room. Out loud, people would talk and tweet about the man’s family and friends and networks — wondering where he was radicalized, and if anyone else feels the way he does.

In this case, though? Crickets. We hear nothing at all — almost exclusively because the man who planted an improvised explosive device, just like ones that have been used to murder and maim people all over the world, was white. His guilt starts and stops with him. His actions aren’t an indictment of his whole faith, political outlook, and race. White people aren’t, thanks to Estes, suddenly labeled terrorists or seen as a threat to American safety in the way that would almost certainly happen had it been anybody other than a white man.

This isn’t me calling for all of those things that happen to Muslims and immigrants every single day to now happen to Estes and white people all over the country. It’s me saying that the fundamentally bigoted double standard by which it is done to virtually everyone except for Michael Christopher Estes and other white men has to stop.
 
Technically he was not a "terrorist", You have to be a Muslim to be labelled as a terrorist.
 
Shocking . This should be reported all over the world . I am truly very surprised.
 
And then there are some on this forum suggesting if you’re Muslim then bend over and never to point this hypocrisy if you want to feel assimilate.
 
There was another incident of shooting in US last week where a guy shot a police officer near a college. The entire college had to be locked down completely till the guy was arrested. Only heard a passing reference of it.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ICYMI: Airport bomber, Michael Christopher Estes - a white (not Muslim) male whose ultimate goal was to accelerate a war on American soil - caught in the last week <a href="https://t.co/px2KrpRMnh">https://t.co/px2KrpRMnh</a></p>— Miqdaad Versi (@miqdaad) <a href="https://twitter.com/miqdaad/status/918398929250725888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">12 October 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
There was another incident of shooting in US last week where a guy shot a police officer near a college. The entire college had to be locked down completely till the guy was arrested. Only heard a passing reference of it.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Jason Schaefer is being treated after detonating a small explosive in his car while evading authorities <a href="https://t.co/58sjUasOF6">https://t.co/58sjUasOF6</a> <a href="https://t.co/6aspjdiSGO">pic.twitter.com/6aspjdiSGO</a></p>— KOIN News (@KOINNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/KOINNews/status/918288086617899008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">12 October 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
This is nothing new, there have been many cases where terrorists who are white dont recieve anywhere near the same mainstream media attention. If this was a Muslim it would be breaking news in America and in Europe, probably lasting a couple of days.

Then we have people claiming Muslims have some sort of victim mentality, why wouldnt they?
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What would make the American media ignore an attempted airport bombing? What if the suspect is white? <a href="https://t.co/I15KTkFpZf">pic.twitter.com/I15KTkFpZf</a></p>— TRT World (@trtworld) <a href="https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/919359692639428610?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">15 October 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
It proves that what is going is clash of civilizations..as killing from "the other" generates the most outrage, otherwise it is internal matter.
 
This is nothing new, there have been many cases where terrorists who are white dont recieve anywhere near the same mainstream media attention. If this was a Muslim it would be breaking news in America and in Europe, probably lasting a couple of days.

In a way, it's similar to most Muslims displaying their furore when non-Muslims are the protagonists (Myanmar vs Rohingya, India vs Kashmir, Israel vs Palestine) - but the same bunch are quick to maintain radio silence when it's Muslims doing the cleansing (Saudis vs Yemen, Taliban vs Pakistan, ISIS vs Iraq/Syria).

In short? Human bias.
 
Technically he was not a "terrorist", You have to be a Muslim to be labelled as a terrorist.

No, you have to have a political motivation for your violent acts. What was this perp's political motivation?
 
No, you have to have a political motivation for your violent acts. What was this perp's political motivation?

did you not read the article, it said he was 'preparing to fight a war on US soil'. Why would anyone attempt to bomb an airport if they didn't have political motives?
 
The problem with emotional Muslims and other White liberals targeting and lambasting the media for not calling every single Non-Muslim, White criminal a terrorist is that they are unable to distinguish between what a terrorist and a criminal is, even if he the motives are similar - which could be to supposedly kill hundreds of people.

For an act of violence, like mass-murder to be called "terrorism" there are a few prerequisite; one that the act needs to be politically motivated and second that the act is carried out by “substate groups” rather than state actors.

Lets take the Las Vegas shooter for example: There is no evidence has emerged that the Las Vegas shooter was motivated by political beliefs. And therefore, that cannot be labelled as terrorism. The agenda may have been to spread fear, or even a gorey desire to go on murderous spree and murder innocent people, like is has happened so many times over the past - but, it certainly was not an act of terrorism.

