Why is the Word 'Terrorism' reserved only for Muslims?

[sabrina 1]

A terror attack took place at the NAACP offices this week where a bomb was placed outside the building. Fortunately this time, no one was harmed.

The story received little if any coverage until one day after the attack and it was not referred to as an act of Terrorism. By the standards we now use, why was it NOT called an 'Act of Terrorism'?

US Mass Shootings Map

I looked at this map from Mother Jones of mass murders in the US. It covers the period from 1982 - 2012. More have occurred since then.

The killers: More than half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 20, respectively); the other 30 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings. Forty four of the killers were white males. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) The average age of the killers was 35, though the youngest among them was a mere 11 years old. (See Jonesboro, Ark., in 1998.) A majority were mentally troubled—and many displayed signs of it before setting out to kill. Explore the map for further details—we do not consider it to be all-inclusive, but based on the criteria we used we believe that we've produced the most comprehensive rundown available on this particular type of violence. (Mass shootings represent only a sliver of America's overall gun violence.) For a timeline listing all the cases on the map, including photos of the killers, jump to page 2. For the stories of the 151 shooting rampage victims of 2012, click here, and for all of MoJo's year-long investigation into gun laws and mass shootings, click here.

Looking over the profiles of the killers, a majority of them are White Americans.

I see one Muslim, a few Asians, one African American but the majority are White Americans.

Not one is referred to as Terrorism.

All of them are called 'Mass Shootings'.

Not even when 25 schoolchildren and their teacher were slaughtered in their classroom was the word 'terrorism' even whispered.

Is there some reason for this?

Three clearly deranged criminals murdered 12 people in France.

The killers are presumed to be Muslims.

That horrible act is being called 'Terrorism'.

If the killers were not Muslims, would it be called a Mass Killing?

Something is wrong about this in my opinion.

Hopefully the killers will be caught soon.

GuardianUS ?@GuardianUS 43m43 minutes ago
Police release names,photos of brothers wanted for #CharlieHebdo attack – rolling report http://trib.al/OfYK0Oi

One of the victims of these murderers was a Muslim Cop:

Jeff Gauvin ?@JeffersonObama 4h4 hours ago
R.I.P. Ahmed Merabet, a French #Muslim Cop, first victim of #CharlieHebdo attack

People all over the world have come out in support of the victims who were murdered in France. Thousands held Pens in the air as a tribute to the Cartoonists.


RIP to the latest victims of another Mass Killing. We seem to have to say that a lot lately.

The lives of all their loved ones have been changed forever.

[Recursion]

1. The stereotypical white male shooting up a building isn't for religion or ideology

And the ones that were (e.g. Montreal) do get called terrorism.

That said, we "read in" a lot of politics that may not actually be there when the attacker is is Muslim and ignore a lot of politics that are there when the shooter is white (e.g. Collier Township). Meanwhile we ignore mass casualty shootings against African Americans entirely; there was a shooting spree in a Chicago park the same day as the Navy Yard attack that left more people dead than at Navy Yard. But nobody wracked their brains to figure out "why". Similarly, right after Viriginia Tech there were several students shot at an HBCU in IIRC Delaware, but it was never suggested that the attacker was mentally ill, despite the fact that he didn't know the people he shot.

The bias seems to be that somebody "needs a reason" to kill white people, but no reason needs to be sought in the killing of black people. (Or, perhaps alternately, we view the nihilism behind "Falling Down" style rampages as something only the privileged can afford to begin with.)

One that really annoys me is the "oh he's not a terrorist, just mentally ill" line -- I'm willing to be most terrorists have some serious mental health problems.

EDIT: apparently "wrack" is in fact a valid alternate spelling

[sabrina 1]

4. Thank you for a very thoughtful answer.

You made a few interesting points, this one eg:

The bias seems to be that somebody "needs a reason" to kill white people, but no reason needs to be sought in the killing of black people.

