[valis]

this is going to be a relatively short rant, as one, I am still getting over bronchitis, and as such don't have that much energy to devote to this, and two, am just plumb tuckered out.

Saw a television show the other night about the KKK that described it as a terrorist group. I do not agree with this, and would appreciate the input on this.

I've gone so far as to email one of the 'grand wizards' of a certain chapter and ask to a formal debate to discuss his views versus mine; I stress 'formal' debate as then the rules of a proper debate apply. He jumps me, I can call ad hominem and refuse to answer until my point is answered.

Obviously this will not be carried out on these forums.

But, in a way, I hope he responds. My views and his are diametrically opposed in nearly every way, with one exception, that being the freedom of speech in the COTUSA. Other than that, IMO, he's vile. Simply vile. No other words to describe him.

But I digress. One of the questions I posed to him was whether or not he viewed his organization as a terrorist organization. I know his answer will be no. My answer is no, yet I can see why they would be labeled as such; terrorists act through, by definition, forcing change through terror in the populace, and the KKK does little except embrace that value.

Burning crosses, churches, religious and racial discrimination, violent actions against those who do not adhere to their code of ethics. So I can clearly see why they would be labeled a terrorist organization, but for reasons I myself am not sure of yet, I don't see them as that. Maybe it's because they operate primarily on their own soil, and pretty much on tenets of a madman from 70 years ago, but I just don't see them as a terrorist organization.

Maybe it's that they don't operate on the scale of, say, Spain's ETA. If the KKK blew up the Hoover dam, well, that would probably escalate them on the terrorist scale in my own personal book.

But anyhow, as usual, I digress. Curious as to see your input on whether or not they are a terrorist group or not, and why or why not.


and yes, I promise to keep everyone up to date on whether or not I get a response.

Me? I ain't holding my breath.


v

[katonca]

Hi V

Is the KKK a terrorist group? I'd say yes. To me, a terrorist group causes change via violence or the threat of violence, mostly. And the violence is unpredictable. Unlike a military action which could be deemed as predictable, a terrorist will strike at a place and time which is not forseen. I guess just the threat of violence would also be considered terror. It changes the victims lifestyle, sometimes completely.

[Drabdr]

Yep, terrorists.

• They use Fear and brutality to get their "message" across.
• They hide behind robes; as they don't have the fortitude to face their victim.
• They make their group a secret.
• They have no altruistic or advancing goals; other than those goals poisoned by their stupidity and hate.

As I stated in the other thread, I do get irritated when our society has become so sensitive to anything that may smack of racism or prejudice. The reason? We have plenty of these idiots floating around that need to be dealt with.

There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, that has ever come positive or helpful from this group and their 150+ or so years of existence.

So yes, they are terrorists.

[poochee]

They are a hate organization and there are people living in fear of them. That's a terrorist group to me.

[Paquadez]

In the classic sense, valis, the KKK are not terrorists as such: terrorists are usually freedom fighters, using violence to achieve a paradigm shift in a socio-political dynamic.

Normally and usually, this has been against what the terrorist perceives to be unfair or inequitable status.

Ready examples might be such as Irgun, The Stern Gang and the Macabees in Palestine prior to 1948: when Jewish terrorists wqere seeking independecne from british Protectorate power (Post WW I and the League of Nations Settlements): such as EOKA in Cyprus: ETA in Spain (Basque Sepatarists seeking fullfilment of Franco et al's promises for a separate Basque State) and the IRA, seeking a united whole Ireland and British removal from The Six Counties.

Now Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, stated "The purpose of Terror is to Terrorise!"

The Russian philosopher Bakunin of course, was also something of an Anarchist: and perhaps more critically, a Nihilist: and terrifying the population was all a part ofr such philosophy to engender quantum leap change!

However, he and his clique were not trying to change an extant socio-political reality: they were seeking, rather, to impose their concept of Marxist-Communism on a newly "Free" nation, released from the repressions of the Feudal Czarist Monarchy.

Thus classically, Lenin and his power clique were not terrorists, either.

Perhaps the rather banal old saw "One man's Terrorist: another man's Freedom Fighter", sums it up simply.

I believe the KKK, from their roots in opposing the enfranchisement of American negro slaves, their owning property and etc, morphed into a sort of red neck civil disobedience group who were happy to use physical violence to gain a perverse form of credibility.

(I'm thinking here of the Southern States race riots in Kennedy's time, Governor Wallace, Little Rock etc).

The IRA became rather like the Mafia in Ulster and Belfast: and despite the peace process and with the small exceptions of fringe groups on both sides still trying to promote secularism, IRA members and activists had nowhere much to turn, didn't want to lose their power control and turned to crime: drugs, protection etc.

Thus they have morphed from political terrorists into simple criminals.

And I believe the KKK are rather similar: rather strange mentally defective criminals, who cling onto the past and massage their egos by this association with what they perceive as perhaps Golden Years.

Boy Scouts with attitude perhaps?

It is much the same in South Africa: where some died-in-the wool Boers refuse to accept the status quo just ante-ed!

Everything they held dear from the past is now hugely passé: however, theya re unable to accept this core reality.

[aka Brett]

Not terrorists in the traditional sense....We shouldnt be extending out the word terrorist from its original placement..........once we do this there is no stop....a robber,someone that yells at you..troubled teen gangs....honking your horn in traffic

Racists...yes...ignorant yes...by keeping a pot of hate stirred up that needed to die many years ago.