The fact that people are terrorized doesn’t necessarily mean that an act of terror has been committed. This matters, because language matters. When terms are used too broadly, or just sloppily, they lose their meaning.

Perhaps more important, consider the potential consequences of broadening the use of the term “terrorism” to include white men who express generalized rage by firing the guns so easily available to them. More people, potentially, would be subjected to entrapment, inflated sentences, and torture conditions—hardly a desirable outcome, even if the injustice would be spread a little more fairly. Worse, these killers would get to enjoy an entirely different profile after committing their crimes.

And to take this particular incident at the US airport into contention, again - it doesn't fit the criteria for terrorism considering that the incendiary did not belong to a particular group claiming to terrorize the world in hopes of taking over. Had he sworn allegiance to the KKK - even if they denied any involvement - you could have labelled it as an act of terrorism. Or even he had had honed the KKK attire or worn a Swastika, but he didn't. He didn't chant any phrases similar to "Allah Hu Akbar" showing his support to a particular agency.

Therefore, I think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Western media not calling every other white, mass-murderer a terrorist simply because - while it is extremely nefarious - it is NOT act of TERRORISM.
 
The problem with emotional Muslims and other White liberals targeting and lambasting the media for not calling every single Non-Muslim, White criminal a terrorist is that they are unable to distinguish between what a terrorist and a criminal is, even if he the motives are similar - which could be to supposedly kill hundreds of people.

For an act of violence, like mass-murder to be called "terrorism" there are a few prerequisite; one that the act needs to be politically motivated and second that the act is carried out by “substate groups” rather than state actors.

Lets take the Las Vegas shooter for example: There is no evidence has emerged that the Las Vegas shooter was motivated by political beliefs. And therefore, that cannot be labelled as terrorism. The agenda may have been to spread fear, or even a gorey desire to go on murderous spree and murder innocent people, like is has happened so many times over the past - but, it certainly was not an act of terrorism.

The fact that people are terrorized doesn’t necessarily mean that an act of terror has been committed. This matters, because language matters. When terms are used too broadly, or just sloppily, they lose their meaning.

Perhaps more important, consider the potential consequences of broadening the use of the term “terrorism” to include white men who express generalized rage by firing the guns so easily available to them. More people, potentially, would be subjected to entrapment, inflated sentences, and torture conditions—hardly a desirable outcome, even if the injustice would be spread a little more fairly. Worse, these killers would get to enjoy an entirely different profile after committing their crimes.

And to take this particular incident at the US airport into contention, again - it doesn't fit the criteria for terrorism considering that the incendiary did not belong to a particular group claiming to terrorize the world in hopes of taking over. Had he sworn allegiance to the KKK - even if they denied any involvement - you could have labelled it as an act of terrorism. Or even he had had honed the KKK attire or worn a Swastika, but he didn't. He didn't chant any phrases similar to "Allah Hu Akbar" showing his support to a particular agency.

Therefore, I think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Western media not calling every other white, mass-murderer a terrorist simply because - while it is extremely nefarious - it is NOT act of TERRORISM.

Your second criteria is made up.
 
In a way, it's similar to most Muslims displaying their furore when non-Muslims are the protagonists (Myanmar vs Rohingya, India vs Kashmir, Israel vs Palestine) - but the same bunch are quick to maintain radio silence when it's Muslims doing the cleansing (Saudis vs Yemen, Taliban vs Pakistan, ISIS vs Iraq/Syria).

In short? Human bias.

1. You clearly have no idea if you think Muslims dont speak up against other Muslims. You're probably in your own little bubble in shining India.

2. It's a stupid comparison. What people do isn't the question here but what the media does is the issue.

I'd prefer it you dont waste my time by quoting me with an daft reply. :bumble
 
did you not read the article, it said he was 'preparing to fight a war on US soil'. Why would anyone attempt to bomb an airport if they didn't have political motives?

I did. I ask again: what's his political motivation?
 
The problem with emotional Muslims and other White liberals targeting and lambasting the media for not calling every single Non-Muslim, White criminal a terrorist is that they are unable to distinguish between what a terrorist and a criminal is, even if he the motives are similar - which could be to supposedly kill hundreds of people.

For an act of violence, like mass-murder to be called "terrorism" there are a few prerequisite; one that the act needs to be politically motivated and second that the act is carried out by “substate groups” rather than state actors.