And this:

That said, we "read in" a lot of politics that may not actually be there when the attacker is is Muslim and ignore a lot of politics that are there when the shooter is white (e.g. Collier Township)

Exactly. Both could simply be mentally ill individuals fueled by fundamentalism which does seem to deeply affect people with mental illness.

Or, as you say, we are ignoring the politics that may be driving white killers.

Either way, imo, all of them are mentally ill. Mentally healthy people do not do this kind of thing, Muslim or White.

[charlyvi]

12. Timothy McVeigh and the OKC bombing is referred to as "domestic terrorism".

Of course this is the exception.

[Recursion]

17. So, if we go with Bakunin's idea of terrorism, the act itself needs to be propaganda

It needs to be symbolic in some way. When you have mass shootings regularly enough that we have a societal language for it, the propaganda power of a mass shooting decreases. France doesn't have our sick relationship with guns and gun violence, so the propaganda value of this attack is much stronger there. (I used to think that the "next 9/11" in the US would be 20 gunmen in 20 medium-sized cities simultaneously opening fire in malls on Black Friday, but then I changed my mind once I went down this line of thought -- even that would be too easily lost in the noise of America's gun violence.)

In all of those cases (including Bakunin-style anarchism), the message is "the government does not protect you". So that's what terrorist acts try to spell out.

[JonLP24]

46. I don't look at Wahabbi terrorist organizations

as anything more than a cult. People of average intelligence & well-adjusted fall victims to cults all-the-time. They leaders play a little bit of a mind trick, "power of the crowd", and they're very brutal to discourage those who think differently.

Certainly, over time I don't doubt they'll develop a mental illness and likely leave with one.

[kelly1mm]

2. It is not. There are many instances of non-muslim terrorists. The Troubles in Ireland had

both protestant and catholic terrorists.

[sabrina 1]

6. What about the attacks on Abortion Clinics here?

Or any of the mass killings listed in the Mother Jones articles?

[kelly1mm]

9. I read your OP (not the linked article) before I replied above and did not read anything

specifically about abortion clinic attacks. If said attacks were motivated by religious or political extremism and intended to change behavior by force or threat of force than I would for sure call them terrorism myself.

However, in rereading your OP two statements gave me pause:

1) "Looking over the profiles of the killers, a majority of them are White Americans." How many of them were Muslim? How many Christian? How many Buddhist? More importantly, how do you know?

2) "I see one Muslim, a few Asians, one African American but the majority are White Americans." What exactly does a Muslim look like to you since you are able to discern them so easily?

[sabrina 1]

18. You don't remember the shootings at Fort Hood by the Muslim soldier? That is how I know he was

a Muslim. Surely you remember the coverage of that tragedy. Sorry, if you were attempting

The map and timeline, if you read it, includes him under the year 2009.

And when I said 'see' I was referring to the written profiles, not all of them have photos. Several just have written information on the killers. Iow, I see from the information provided ....

And some I remember.

[kelly1mm]

24. hmmmmmmm, that is strange though. The only (so far as we know) Muslim on your list and

that shooting is not terrorism either. There is a bru-ha-ha going on now because the government classifies the incident as workplace violence instead of terrorism and thus limits the benefits those who were injured can receive.

That guy self identifies as a Muslim, killed a bunch of people, said he did it for jihad, and it is still not terrorism.

Maybe it is just a French thing and we don't have 'terrorism' in the US because were no. 1!

I don't really know.

My original thought though about the Irish terrorists was more about your OP title though. Maybe this is just a USA rah-rah thing?

[sabrina 1]

40. By the standards listed for something to be called a terrorist act, that should have been imo.

But he was part of the American military.

And how about the Sikh temple killings, also by a US Military man.

That was not called a terrorist act either.

[Maedhros]

14. To be fair, that was some time in the past.

Post-9/11, "terrorism" is reserved pretty much for Muslims.

