Yeah, Luigi Mangione did not invent terrorism in the name of a political cause. It’s so common, in fact, that I doubt any one particular incident of it can be directly attributed to the inspiration of any other particular incident of it.
It’s what Malcolm X called “chickens coming home to roost.”
Did he say that before or after he was murdered by one of his own followers?
Well, you sure got that wrong.
Before or after he edited his post? Because I don’t see anything incorrect about it now.
Then you’re both ignorant. Bug off and keep Malcolm’s name out of your stupid mouth.
(Citation needed)
You insist, OK. Read this and learn something:
I know that three is a difficult number for someone as stupid as yourself to count up to, but two is, in fact, less then three:
Or do you think Thomas Hagan didn’t do it and the FBI set him up after they murdered Malcolm X and MLK (and maybe Kennedy too while they were at it)?
Hagan did it, of course. He confessed. When it comes to the other assassins, details get awfully murky. Basically, Farrakhan was behind it. He even openly admitted it. Hagan accused other members of the NOI. Your attempt at sarcasm about MLK and Kennedy is misplaced.
So the assassins were three, not one. They were followers of Farrakhan in the NOI, not followers of Malcolm. I won’t let you get away with spreading falsehoods about the subject. Not even lying. If you were a liar you’d know that you spoke what is not true. Being intellectually lazy, you don’t even bother to find out if what you say is true or not.
At the time that they killed him, that’s true.
Before he dared to criticize the movement, though, that’s a different story.
Now you’re gonna tell me that he meant something different from what he said?
I’m pretty sure it was not. The issue revolves around the phrase ‘followers of Malcolm X’. Thomas Hagan cannot be described (as far as I can tell) as a follower of Malcolm X per se. They were both, at one time, followers of Elijah Muhammed. In other words they were fellow travelers on the same path, not master and disciple. Then Malcolm X split from and called out Elijah Muhammad and Hagan, ordered or not (he denies it), became outraged and worked with others to assassinate him. But it wasn’t the anger of a former disciple against a strayed mentor, but rather the anger of a former brother-in-arms against a perceived apostate/heretic.
Pretty rich coming from someone who thinks it’s ok to murder two Jews in Washington.
Blow it out your ass, dickbrain. I don’t think it’s OK to murder anybody.
No, you just think it’s “the chickens coming home to roost”.
Imagine if, at the beginning of this conflict, when this conflict began and that Palestinian kid got murdered by a random Christian asshole here in the States - was it his landlord or something? - imagine if in response to that, a poster named Annahoj said, “Chickens came home to roost!”. I think we could all agree that Annahoj would be a racist fuckface in that scenario.
Since Malcolm X was a leader within the movement, I think it’s a distinction without a difference. If you want to say that Malcolm X wasn’t the absolute top of the hierarchy at any time and therefore has no “followers”, you can, but that seems strange.
I deplore all violence. Including the massive amount of violence being done to Gazan people by the criminal regime, which you keep making excuses for.
It’s “chickens coming home to roost” if someone kills Netanyahu, or Smotrich, or someone who actually bears some responsibility for Israeli-led atrocities. Not random civilians. Any more than atrocities against Gazan civilians are “chickens coming home to roost” in response for Hamas attacks.
The victims were employees of the criminal regime, not innocent children. A very lopsided comparison.