Red Mosquito

stip wrote:

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.

My point is that even after the facts are confirmed the media is not likely to use the term in its reporting. Note in the NY Times article T2B linked that there is a paragraph or two describing a clear history of domestic terrorism against abortion providers but they still refused to use that phrase.

Im not sure I even remember that story about a beheading. Was this a guy doing this in his house? I can't comment on it at this point either way.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /16293737/
maybe it was swept under the rug?

If a rather devout recently converted Muslim beheading a white woman in Oklahoma doesn't immeditately get the "terrorism" label thrown about in the initial reporting by supposedly biased media, I'm not sure you can argue a double standard.

He didn't get the label since, by the accounts I just read, there was no larger political agenda - though both the USA today and my times articles specifically feel the need to point out that even though this guy is a Muslim it is probably not terrorism. The fact that his qualifier is necessary itself speaks volumes

Flippant answer: white people who kill people are either outliers, or manipulated by the batman and loud music.

Serious answer: my experience with white American Christians who are violent is that the rhetoric and/or anger that fuels their violence is not directly connected to religion, but that an undercurrent of righteousness and moral certainty is. It's just an outlier of the same "I'm the good guy" support logic that put public hangings on postcards, but it also doesn't require the direct use of your religion to justify your actions...so it sounds a lot less like terrorism.

stip wrote:He didn't get the label since, by the accounts I just read, there was no larger political agenda - though both the USA today and my times articles specifically feel the need to point out that even though this guy is a Muslim it is probably not terrorism. The fact that his qualifier is necessary itself speaks volumes

Neither event suggests they were part of a larger political agenda, yet in both instances the spectre of one has been brought up ( and you seem to be utterly convinced of it in this case).

Terrorism wasn't just mentioned in the Oklahoma case because he was muslim. You don't think that the fact that it was a gruesome beheading (knowing that modern association) or his social media statements might have been a factor? It was necessary to mention (and discard) it.

I do think the word "terrorism" is more associated with middle eastern terrorists, and that causes problems with reporting, but I think that has more to do with the loose definition of the word "terrorist" (I'm real hung up on words and their meaning lately). In any case, I don't think that by immediately branding him a terrorist (wrongly IMO) because of some perceived double standard, you are doing more good than harm.

McParadigm wrote:Flippant answer: white people who kill people are either outliers, or manipulated by the batman and loud music.

or racist groups (Charleston shooter), militant groups (McVeigh), etc

Even the unabomber is widely considered a terrorist, but by all accounts he was a run of the mill batshit loon (albeit with a political slant).

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:He didn't get the label since, by the accounts I just read, there was no larger political agenda - though both the USA today and my times articles specifically feel the need to point out that even though this guy is a Muslim it is probably not terrorism. The fact that his qualifier is necessary itself speaks volumes

Neither event suggests they were part of a larger political agenda, yet in both instances the spectre of one has been brought up ( and you seem to be utterly convinced of it in this case).

Terrorism wasn't just mentioned in the Oklahoma case because he was muslim. You don't think that the fact that it was a gruesome beheading (knowing that modern association) or his social media statements might have been a factor? It was necessary to mention (and discard) it.

I do think the word "terrorism" is more associated with middle eastern terrorists, and that causes problems with reporting, but I think that has more to do with the loose definition of the word "terrorist" (I'm real hung up on words and their meaning lately). In any case, I don't think that by immediately branding him a terrorist (wrongly IMO) because of some perceived double standard, you are doing more good than harm.

McParadigm wrote:Flippant answer: white people who kill people are either outliers, or manipulated by the batman and loud music.

or racist groups (Charleston shooter), militant groups (McVeigh), etc

Shooting up a planned parenthood clinic while talking about baby parts doesn't strike you as the actions of someone with an agenda?

BurtReynolds wrote:Even the unabomber is widely considered a terrorist, but by all accounts he was a run of the mill batshit loon (albeit with a political slant).

Different era. The word had different implications, then

How are you using it, btw?

stip wrote:How are you using it, btw?

He kissed her then and there
She took his ring, took his babies
It took him minutes, took her nowhere
Heaven knows, she'd have taken anything, but...

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:How are you using it, btw?

He kissed her then and there
She took his ring, took his babies
It took him minutes, took her nowhere
Heaven knows, she'd have taken anything, but...

Is that Pearl Jam lyrics? There is no place for that nonsense.

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:He didn't get the label since, by the accounts I just read, there was no larger political agenda - though both the USA today and my times articles specifically feel the need to point out that even though this guy is a Muslim it is probably not terrorism. The fact that his qualifier is necessary itself speaks volumes

Neither event suggests they were part of a larger political agenda, yet in both instances the spectre of one has been brought up ( and you seem to be utterly convinced of it in this case).

Terrorism wasn't just mentioned in the Oklahoma case because he was muslim. You don't think that the fact that it was a gruesome beheading (knowing that modern association) or his social media statements might have been a factor? It was necessary to mention (and discard) it.

I do think the word "terrorism" is more associated with middle eastern terrorists, and that causes problems with reporting, but I think that has more to do with the loose definition of the word "terrorist" (I'm real hung up on words and their meaning lately). In any case, I don't think that by immediately branding him a terrorist (wrongly IMO) because of some perceived double standard, you are doing more good than harm.

McParadigm wrote:Flippant answer: white people who kill people are either outliers, or manipulated by the batman and loud music.

or racist groups (Charleston shooter), militant groups (McVeigh), etc

Shooting up a planned parenthood clinic while talking about baby parts doesn't strike you as the actions of someone with an agenda?

It might. Somebody should get on that.

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:How are you using it, btw?

He kissed her then and there
She took his ring, took his babies
It took him minutes, took her nowhere
Heaven knows, she'd have taken anything, but...

Is that Pearl Jam lyrics? There is no place for that nonsense.

Its David Bowie you terrorist.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:How are you using it, btw?

He kissed her then and there
She took his ring, took his babies
It took him minutes, took her nowhere
Heaven knows, she'd have taken anything, but...

Is that Pearl Jam lyrics? There is no place for that nonsense.

Its David Bowie you terrorist.

that reminded me to post in the Now playing thread.

oh good?

McParadigm wrote:oh good?

eh

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:oh good?

eh

Yes?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:oh good?

eh

Yes?

just watch it!

What a weirdo though

that astronaut skull was kinda cool.

I think that's just his face