Lets take the Las Vegas shooter for example: There is no evidence has emerged that the Las Vegas shooter was motivated by political beliefs. And therefore, that cannot be labelled as terrorism. The agenda may have been to spread fear, or even a gorey desire to go on murderous spree and murder innocent people, like is has happened so many times over the past - but, it certainly was not an act of terrorism.

The fact that people are terrorized doesn’t necessarily mean that an act of terror has been committed. This matters, because language matters. When terms are used too broadly, or just sloppily, they lose their meaning.

Perhaps more important, consider the potential consequences of broadening the use of the term “terrorism” to include white men who express generalized rage by firing the guns so easily available to them. More people, potentially, would be subjected to entrapment, inflated sentences, and torture conditions—hardly a desirable outcome, even if the injustice would be spread a little more fairly. Worse, these killers would get to enjoy an entirely different profile after committing their crimes.

And to take this particular incident at the US airport into contention, again - it doesn't fit the criteria for terrorism considering that the incendiary did not belong to a particular group claiming to terrorize the world in hopes of taking over. Had he sworn allegiance to the KKK - even if they denied any involvement - you could have labelled it as an act of terrorism. Or even he had had honed the KKK attire or worn a Swastika, but he didn't. He didn't chant any phrases similar to "Allah Hu Akbar" showing his support to a particular agency.

Therefore, I think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Western media not calling every other white, mass-murderer a terrorist simply because - while it is extremely nefarious - it is NOT act of TERRORISM.

lol.

1. There is no universal definition of terrorism.

2. According to the state and federal law both are acts of terrorism.

3. The story in the OP tells you the motive was "preparing to fight a war on U.S. soil”. This is political, so even by your definition it's terrorism.
 
lol.

1. There is no universal definition of terrorism.

2. According to the state and federal law both are acts of terrorism.

3. The story in the OP tells you the motive was "preparing to fight a war on U.S. soil”. This is political, so even by your definition it's terrorism.

Exactly. This is solely MY interpretation of the scenario. Everyone would have a different definition.

And no, this is not political. One sole man does not reflect an entire political ideology he himself is not aware of.
For it to be political, he needs to be representing someone, some organization, something, a group or at least a cause. He doesn't. His main motive was to spread violence.
 
As I've mentioned in the post itself, you cannot fit these "attacks" into the 'oxford' definition of Terrorism either. It wasn't politically motivated.

I did not challenge first criteria, I said about your second criteria. You just attached a made up criteria to the defination.

And when I pointed out, you asked me the prove it...instead of thanking me.
(I hope my links satisfied you)

Btw, I did not read your post beyond that sentence as post lost credibility at that point.
 
Exactly. This is solely MY interpretation of the scenario. Everyone would have a different definition.

And no, this is not political. One sole man does not reflect an entire political ideology he himself is not aware of.
For it to be political, he needs to be representing someone, some organization, something, a group or at least a cause. He doesn't. His main motive was to spread violence.

You didn't mention it was YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of what terrorism is. :)

Well you are wrong. The LAW states it was terrorism. Are you suggesting the law of the USA is wrong and you know better?

There does not need to be group to kill people for a political purpose and to be labelled a terrorist. Anders Brevik was a lone actor. Here is a BBC headline.

Norway terror attacks: Anders Breivik changes his name to Fjotolf Hansen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40233702
 
I did not challenge first criteria, I said about your second criteria. You just attached a made up criteria to the defination.

And when I pointed out, you asked me the prove it...instead of thanking me.
(I hope my links satisfied you)

Btw, I did not read your post beyond that sentence as post lost credibility at that point.

I didn't ask you to prove it, I simply asked you to suggest a better one. There is no one universal formula that distinguishes one act of violence from another, this is simply my interpretation. Give me a few hours to prove on how this is factual as well, I'm out of reach of a laptop as of now.

Thanks.
 
I'd prefer it you dont waste my time by quoting me with an daft reply. :bumble

Here it comes, take cover.

1. You clearly have no idea if you think Muslims dont speak up against other Muslims. You're probably in your own little bubble in shining India.

Remind us, how many change.org petitions have you set up over the past year and a half protesting on behalf of the safety of the peoples of Yemen? How many nights of sleep have you lost over the near-weekly bombing runs in Afghanistan? Did you strongly oppose the NATO-led bombing of Libya earlier this decade? If yes, how far did you go?

So on and so forth.
 
Exactly. This is solely MY interpretation of the scenario. Everyone would have a different definition.