[NuclearDem]

3. Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, and many other mass shootings weren't acts of terrorism.

Not because the shooters were white, but because they weren't terrorist attacks. Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or threats to coerce a civilian population. There was no ideology behind Newtown, Aurora, or Tucson. There were mass shootings carried by mentally-disturbed individuals.

The attack in Paris was motivated to terrify people from publishing cartoons offensive to Muslims. It was an unlawful use of violence to coerce a civilian population. That's an act of terrorism.

Just like Oklahoma City. And the Olympic Park bombing. And the attempted assassination of George Tiller. And the successful assassination of George Tiller. And the countless other threats against abortion providers and clinics. And the Sikh temple shooting.

[sabrina 1]

5. I don't remember the attacks on abortion clinics being referred to as 'terrorism' by the media.

The word 'terror' absolutely describes all of these mass killings. Certainly to those who are the victims and their families.

Ask the parents of Sandy Hook.

I notice you said that most of these killers are mentally ill. I agree.

But are you saying that these killers in France are not mentally ill? No mentally healthy person does this sort of thing, for any reason imo.

[NuclearDem]

10. Terrorism requires an ideological agenda.

You don't get to make up definitions.

Here's the FBI:

http://m.fbi.gov/#http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

* Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
* Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

Here's DOD:

http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_4.htm

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

I don't remember the attacks on abortion clinics being referred to as 'terrorism' by the media.

The Army of God, which advocates for the murder of abortion providers and has ties to every major act of violence against clinics and doctors, is listed by the US government as a Christian terrorist organization.

The word 'terror' absolutely describes all of these mass killings. Certainly to those who are the victims and their families.

Subjectively, that's true. However, the massacres at Sandy Hook and Aurora had no broader ideological purpose; they were senseless acts of killing. Neither shooter demanded a change in policy or culture, they simply murdered.

Compare that to Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing as revenge for Waco and as a "warning" to the federal government.

But are you saying that these killers in France are not mentally ill? No mentally healthy person does this sort of thing, for any reason imo.

That's why you're not a psychiatrist.

People involved in acts of terrorism don't have to be mentally ill. Soldiers fighting in war aren't mentally ill simply by virtue of the fact they kill others; the only two differences are that soldiers aren't supposed to deliberately target civilians, and their actions in war are considered lawful.

Don't make up definitions.

[sabrina 1]

43. Then why was this not called a terrorist act?

U.S. Army veteran Wade Michael Page, 40, opened fire in a Sikh gurdwara before he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound during a shootout with police. Total injured and killed: 10

Or this?

Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, opened fire on an Army base in an attack linked to Islamist extremism. Hasan was injured during the attack and later arrested. Total injured and killed: 43

[NutmegYankee]

15. I don't think the French shooters were mentally ill.

People can do some really F'd up stuff in the name of ideology. In their minds, they were on a war mission. They basically rationalized killing unarmed people.

As for terror, the word is used if the attack had a political intent to provoke fear. While Sandy Hook scared parents nationwide, the killer didn't have any political goal. He just wanted to be a mass murderer.

As for abortion, while some media outlets and the FBI have described the attacks as terrorism, most major outlets avoid that term because it's upsetting to right wing viewers who oppose abortion. Pathetic but true. Some of the anti-abortion groups are flat out considered terrorist organizations, such as the Army of God

[sabrina 1]

20. No sane person goes out and shoots people due to 'ideology'.

Lots of people have ideologies, but they don't go out and murder people because of it. I do believe such people ARE mentally ill.

If you look at the article there were several which could have met the standard you just described, eg, the murders at the Sikh temple.

U.S. Army veteran Wade Michael Page, 40, opened fire in a Sikh gurdwara before he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound during a shootout with police. Total injured and killed: 10

[NuclearDem]

22. ...

No sane person goes out and shoots people due to 'ideology'.

Ask any soldier who believed he was fighting for freedom or democracy. They aren't mentally ill.

