Red Mosquito

In this thread stip anticipates that sad familiar patterns will continue to repeat. I'm sure the bulk of mainstream media coverage has referred to this as an act of domestic terrorism (which it is) and that our political leaders will treat it the same way. I have already begun preparing my apology.

turned2black wrote:In this thread, stip throws around a bunch of unfounded generalities.

I may have responded too quickly. Which is the unfounded generality to which you refer?

its like you dont have the internet

My local paper...
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ ... /76494808/

Huff Post...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-f ... 73646.html

NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/co ... oting.html

Ok someone catch me up. What is stip arguing?

Strat wrote:Ok someone catch me up. What is stip arguing?

conservatives control the media, government, hollywood, etc

turned2black wrote:My local paper...
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ ... /76494808/

Huff Post...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-f ... 73646.html

NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/co ... oting.html

I haven't read the other two pieces yet, but the NY Times article trips all over itself in a desperate attempt to not describe this as an act of terrorism. I will not be home until tomorrow so I can't quote things easily but it lays out a whole history if terroristic violence against abortion providers since Roe v Wade, but they can't call it terrorism because acts of violence in the US carried out by Christian religious conservatives don't warrant the name. But if these were Muslim shooters...

That's my point, Strat. It was less an argument than it was a piece of what I thought of as self-evident snark that seems to be disputed

turned2black wrote:My local paper...
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ ... /76494808/

Huff Post...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-f ... 73646.html

NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/co ... oting.html

The opinion piece in your local paper was on point in the labeling, but that was an editorial. What did the actual reporting look like?

The huff post piece was also good, but again this is commentary, not reporting.

It is also not insignificant that conservative elected officials will likely be trying hard to 'yeah but...' their response to this in a way that simply does not happen with acts of Islamic terrorism, where you might have disagreements about how to respond but the actions themselves are roundly and unequivocal condemned.

I look forward to the responses we will get in the republican debate

CNN's lead story has no reference to terrorism other than a quote from planned parenthood who said the goal if the attach is to terrorize abortion providers

Top two related stories on Fox News make no reference.

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:My local paper...
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ ... /76494808/

Huff Post...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-f ... 73646.html

NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/co ... oting.html

I haven't read the other two pieces yet, but the NY Times article trips all over itself in a desperate attempt to not describe this as an act of terrorism. I will not be home until tomorrow so I can't quote things easily but it lays out a whole history if terroristic violence against abortion providers since Roe v Wade, but they can't call it terrorism because acts of violence in the US carried out by Christian religious conservatives don't warrant the name. But if these were Muslim shooters...

That's my point, Strat. It was less an argument than it was a piece of what I thought of as self-evident snark that seems to be disputed

Its the narrative i see but i also view it all through the same lens. So, team stip. This is the same thing that went on in Minneapolis with the white power shooters. There's no dialogue about those monsters, but anytime a muslim open fires, everyone has something to say about islam, muslims, refugees etc.

How could they call it terrorism if they don't know all the facts yet? Did a pro-life group claim responsibility?

If I was running a newsroom, I would have been reluctant to call it domestic terrorism in the initial reporting.

And for the record, my mother was VP of Planned Parenthood of West Texas for 10 years.

Was it an act of terrorism? I haven't seen anything to suggest his motives, but plenty to suggest he's a nutjob.

Are similar incidents with muslim attackers here immediately called terrorism in the initial reporting? Do you have links of this? For example, the reporting of the muslim that beheaded the woman in Oklahoma wasn't generally reported as "terrorism" even though his motives were thought to be at least influenced by radical Islam. Law enforcement even refused to call it an act of terrorism.

Strat wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:My local paper...
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ ... /76494808/

Huff Post...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-f ... 73646.html

NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/co ... oting.html

I haven't read the other two pieces yet, but the NY Times article trips all over itself in a desperate attempt to not describe this as an act of terrorism. I will not be home until tomorrow so I can't quote things easily but it lays out a whole history if terroristic violence against abortion providers since Roe v Wade, but they can't call it terrorism because acts of violence in the US carried out by Christian religious conservatives don't warrant the name. But if these were Muslim shooters...

That's my point, Strat. It was less an argument than it was a piece of what I thought of as self-evident snark that seems to be disputed

Its the narrative i see but i also view it all through the same lens. So, team stip. This is the same thing that went on in Minneapolis with the white power shooters. There's no dialogue about those monsters, but anytime a muslim open fires, everyone has something to say about islam, muslims, refugees etc.

so the Charleston shooting was quietly swept under the rug because white racist shooters are never reported in the media? And are you delusional?

BurtReynolds wrote:

Strat wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:My local paper...
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ ... /76494808/

Huff Post...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-f ... 73646.html

NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/co ... oting.html

I haven't read the other two pieces yet, but the NY Times article trips all over itself in a desperate attempt to not describe this as an act of terrorism. I will not be home until tomorrow so I can't quote things easily but it lays out a whole history if terroristic violence against abortion providers since Roe v Wade, but they can't call it terrorism because acts of violence in the US carried out by Christian religious conservatives don't warrant the name. But if these were Muslim shooters...

That's my point, Strat. It was less an argument than it was a piece of what I thought of as self-evident snark that seems to be disputed

Its the narrative i see but i also view it all through the same lens. So, team stip. This is the same thing that went on in Minneapolis with the white power shooters. There's no dialogue about those monsters, but anytime a muslim open fires, everyone has something to say about islam, muslims, refugees etc.

so the Charleston shooting was quietly swept under the rug because white racist shooters are never reported in the media? And are you delusional?

It wasn't swept under the rug and i never suggested it was. That conversation was more about gun ownership, religious rights and mental health.

Point is in my opinion the thing we should fear more is white religious radicals and not syrian refugees or muslims. We are more at risk from being "terrorized" by those religious fucks on our homeland than any muslim.

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Strat wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:My local paper...
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ ... /76494808/

Huff Post...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-f ... 73646.html

NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/co ... oting.html

I haven't read the other two pieces yet, but the NY Times article trips all over itself in a desperate attempt to not describe this as an act of terrorism. I will not be home until tomorrow so I can't quote things easily but it lays out a whole history if terroristic violence against abortion providers since Roe v Wade, but they can't call it terrorism because acts of violence in the US carried out by Christian religious conservatives don't warrant the name. But if these were Muslim shooters...

That's my point, Strat. It was less an argument than it was a piece of what I thought of as self-evident snark that seems to be disputed

Its the narrative i see but i also view it all through the same lens. So, team stip. This is the same thing that went on in Minneapolis with the white power shooters. There's no dialogue about those monsters, but anytime a muslim open fires, everyone has something to say about islam, muslims, refugees etc.

so the Charleston shooting was quietly swept under the rug because white racist shooters are never reported in the media? And are you delusional?

It wasn't swept under the rug and i never suggested it was. That conversation was more about gun ownership, religious rights and mental health.

It almost immediately became tied to the confederate flag debate, so much so that it led to changing the flag, and there was massive reporting that it was a race issue. You can't be serious.

turned2black wrote:How could they call it terrorism if they don't know all the facts yet? Did a pro-life group claim responsibility?

If I was running a newsroom, I would have been reluctant to call it domestic terrorism in the initial reporting.

And for the record, my mother was VP of Planned Parenthood of West Texas for 10 years.

Terrorism is a methodology. You don't need a group to be a terrorist.

And even beyond this one event, the discussion of the history of violence surrounding this issue bent over backwards to not use that word.