Black “News Analyst” Labels Police as Racist Terrorists

Marc Lamont Hill, the far-left hip-hop professor and paid Fox News Channel analyst, has a record in support of cop-killers. And now we have learned that he went on “The O’Reilly Factor” to defend black militants who held a March vigil in honor of Lovelle Mixon, a suspected rapist with a lengthy criminal record, who murdered four Oakland police officers. Hill said on Fox News that the activists, many of them from a communist organization, were protesting “police terrorism.”

Recall that Hill claims that cop-killer Assata Shakur, who fled to Communist Cuba after escaping from prison, is innocent. Hill has also declared his support for Mumia Abu-Jamal, another convicted cop-killer, who is on death row. Hill called him a “freedom fighter” and “political prisoner” devoted to “black liberation” and announced that the convicted killer would be contributing to Hill’s website as a weekly contributor. “Welcome Brother Mumia!!!!” Hill said.

The defense of the protesters in the Mixon case adds to the growing concern about this Fox News contributor, who is paid handsomely by the channel to appear on various Fox News Channel shows and is supposed to provide the appearance of fairness and balance. But is cop-killing a matter that requires two sides of the issue?

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/fox-news-analyst-labels-police-racist-terrorists/

DiB: as long as they confine their attacks to military targets, they are not terrorists.

ad: using your definition, dresden was an act of terrorism, and tim mcvie was an act of heroism.

Nonsense. I did not say that all attacks on civilians are terrorism. (If A, then not B; it does not follow that B is true because A is not. For example, bald men never need hair dye; that doesn’t mean that all men with hair do need hair dye. That’s a classic error in Logic 101, which I assume you’re clever enough not to make.)

Nor did I say anything which has any bearing on Tim McVeigh (who attacked a government building, killing a great many civilians, with the stated intent of effecting political change). And you clearly have no idea how I define a hero, although it wouldn’t take you much digging to find out.

The firebombing of a city during wartime may be seen in retrospect as a war crime. But it’s not an attempt to get the locals to change their system of government; it’s an attempt to terrorize the government into surrendering, and thereby end the war. This is not terrorism.

Terrorism can get the government to change, yes, and acts of war can strike terror into the hearts of civilian populations. But your attempts to conflate the two don’t make sense. (Was it terrorism when the United States blanketed Hiroshima with warning pamphlets before dropping the Little Man bomb? It may have caused terror, but the intent was to minimize civilian casualties, while simultaneously destroying part of the Japanese war effort and demonstrating a fearsome new weapon. I would not call those pamphlets an act of terrorism, and I don’t think you would either.)

Your efforts to put words in my mouth do not do your argument credit, sir.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

We’re talking about political influence. If you robbed somebody for money or personal vendetta, that’s not terrorism. That’s crime. If you robbed somebody to make sure they voted for your candidate, or didn’t vote at all, that would be terrorism. Which is what the KKK did, although the preferred ropes and trees, not robbery.

Too many degrees of separation. The Japanese wind of god forces were not tried for war crimes. That’s like saying elements of Abu Ghraib were prosecuted, and since those elements were part of the US military and the US military is thus connected to Bush and RUmsfeld, that Bush and Rumsfeld are war criminals.

It is too many degrees of separation.

Terrorists and pirates are outlaws. They do not wear uniform. They fight for no recognized state or open chain of command, military or civilian. They cannot be held responsible because their chain of command is cellular, not hierarchical nor even transparent.

By conflating outlaws with legitimate soldiers that do wear uniform, you start hammering away at the ethical and legal protections provided to the US military should some foreign body decide that we had used ‘tactics designed to instill terror’.

In case you hadn’t noticed, a lot of acts in war can be said to have done that.

I would and have made the same distinction as Neo.

NATO members had no sense in Afghanistan. Do you know why it’s such a piss pot 8 years after the US successfully kicked the Taliban out?

It’s cause of your ‘allies’ not wanting to fight. They’re partying at head quarters while the grunts, Canadian/British/American/Whoever is allowed to fight by their political masters, gets to die at the boonies in Afghanistan.

Trying to reverse this issue and point the looking glass at the US, who does the super majority of the heavy lifting, is an indication of your own inherent lack of capability. It’s not an indication of any lack on our part.

and read…
Mao Zedong and the Chinese Revolution
“The Long March,” by Edgar Snow

it will give a peak into the military stuff that the east uses and knows.

just as you know vietnam, they know a huge number of battles and histories that in the west we are completely ignroant of. and these other things form the basis of acts, which the west renames to suit them and their framework of understanding, where a different set of actions is permitted and not permitted. .

No time was to be lost. The bridge must be captured before enemy reinforcements arrived. Once more volunteers were called for. One by one Red soldiers stepped forward to risk their lives, and, of those who offered themselves, thirty were chosen. Hand grenades and Mausers were strapped to their backs, and soon they were swinging out above the boiling river, moving hand over hand, clinging to the iron chains. Red machine guns barked at enemy redoubts and spattered the bridgehead with bullets. The enemy replied with machine-gunning of his own, and snipers shot at the Reds tossing high above the water, working slowly toward them. The first warrior was hit, and dropped into the current below; a second fell, and then a third. But as others drew nearer the center, the bridge flooring somewhat protected these dare-to-dies, and most of the enemy bullets glanced off, or ended in the cliffs on the opposite bank.

Suddenly, on the southern shore, their comrades began to shout with joy. “Long live the Red Army! Long live the Revolution! Long live the heroes of Tatu Ho!” For the enemy was withdrawing in pell-mell flight. Running full speed over the remaining planks of the bridge, through the flames licking toward them, the assailants nimbly hopped into the enemy’s redoubt and turned the abandoned machine gun against the shore.

the east makes little distinction between civilians and military… why? because most militaries in history are not volunteer (americas uniqueness again). their troops are conscripts, and so attacking civilians is attacking future warriors, or attacking those who would breed more warriors if the time is long enouhg.

right now, mothers and fathers who had children 18 years ago, ended up producing new soldiers who were 10 years old when afghanistan war started… now they are ripe like fruit.

and from their perspective, they are not tricked to go out, but just as these chinese soldiers committed suicide to help the COLLECTIVE, they were special.

if you saw how terrorists prepare, and how kamikazies prepare, and how the soldiers in wwi prepared suicide missions.

none of it is different…

however, in the story above the terrorists created maos red china.