Lots of people have ideologies, but they don't go out and murder people because of it. I do believe such people ARE mentally ill.

Which, again, is why you're not a psychiatrist. And you're making up definitions again.

[sabrina 1]

26. There is justification for a soldier IF s/he actually is defending his country against an enemy

threatening to take over that country. People have a right to defend themselves.

But it is not sane to kill people because of an ideology.

If it was, there would be a whole lot more of such killings.

No, I am not a psychiatrist, never said I was.

But if someone I knew told me they were going to go out and kill people because they hated them for some reason, I would try to have them committed before they did so. I would know they were not in their right mind.

[bettyellen]

62. but extremist Muslims believe they just as right in defending their own culture, and seek to create

a political state which will grow and take over eventually. So even though it sounds nuts to us, it is similar to other soldier's POV.
A lot of people can justify that kind of violence, but like you it seems crazy to me.

[sabrina 1]

63. True, and because both sides are so convinced that violence is the answer,

the cycle of violence continues. It is, at the very least, warped and illogical thinking imo. The notion that violence will stop the violence.

[bettyellen]

69. In terms of the mentally ill debate, I think in both cases they often recruit angry young men, so to

speak, and give focus and purpose to their aimless lives. That can be pretty seductive. IMHO, they deliberately manipulate the weakest, those who lack opportunity and hope. Look at those brothers in Boston, if that older one managed to make a good go at boxing, he'd probably be living happily in America, too busy with his fancy cars and weed to spend a lot of time at the mosque. He was immature and had pie in the sky dreams about America, and serious anger issues. A perfect rube to manipulate.

[sabrina 1]

71. Yes, I agree with that. These two brothers, in France, followed a similar path from

what reports are saying. They were both orphans, were born in France, and received foster care in France but were living in a very poor area, a lot has been written about the treatment of Muslims in Europe. They were on the radar of French Intel as were the Boston bombers here. Traveled to the ME to get 'training', one of them had already spent time in jail for his terrorist activities.

So they were without hope and easy targets for extremists who apparently gave them a purpose.

You have to wonder if they had been adopted into a good family, would they have been so easy to manipulate into extremism.

I think that answer is no because there are many Muslims, see the Muslim cop who was a victim of the attack, who are not involved in these extremist groups.

In many ways it is the story of humanity.

[NutmegYankee]

25. Ideology has been a mass killer in the 20th Century.

Millions died based on ideology. The Soviet purges. Cambodia. The Holocaust. Terrorism. Far too many people took part in those to all be insane.

I would consider the Sikh temple murders an ideological attack. We often think of one guy doing an attack as just a nut (sometimes true, sometimes not), while a group doing an attack implies that they aren't all insane. The Boston bombers and the Oklahoma City Bombing were both ideological attacks by two or more people.

[sabrina 1]

27. What about Iraq and Vietnam and so many others? Aren't ALL wars, especially those that are not

defending one's country from imminent danger, all ideological?

[NutmegYankee]

31. In many cases, yes.

And conducted by people who aren't insane. It sucks to admit, but humans are quite capable of rationalizing the murder of other humans. We suck as a species.

[sabrina 1]

37. Well, I agree with that 'we suck as a species' n/t

[SomethingFishy]

126. "Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or threats to coerce a civilian population."

So you are saying that Bush and Cheney are terrorists. They threatened death by Mushroom Cloud if we didn't invade that country that had stockpiles of WMD's. According to your definition they are terrorists. Not only are they terrorists but we put them in charge a second time after we knew they were terrorists".

These guys were assholes. Period. I don't give a fuck if they had a reason or not. They are murderers plain and simple. There is no high moral ground here, the perpetrators of Sandy Hook, Aurora and Tuscon are no better or worse than these assholes. They are all just assholes.

[NuclearDem]

127. Bush and Cheney were assholes.

But the mushroom cloud line wasn't terrorism. Had they threatened to cause one over an American city unless the population got behind the war, then yes, it would be.

