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.
True (hence, it seems both groups are doing the same things), but I didn't say they were involved in the violence or chanting..
Your attempt at misdirection has failed.
Funny, your posts would indicate otherwise.
No, you two are misunderstanding what I'm saying
The incident is still what it was...a racist attack by blacks on random whites for no other reason than their race.
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...
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;
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!
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.
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?)
