"Beat Whitey night" in Iowa...but it isn't racial...

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by rbell, Aug 27, 2010.

  1. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again, the utter stupidity of "hate crimes" shows up...

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...rm-race-was-factor-in-fights-near-fairgrounds

    "Beat Whitey night" at an Iowa fair...perps are black, victims are white...and even though police witnesses confirm the accounts...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qeMslmDBxY&feature=watch_response


    no one will admit the attacks were racially motivated.

    Just more proof: 'Hate crimes' only occur in one direction.

    Suggestion: End the stupidity. Call crimes what they are. Punish criminals for what they do. Severely. Give equal protection under the law.
     
  2. SBCPreacher

    SBCPreacher
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    This uses way too much common sense - so, it'll never happen!
     
  3. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    More silliness...

    The police spokesperson who admitted there could be "racial undertones" to this event (remember, there was documented proof of roving gangs going around yelling "beat whitey night!") has been removed from her post and re-assigned.

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...man-moved-after-remarks-on-fairgrounds-fights

    OK, so keep in mind, folks: Racism only goes one direction. You're not allowed to point out otherwise. And if you're a race pimp, you don't even have to acknoweledge that it does.

    I hope the police chief is fired, yesterday.
     
  4. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    What I think they mean is that it is not a confirmed racial incident until this source is verified. So it's only "possibly" a racial incidence. In other words, attacks happened, but so far, the this supposed chant that accompanied them is only a claim at this point. If it's confirmed, then they would acknowledge it as a racial incident.

    I don't even see why an area like that would be so "reverse discriminated". I see that Aryan Nation people were involved, and it sounds like they were simply instigating.
     
  5. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where are you seeing this?

    The OP article stated that "The violence outside the fairgrounds has garnered national attention and prompted an Aryan organization to say it plans to send members to Des Moines to "answer the call of white people."

    This does not say that the Aryan Nation had a presence on the night in question.

    You appear to be making excuses here.
     
  6. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's kind of like if someone gets indicted for a crime and everyone knows he did it, but the po-pos have to say "allegedly" until he's convicted.
     
  7. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    I didn't say "have a presence". They did get involved in the issue, however.
    And I'm not making any excuse. Again, I don't see why there would be such "reverse discrinimation" in a place like Iowa, which has very few minorities (and isn't it also very conservative?) Here in the NYC area, when blacks beat up whites and there are clues it was because of the race, they will call it a hate crime. I don't see why they would not do the same over there, if they had the same clear (verified) evidence.
    I think it's the other way around; people hunting for "reverse discrimination" and trying to trump up anything that can be made to remotely look like it.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    But not the acts of violence or the chanting or anything else but commenting. Just like the NAACP and Al Sharpton "get involved" in every racial issue where a black person MAY be a victim of a racist attack.

    Your attempt at misdirection has failed.

    The incident is still what it was...a racist attack by blacks on random whites for no other reason than their race.
     
  9. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correction needed:

    When one says a group 'instigated'.... it means they started it.... did something to provoke it..... implies an active presence at the beginning. It doesn't mean that they came later as in a purpose to retaliate or rescue. It doesn't count that such a group already existed before but wasn't present at the scene.
     
  10. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny, your posts would indicate otherwise.

    You're trying to figure out a logical motivation for hateful, criminal behavior. There isn't any. But just because you can't logically explain it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    There's a fairly simple explanation: The police chief is an idiot, and has caved to PC behavior.

    Wow. Pretty goofy logic. So...since white people hate black people, they fabricated this event? Good grief. Try again. I'm sure you can do better than that...
     
  11. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    True (hence, it seems both groups are doing the same things), but I didn't say they were involved in the violence or chanting..
    No, you two are misunderstanding what I'm saying

    WHAT? I'm sorry, but the only fabricating going on is right here in this discussion. I don't see how you can extract these ridiculous claims from anything I've said.

    I did not say they fabricated the entire event. The "reverse discrimination" I was referring to was on the part of the police and media, whom you're claiming are discriminating. (Perhaps I should have clarified that).
    And the bold statement;:eek: you need to check just where that idea came from, because nobody has said anything of the sort.
    And I am not trying to explain the motivation of the attackers' behavior.

    It is the police's (and I imagine the media's) motives that you are questioning here. Based on their assessment (not mine) of the attackers' motives.