[SomethingFishy]

130. That is exactly what they threatened

"Iraq has stockpiles of WMD's, We don't want the smoking gun to be a Mushroom Cloud".

In other words, if we don't attack Iraq they will nuke us. Sounds like a threat to me. And that wasn't the only one, it was 24/7 "they are coming to get us"...

[whatchamacallit]

8. If Shock and Awe wasn't terrorism, I don't what is n/t

[frazzled]

11. Terrorism is not just defined by violence, murder, or even a hate crime

A terrorist act is one that is meant to threaten the public with a message: if you do this or support that, we will kill you. It's meant to chill people--terrorize them--into behaving or believing a certain way. Or to stop behaving or believing in a certain way. Terrorism has a purpose. It has an aim beyond any simple message of hate or act of violence.

The NAACP bombing most likely would be classified a hate crime (though if it was meant, however wrongly or feebly to say don't protest about disparities in justice for African Americans, it might be an act of terrorism: but it missed the mark and didn't work); and the school shootings mentioned are the horrible crimes of deranged individuals.

I think the Charlie Hebdo murders today are one of the clearest cases of a terrorist act we've seen in recent years, because it was meant to send a message that you may not write or draw anything you want: if we don't like what you write or draw, you may be killed. It's clear, it's chilling, and it represented a threat to freedom of speech everywhere in the world. Its message was so clear because its aims were explicit and its targets (unlike even the World Trade Center or the London Tube or the Boston Marathon) were not random: they were people who had done something that was disapproved.

I don't think calling something terrorism versus a hate crime versus a mere act of irrational violence is any judgment on the horror or wrongness or sadness of any of the events listed in the OP. They're just different.

[NYC_SKP]

13. We're a Western civilization with Western-biased media sources, so "it's OK".

Even here, and it's very disturbing.

K/R

[sabrina 1]

29. Thank you, I find it very disturbing and very dangerous frankly for innocent people.

[pnwmom]

16. It isn't. Ever hear of the IRA?

[Recursion]

19. I don't know. The Irish only fairly recently became "white" (nt)

[pnwmom]

21. Their whiteness isn't the issue -- their religion is. Very few are Muslim, and that is

the issue the OP was addressing.

The IRA is labeled as a terrorist group and largely self-identifies as Christian.

[sabrina 1]

23. Why was it labeled as a terrorist group? The FFs here were also called terrorists, by the

British Empire. They won so they are now the Founding Fathers of this country. Not terrorists anymore. And they definitely did commit 'terrorist acts' OR as we call it now that they won, proudly, The American Revolution.

The British Empire labeled everyone whose countries they invaded who dared to fight for their countries, 'terrorists'. The IRA existed in Ireland for centuries and were responsible for freeing the Republic of Ireland from British control, unfortunately they didn't get all of Ireland.

The British executed many of them, called them traitors, terrorists etc. Ireland calls them heroes.

Ever hear of Patrick Pearse eg? Executed as a terrorist by the British, one of Ireland's most beloved heroes.

So to the Irish, the word means 'hero'. One man's hero is another man's terrorist. But notice, it is generally those who invade other countries who use the word terrorist.

[pnwmom]

28. Your OP asked why the word was reserved for Muslims. It's not.

Not even in the US, where Timothy McVeigh and others have been labeled as terrorists.

[sabrina 1]

33. In this country and among our allies, former Empires eg. It is an Imperial word and yet we have

adapted it. Generally it provided justification for going to war. But we are not an Empire, we are a democracy who FOUGHT an Empire and determined that this would be a different kind of country, one that would not engage in 'foreign adventures' because of the inevitable end to such policies.

I was talking about this country.

The attempted bombing of the NAACP building. According to what people are saying in this thread defines the word 'terrorism' met that standard.