Terrorists? they wish.
I wouldnt give them the satisfaction of the label

[valis]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

In the classic sense, valis, the KKK are not terrorists as such: terrorists are usually freedom fighters, using violence to achieve a paradigm shift in a socio-political dynamic.

that was sort of what I was leaning towards. I felt compelled to start this after watching a show on them on the history channel that referred to them throughout the show as a terrorist group; IMO, they are not. They don't carry enough weight, and while they are indeed looking to shift the socio-political dynamic, their numbers are paltry enough and their views so far out of the acceptable mores, it's never going to happen.

Ready examples might be such as Irgun, The Stern Gang and the Macabees in Palestine prior to 1948: when Jewish terrorists wqere seeking independecne from british Protectorate power (Post WW I and the League of Nations Settlements): such as EOKA in Cyprus: ETA in Spain (Basque Sepatarists seeking fullfilment of Franco et al's promises for a separate Basque State) and the IRA, seeking a united whole Ireland and British removal from The Six Counties.

No argument with any of those. I think I referenced ETA.

Now Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, stated "The purpose of Terror is to Terrorise!"

The Russian philosopher Bakunin of course, was also something of an Anarchist: and perhaps more critically, a Nihilist: and terrifying the population was all a part ofr such philosophy to engender quantum leap change!

I don't think I'd include Bakunin as a terrorist; more of a radical.

However, he and his clique were not trying to change an extant socio-political reality: they were seeking, rather, to impose their concept of Marxist-Communism on a newly "Free" nation, released from the repressions of the Feudal Czarist Monarchy.

don't forget he was OPPOSED to marxism; straight up anarchist.

I believe the KKK, from their roots in opposing the enfranchisement of American negro slaves, their owning property and etc, morphed into a sort of red neck civil disobedience group who were happy to use physical violence to gain a perverse form of credibility.

(I'm thinking here of the Southern States race riots in Kennedy's time, Governor Wallace, Little Rock etc).

to gain credibility, or simply out of sheer hatred for the way that the nation was growing?


thanks for the response, Paq....as always, well thought out.

[valis]

Originally Posted by poochee

They are a hate organization and there are people living in fear of them. That's a terrorist group to me.

Yeah, but they don't do anything anymore. Maybe 50 years ago they could have legitimately been called terrorists, but now they are just gun toting rednecks with radically racist views.

I don't live in fear of them; I don't really live in fear of anyone or anything. Takes away from the present. But neither am I going to go into their backyard and call them idiots.

Rather do that from a distance.

[valis]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Not terrorists in the traditional sense....We shouldnt be extending out the word terrorist from its original placement..........once we do this there is no stop....a robber,someone that yells at you..troubled teen gangs....honking your horn in traffic

Racists...yes...ignorant yes...by keeping a pot of hate stirred up that needed to die many years ago.

Terrorists? they wish.
I wouldnt give them the satisfaction of the label

agreeance.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by valis

agreeance.

But that is just playing with words for a PC reason. They are terrorists and size and impact have little or nothing to do with how they operate. They were trying to change the political system, it just that they had no chance of accomplishing their goal. There are many small ineffective Islamic terrorist groups and they are still called and considered terrorists no matter their size or impact. The KKK's goal was to terrorize and that makes them terrorists, in my book anyway.

[Paquadez]

Originally Posted by TooBad

They are terrorists and size and impact have little or nothing to do with how they operate. They were trying to change the political system, it just that they had no chance of accomplishing their goal.

They were; not are.

Back in the post Civil War years.

And Southern Rednecks, too boot. There aren't overmany in say Maine and Connecticut.



Now, they are as I suggested, Boy Scouts with attitude: who never grew up; and dire racists.

And anachranistic.

But true terrorists?

Nope.

[Knotbored]

I think this must be a game of just playing with words-of course they are terrorists.
Can you or I imagine the terror that must run through a black parents head when a group of half-drunk rednecks gather at a school crossing and spew hateful comments at children and the children see the adult guards turn the other way to avoid confrontation with his neighbors? This stiff happens and of course its terrorizing a group.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Knotbored

I think this must be a game of just playing with words-of course they are terrorists.
Can you or I imagine the terror that must run through a black parents head when a group of half-drunk rednecks gather at a school crossing and spew hateful comments at children and the children see the adult guards turn the other way to avoid confrontation with his neighbors? This stiff happens and of course its terrorizing a group.

You are probably correct about the semantic point. IMO, they are waaaaaaaaaaay more a bunch of stupid rednecks than they are a terrorist group. They lack the resources, personnel, virtually everything necessary to be a true terrorist group by name. Plus something like 98% of their populace is here in the States.

Yes, I do believe their goal is to incite terror into the masses, but I think they come across as looking more like about 30 idiots wearing bedsheets.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

They were; not are.

Back in the post Civil War years.

And Southern Rednecks, too boot. There aren't overmany in say Maine and Connecticut.



Now, they are as I suggested, Boy Scouts with attitude: who never grew up; and dire racists.

And anachranistic.

But true terrorists?

Nope.

Hiya, Paq

I'm on the fence on this one. The KKK does instill terror in some, but not all, so not sure that makes them terrorist or just a bunch of ignorant redneck good old boys that raised havoc in the past and now are just irrelevant racist. I know one thing - there isn't a liberal lefty in the whole lot - they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the radical right wing of the republican party which is made up of primarily Dixiecrats of old (racist democrats).

It seems I remember a bunch of years ago the U.S. Nazi Party and KKK got into a huge shootout. Both have been in decline since.

[Knotbored]

What percentage cutoff of international distribution of participants makes a person a terrorist as opposed to a common criminal?
Since some greenpease-type groups set forest fires to display their displeasure mostly in California are they excluded also?
Is the Taliban excluded since they are concentrated in Aphgan tribal areas?