And no, this is not political. One sole man does not reflect an entire political ideology he himself is not aware of.
For it to be political, he needs to be representing someone, some organization, something, a group or at least a cause. He doesn't. His main motive was to spread violence.

Since there has been very little coverage of this news, we haven't really been able to establish any background to the attempted act of terror. It might even just be an individual who became unhinged after reading too many scare stories in the national media. The constant drip drip of negative headlines might well cause a a groundswell of anger in the population. If you don't think this stuff makes a difference, just look at what happened with Brexit in the UK.
 
Humans are easily influenced and the people in power would not like to highlight white people with terrorism as it an cause terrorism amongst white people to increase further.. Yo can call him a terrorist or a mass murderer it's just a term end of the day his actions were despicable and he should be punished the same way as your "Muslim terrorists".
 
Humans are easily influenced and the people in power would not like to highlight white people with terrorism as it an cause terrorism amongst white people to increase further.. Yo can call him a terrorist or a mass murderer it's just a term end of the day his actions were despicable and he should be punished the same way as your "Muslim terrorists".

But corporate news media and right-wing politicians do not care about an increase in Muslim terrorism, as blanket coverage for days on end proves, every time a Muslim decides to bomb or kill innocent civilians (for no conceivable reason).

I think the word 'terrorist' is a code word for 'Muslim' - and also, that terrorism justifies Western military presence in the Muslim world. Nothing is to be gained - politically or militarily, even financially - from terrorists who are White, since the West is highly unlikely to invade, bomb and occupy itself.
 
Here it comes, take cover.



Remind us, how many change.org petitions have you set up over the past year and a half protesting on behalf of the safety of the peoples of Yemen? How many nights of sleep have you lost over the near-weekly bombing runs in Afghanistan? Did you strongly oppose the NATO-led bombing of Libya earlier this decade? If yes, how far did you go?

So on and so forth.

I've never set up a change.org petition, I merely sign any petition which calls for justice. I oppose all acts of terrorism and injustice, not that I should be justifying myself to you. lol
 
I've never set up a change.org petition, I merely sign any petition which calls for justice. I oppose all acts of terrorism and injustice, not that I should be justifying myself to you. lol

At least 300 have died in a truck bomb attack carried out by al-Shabab in Somalia yesterday. How come we don't see you in that thread? Where is the anger? Is al-Shabab on the whitelist? Is 300 too low for the threshold?
 
Ahmad Khan Rahimi

A muslim who set off several bombs in New York was not charged with terrorist offences.

On September 20, Rahimi was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, by criminal complaint, with four federal crimes including use of weapons of mass destruction (count one); bombing a place of public use (count two); destruction of property by means of fire or explosives (count three); and use of a destructive device during and in furtherance of a crime of violence (count four).[57] On the same day, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark charged him with use of a weapon of mass destruction (counts one and two), bombings of a place of public use and public transportation system (count three), and attempted destruction of property by means of fire or explosive (count four).[58][106]

Sort of blows this arguement out the window.
 
At least 300 have died in a truck bomb attack carried out by al-Shabab in Somalia yesterday. How come we don't see you in that thread? Where is the anger? Is al-Shabab on the whitelist? Is 300 too low for the threshold?

How come you don't ask the same question of those like Qazzarfan and co who don't show up in threads about riots in India, or ethnic cleansing in Myanmar? You see, once we start making this about the posters rather than the topic, then it works both ways.
 
At least 300 have died in a truck bomb attack carried out by al-Shabab in Somalia yesterday. How come we don't see you in that thread? Where is the anger? Is al-Shabab on the whitelist? Is 300 too low for the threshold?

When the thread came up I knew little about the incident. But its nice you are keeping an eye on my postings. I wish I could say the same about you. :)
 
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/update/2017-10-17/salford-man-charged-with-terrorism-offences/

A man has been charged with terrorism offences after an investigation by Counter Terrorism officers in the North West

Adam Wyatt, 49 from Bridgewater Street in Salford, has been charged with 11 counts under the Terrorism Act, including the encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of a terrorism publication. He's also charged possessing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

Wyatt will be detained in custody to appear at Westminster Magistrates Court tomorrow, Wednesday 18 October 2017.

Police say there is no intelligence to suggest a specific threat to the communities of Salford or Greater Manchester relating to the ongoing investigation.

Officers say whilst this activity was part of a planned operation, it is not linked to the investigation into the Manchester bomb attack.
 
Back
Top