All mass murders and bombings of innocent people are 'hate crimes'. Why not just call them all that?

[NuclearDem]

32. OFFS

The old IRA which fought during the War of Independence and the Civil War and broke up in 1969 is not the same thing as the Provisional IRA (which is what everyone here is referring to) that butchered Protestants during the Troubles and only recently demobilized in 2005.

[sabrina 1]

35. Were you born there?

An Empire invaded Ireland 800 years ago and treated the people there like dirt, stole their lands, in the North as well as the South. If you think the Provisional IRA were terrorist, but don't think that old IRA were, then talk to the British Empire. The Old IRA was as determined to kill those who stole their land as were the Provisional IRA. I don't think you know much about this subject.

The people of the North were also 'butchered' to use your word, and tortured and demeaned and denied civil rights.

Anyhow, this thread is not about Ireland's long, sad history under British Rule it is about the word 'terrorism' in this country used mainly for Muslims.

[NuclearDem]

38. DONE

This is utterly fucking pointless. Just absurdly stunning levels of ignorance on just about every aspect of this fucking topic.

[SidDithers]

59. Yup...

Utterly fucking pointless describes it pretty well.

Sid

[Sheepshank]

104. YEP...a willfull disregard for fact and established defn't

so that the OP can go on and make up shit and argue in circles why they want to redefine the whole fucking process, definitions and processes.

[NewDeal_Dem]

42. It didn't 'break up,' it split in 1969. And the protestants did their share of the butchering.

Protestants Now Killing More Than I.R.A.

BELFAST, Northern Ireland, June 21— Protestant paramilitary groups have gradually replaced the Irish Republican Army as the prime killers in the 25-year-old campaign of sectarian violence in this Protestant-dominated British province.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/22/world/protestants-now-killing-more-than-ira.html


The Official Irish Republican Army or Official IRA (OIRA) was an Irish republican paramilitary group whose goal was to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and create a "workers' republic" encompassing all of Ireland.[1]

It emerged in December 1969, shortly after the beginning of the Troubles, when the Irish Republican Army split into two main factions. The other group emerging from this split was the Provisional IRA.

Both groups continued to refer to themselves as simply "the IRA" and rejected the legitimacy of the other.

Unlike the "Provisionals", the "Officials" were Marxist and thus were sometimes referred to as the Red IRA.[2][3][4] It waged a paramilitary campaign against the British Army until May 1972, when it declared a ceasefire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Irish_Republican_Army

[sabrina 1]

50. Thank you, I wasn't going to waste any more time on this particular poster but you are correct.

Throughout the history of any occupied nation, there are splits among those fighting for their freedom. We have to wait generations before these things are seen objectively.

Which is why I referred to the long history of rebellion in Ireland, centuries of rebellion.

If this country were invaded, a lot of people pointing fingers at others, would be singing a different tune I am certain.

[NuclearDem]

64. What exactly is the difference?

I know the IRA split in two, and I'm very well aware Protestants did their share of killing.

But I was talking about the Provisional IRA. Not the Protestants, not the Official IRA.

[sabrina 1]

60. I 'loved Saddam' too! You're not the first to call me that, but the first Democrat.

I haven't been to those old bush supporting forums for years, but that brought back memories, we were all terrorist lovers back then, especially on DU!

Thanks for the memories, all liberals are terrorist lovers, didn't you know that?

[NuclearDem]

66. No, it's because you're a fucking IRA apologist.

[sabrina 1]

68. No, it's because I'm a Liberal Democrat. I have had plenty of experience with this to know

what name-calling and personal attacks calling Liberals 'terrorist lovers' means.

First time on a Liberal Forum though.

[NuclearDem]

72. No, it's because you're an apologist for a group

that's not only listed as a terrorist organization by the US and UK, but it is illegal within Ireland itself, and has constantly worked to derail peace talks.

