Red Mosquito

Strat wrote: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.

stip wrote:

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.

BurtReynolds wrote:

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.

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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.

But was it called terrorism in the reporting of the event. Was it contextualized as the latest iteration of the problem of white Christian/supremacist domestic terrorism. And not in opinion pieces?

stip wrote:A few years ago a DoJ study (I think) listed white conservative domestic terrorism as a greater threat to Americans than Islamic terrorism.

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

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.

No shit.

Do you know how journalism works?

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:A few years ago a DoJ study (I think) listed white conservative domestic terrorism as a greater threat to Americans than Islamic terrorism.

Oh well lets just call every act of violence by a white guy "terrorism" for the greater good. Responsible reporting be damned.

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:A few years ago a DoJ study (I think) listed white conservative domestic terrorism as a greater threat to Americans than Islamic terrorism.

Oh well lets just call every act of violence by a white guy "terrorism" for the greater good. Responsible reporting be damned.

I would settle for just calling the terroristic ones, terrorism, and I do have reasonable trust that the DoJ is using the term in a slightly more nuanced way than 'violence by white people'

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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.

But was it called terrorism in the reporting of the event. Was it contextualized as the latest iteration of the problem of white Christian/supremacist domestic terrorism. And not in opinion pieces?

No, but I wasn't arguing that it was, only that it was portrayed as about race. These shooters are almost never called terrorists, even the nonwhite, nonchristian ones.

Where are the links of Muslim attackers who were not terrorists being reported as such? I'm sure there has to be a few somewhere. But I've already mentioned one where the media bent over backwards (far more) to not call it terrorism.

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:A few years ago a DoJ study (I think) listed white conservative domestic terrorism as a greater threat to Americans than Islamic terrorism.

Oh well lets just call every act of violence by a white guy "terrorism" for the greater good. Responsible reporting be damned.

I would settle for just calling the terroristic ones, terrorism, and I do have reasonable trust that the DoJ is using the term in a slightly more nuanced way than 'violence by white people'

define terrorism

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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.

But was it called terrorism in the reporting of the event. Was it contextualized as the latest iteration of the problem of white Christian/supremacist domestic terrorism. And not in opinion pieces?

No, but I wasn't arguing that it was, only that it was portrayed as about race. These shooters are almost never called terrorists, even the nonwhite, nonchristian ones.

Where are the links of Muslim attackers who were not terrorists being reported as such? I'm sure there has to be a few somewhere. But I've already mentioned one where the media bent over backwards (far more) to not call it terrorism.

Which one did you mention? I missed it

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.

stip wrote:
The US governments basic definition is a good one to use as a starting point - premeditated politically motivated violence carried out against noncombatants by non-nation state groups

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

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.

No shit.

Do you know how journalism works?

Could you post something other than the sentence equivalent of an emoticon? Perhaps explain the journalistic principle i am allegedly ignorant of?

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

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.

No shit.

Do you know how journalism works?

Could you post something other than the sentence equivalent of an emoticon? Perhaps explain the journalistic principle i am allegedly ignorant of?

You have to get all the facts before you can call it an act of domestic terrorism. I haven't seen any eyewitness accounts of him screaming, "I'm doing this for the babies!" He doesn't seem to have any arrest history of this kind of thing. The reporter would be making that inference based solely on where the shooting took place. There have been 8 anti-abortion murders since 1990, that's horrible, but that's hardly enough to jump to that conclusion.

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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.

But was it called terrorism in the reporting of the event. Was it contextualized as the latest iteration of the problem of white Christian/supremacist domestic terrorism. And not in opinion pieces?

No, but I wasn't arguing that it was, only that it was portrayed as about race. These shooters are almost never called terrorists, even the nonwhite, nonchristian ones.

Where are the links of Muslim attackers who were not terrorists being reported as such? I'm sure there has to be a few somewhere. But I've already mentioned one where the media bent over backwards (far more) to not call it terrorism.

Which one did you mention? I missed it

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.

stip wrote:
The US governments basic definition is a good one to use as a starting point - premeditated politically motivated violence carried out against noncombatants by non-nation state groups

And is that what happened here? Was this politically motivated? It certainly sounds that way from what's been hinted at from the media (yes, that very same media you say is refusing to even consider it), but I'm struggling to find any hard facts about his political motivations.

Strat wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

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.

No shit.

Do you know how journalism works?

Could you post something other than the sentence equivalent of an emoticon? Perhaps explain the journalistic principle i am allegedly ignorant of?

You have to get all the facts before you can call it an act of domestic terrorism. I haven't seen any eyewitness accounts of him screaming, "I'm doing this for the babies!" He doesn't seem to have any arrest history of this kind of thing. The reporter would be making that inference based solely on where the shooting took place. There have been 8 anti-abortion murders since 1990, that's horrible, but that's hardly enough to jump to that conclusion.

He stated "no more baby parts"

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

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.

No shit.

Do you know how journalism works?

Could you post something other than the sentence equivalent of an emoticon? Perhaps explain the journalistic principle i am allegedly ignorant of?

You have to get all the facts before you can call it an act of domestic terrorism. I haven't seen any eyewitness accounts of him screaming, "I'm doing this for the babies!" He doesn't seem to have any arrest history of this kind of thing. The reporter would be making that inference based solely on where the shooting took place. There have been 8 anti-abortion murders since 1990, that's horrible, but that's hardly enough to jump to that conclusion.

turned2black wrote:

Strat wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

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.

No shit.

Do you know how journalism works?

Could you post something other than the sentence equivalent of an emoticon? Perhaps explain the journalistic principle i am allegedly ignorant of?

You have to get all the facts before you can call it an act of domestic terrorism. I haven't seen any eyewitness accounts of him screaming, "I'm doing this for the babies!" He doesn't seem to have any arrest history of this kind of thing. The reporter would be making that inference based solely on where the shooting took place. There have been 8 anti-abortion murders since 1990, that's horrible, but that's hardly enough to jump to that conclusion.

He stated "no more baby parts"

Yeah, that was reported late today/tonight by "two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case". I'm talking about the initial reporting here.