Forums | MacLife

It may be because in this atmosphere, terrorist means 'crazy muslim who kills people'.

Calling him a terrorist might confuse people. Calling him a 'terror suspect' might make people believe he is associated with the Al-Qaeda wackos.

This is the problem in the way these wackos are treated in both the news and politics. We are at war with militant Islamic fanatics. When we arrest Al-Qaeda members, we say they are terrorists, rather than Islamic militants.

And I'm not saying this is a matter of political correctness or the fault of liberals either. Using the word "terrorist" instead of a more accurate phrase is the fault of people in politics, right and left and in the whole of media. I'm not even suggesting it's wrong either, I understand the reason for it. But I believe he isn't being touted as a terrorist because that term is being used on something else right now.

My definition of a terrorist is "anybody who terrorizes people or causes terror." Doesn't matter who they are or what their objective is.

Here is a pretty good thread where the forum attempted to define terrorism/terrorist. I think it's worth people's time to check it out before that particular debate starts up again in this thread.

More on topic: The popular idea in the American mind of what a terrorist is will always involve some brown-skinned guy from the Middle East blowing up himself and everyone else in the neighborhood. So it's no surprise to me that he's getting a different type of media attention than al'Qaeda, because he'll never really be seen by most people as a terrorist and the coverage needs to be tailored to sell the story.

He's a 'suspect' because he hasn't been proven guilty.

You liberals need to realize that in our country you're innocent until proven guilty!

Yeah, point taken.

But other recent suspects, such the two Sniper suspects, were quickly labelled and I believe even charged with terrorism.  They certainly did cause terror but they had no political message. But they were Muslim.

hrmmm,

well, thanks to the patriot act, in this country you more or less (snicker) ARE GUILTY OF TERRORISM from the get-go...

so, first, let's clearly limit this to DOMESTIC TERRORISM.  if anyone mention anything arabic/al-qaeda, YOU ARE A GUILTY THREAD TERRORIST!!!!

so, doesn't anyone remember the phrase EXTREMIST.  and extremist groups?  a religious zealot, acting alone, does not represent and attack on the state.  he has not in fact attacked or even verbally threatened and governmental agent or authority, unless you can prove that was what he was trying to do with the bombs.  have fun in court with that one.

come-on, revoutionaries, guerilla-fighter, freedom-fighter: it's all semantic bullsmurf.  but Mustapha, there is a need for legal application of terminology.  and this happened before the patriot act, but after oklahoma; so i have no clue with how that affects what he is charged of....

labeling someone as an extremist, religious jerkwad or a domestic terrorist is one thing when viewed semantically; altogether another when viewed as a definition of law and criminal charges.

this is not even domestic terrorism in my book.  extremist hate crime, yes.  and those carry similiar punishments.  in the end, as long as the punishment fits the crime, why label any and all dissent as terrorism?

i guess rage against the machine is quilty of terrorism in la from the actions at the dnc convention.

huh, people come on!

cruising down rodeo with my shotgun...

"I am absolutely convinced that Rudolph is being treated differently because radical Christians support his goals of attacking gays and abortion clinics and the current administration believes in the radical Christian's goals."

You're making things up. I heard the official statement on NBC, and it was something like "all terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, will be hunted down and pay for their crimes". They did use the T-word.

Let's check out Fox News, shall we? 

A white terrorist?  Good heavens, no!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88292,00.html

No it isn't.  It is more evidentiary of the ambiguous nature, the moral relativist nature, the pragmatist nature of the media covering this issue.

I'm now convinced that 'relativist' is your favorite word in the english language...though I have no idea how that applies here.

:?:

hrmm,

i almost agree with you. after awhile, i am sure i'll find something i don't like about that....   





ahhh, yes,

but, for this to fall into a "relative" argument, we'd have to be comparing the same thing, or crime, to different points of view.  this isn't the case here. you cannot compare to different crimes and talk about the relativity, they ain't realted if you follow my drift.

troutski thinks the press is guilty of this, and i diagree, based on my perception of the "crime."

killing, more accurately murder, is legally defined by its intent.


not the "simple fact" that people are dead.  in fact, terrorism does not require death, but only threat and coercion.

i perceive the attack on people, and society.  not government and policies.

I do believe that Rudoph is a terrorist. His attacks were motivated by politics, and so are meant to cause terror to scare people into following his ideology. No different from OK city, Hammas, or al Qaeda, or the leftist terrorists acting in South America.

There are four types of killing:
1) Crimes of Passion - Murder
2) Crimes of Politics - Terrorism
3) Crimes of Insanity - Murder
4) Crimes of the State - War

but he's not a part of an organization like al qaeda or anything.

he's an extremist who thinks that everyone that is different from him should die.  just like al qaeda.

I thought he was part of that psycho pro-life group that likes to blow up things.

again,

i'll point out that i think you are confusing religion with politics in this case.

much like the way bushies do.

humor: terrorism: the quicker picker-upper

let's see what he gets charged with.... my guess is this would be an interesting time to test "domestic terrorism," and it will ultimately weaken the homeland defense stuff (i hope).

smurf, if they charge him with "domestic terrorism," they don't even have to go to trial to hold him "indefinately," without even charging him with anything....