    The whole point is that they were reluctant to call it a hate crime, because the claim of someone chanting "beat whitey night" did not have any verified source. Again: "...he could not find the origin of information that appeared in Murillo's report." Anybody can call and claim anything, and they will keep it in mind, and look for evidence, but until they find it, they will not officially brand it.

    This is the way the police work in all cases (fire=arson? unexplained death=homicide? suspicious disaster=terrorism? --even when terrorist groups call and claim responsibility, etc). If more evidence turned up, then I'm sure it would have been branded a hate crime. It would have here in NY.

    So the attackers may have possibly been racially motivated. Or it may have just been a night of crime, and they went after the people who were there at a large gathering. Until the police have more evidence of the exact motives, they cannot clearly label it.

    Just look at yourselves! You're acting just like Sharpton and the NAACP now. You're the ones who seem to think black people and white liberals (and even officials who aren't even necessarily liberal and in areas where there is not even a lot of pressure from minorities) hate whites, and you're projecting this at them and me, and it is totally ridiculous. It looks like you are up in arms and ready to fight about this. Scary thing is, it seems to be more about some unfounded fear than any reality. You're still the majority, and no one [with any power] is out to get you.

    I see race division largely disappeared in most of life, and on the other discussion forums I'm on (even in politics sections where it is mentioned), so I think it is shameful that there is all of this claiming of hating and being hated because of race in Christian discussions. Then you wonder why you keep getting tagged with that in the larger public consciousness.

    I checked, and Iowa happens to be on the "blue" side (though only moderately so), but it is still not a place where minorities have such an influence that the police chief would bow to PC in that way (if there was sufficient evidence of that term being chanted).

    So give them the benefit of the doubt, until there is more evidence the term was chanted, and they still blatantaly deny it was a hate crime!

    I didn't mean they started it. It looks like they were rabblerousing. Just like people have [rightly] criticized Sharpton and others for. Everytime I hear them jump into some issue and claim it is a racial attack, and I think it's ridiculous (The most striking example I can think of is the dispute with the Mexican president, and Sharpton's incident years ago after a fire at a store in Harlem), I think they are instigating. In other words, there is already a dispute, and they are there adding fuel to it. It's what we used to call other kids when they were trying to provoke a fight already starting between others.

    So this accusation of the police seems to be the same sort of thing.
    For all we know, that organization could have been the ones who made the call claiming the attackers were shouting that term. They then get to come to the rescue, and their whole platform is yet again justified. (Would you really put it past them?) Again, anyone can call and claim anything. In that case, it sould definitely be instigating.
    But we don't know, and apparently, the police did not know either (at least at the time the story broke. Has here been any further word on that since?)
     
    #11 Eric B, Sep 6, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2010
  12. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    No. I understand you all too well. I've seen this act many times before.

    You're just another apologist for blatant acts of racism by blacks.

    Denying the obvious and throwing in your "Aryan" red herring while couching your language to allow a certain level of plausable deniability are all the clues we need.

    There a some here who are unafraid to deal with racism and all the different ways it may be presented. Clearly, you are not one of those.
     
  13. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    That is quite a charge, and to prove that, you would have to show more evidence for them actually using the phrase, and that I said it was OK or somehow excused. Again, my argument was never even about the motives of the attackers, but rather the question of the subject is the motives of the police.

    Just like you throw the Sharpton/NAACP red herring into everything. (And I didn't throw them in, they were in the article).
    Don't you realize that if the evidence provided so far is what you are holding up as "the obvious" proof of racial motivation, then that would assume that every instance of individuals or groups of one race attacking indidivuals or groups of another race is obvious proof of racism, and you affirm that Sharpton and the NAACP must be right when they accuse people of that. I don't! You're trying to throw their tactics back at me as if I've been supporting them (hence, the real red herring), but I don't believe them, and are often suspicious of them unless there is more evidence.

    I again ask, has any more details surfaced on whether the group used the slogan? If it was confirmed, then does the police chief still deny it is racially motivated? If so, then you all turned out to be right. If not, then you all pre-judged. That's what the issue is. Either they did or they didn't, or are at least are not confirmed to have. It has nothing to do with whether their acts or racism were justified. They obviously aren't.
     
  14. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here's even more from the article:
     

Share This Page

Loading...