[sabrina 1]

78. No, I recognize the talking points and the digging in. Clinton must have been a 'terrorist lover'

also when he overturned Bush Sr's ban on IRA leaders coming to the US. I remember being told that he was. But Clinton was always a target of the right, just like Liberal Democrats.

Thanks for the memories, again.

[NuclearDem]

90. Clinton was facilitating the Northern Ireland peace process

Not being gentle on the IRA.

The PIRA and RIRA are terrorist organizations. Whether you agree with Irish republicanism or not, their actions were violent actions and threats intended to coerce the British people into withdrawing from Northern Ireland.

You can support a British withdrawal from Northern Ireland (as I do) without being an apologist for terrorists. There's a peace process underway, and at least one group that calls itself the IRA has been derailing it every step of the way.

And you're making excuses for them.

[zappaman]

91. Not sure why you bother but at least you set the record straight.

[sabrina 1]

92. And as I said, the Old Ira which people glorify now, and rightfully so, they freed their country

from British occupation, or at least most of it, bombed, killed and did whatever was necessary to take their country back from its occupiers. There is NO difference in the methods used by freedom fighters who won Ireland's freedom after centuries of brutal occupation and the PIRA's.

And they were vilified, executed and tortured over the centuries. Now all of them are Irish Heroes. And the jail cells in which they were kept before their executions, and torture, including Irish Women, are now part of Ireland's iconic, sad reminders of their long history of oppression.

Maybe you are not aware of the recent history of N.I. and how native Irish people were treated there. Denied the right to vote, education, jobs in their own land, denied rights similar to the way African Americans were denied rights here.

There would have been no IRA had these brutal inequities and treatment of the people of NI not existed for decades.

Oppression leads to uprisings, and that is what happened in NI. It was the Bush Admin who chose to facilitate the oppression by attacking those struggling for Civil Rights.

As for Clinton's involvement which did help bring about peace OVER the objections of the British, he kept the promise he had made to Irish Americans and lifted Bush's ban on the IRA and did more than that:

Clinton to Permit Fund-Raising In the U.S. by Top I.R.A. Figure

WASHINGTON, March 9— Brushing aside strong objections from the British Government, President Clinton has decided to permit Gerry Adams, the political leader of the Irish Republican Army, to make his first money-raising tour of the United States, the White House said today.

Mr. Clinton has also invited Mr. Adams to attend a St. Patrick's Day reception at the White House that will be the first encounter between an American President and Mr. Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, the I.R.A.'s political wing.

The US had a history of friendship with the people of NI. Republicans under Bush attempted to change that, but apparently not very successfully.

It took a Democrat to end the policies of the US Govt under Bush in league with the British Govt and begin what the people of NI always wanted, but could not get while discrimination against them still existed, a chance for peace and an end to the violence. ON BOTH SIDES!

Even before the reception at the White House, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Adams are likely to meet on Thursday at the annual St. Patrick's Day luncheon for members of Congress, which is being given by the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, aides to all three men said today.

Within hours of the White House announcement, Sinn Fein representatives in New York were describing plans for Mr. Adams to appear at fund-raising events after his scheduled arrival on Saturday. They include events in Queens, Manhattan and Albany beginning Sunday, and will feature a $ 200-a-person reception on Wednesday at the Plaza Hotel.

You neglected to mention the violence against the native people of NI, Bloody Sunday eg and the sheer bigotry and hatred stoked by fundamentalist bigots like Ian Paisley.

But in the end it was a Democrat who had the courage to ingore the bigots and to begin the peace process which many had said, would never happen.

For that Clinton will always be remembered by the people of Ireland. Few before him, made any effort to help those oppressed people.

[NuclearDem]

97. Ugh, you're doing it again.

Ascribing positions to me that I have neve held.

from British occupation, or at least most of it, bombed, killed and did whatever was necessary to take their country back from its occupiers. There is NO difference in the methods used by freedom fighters who won Ireland's freedom after centuries of brutal occupation and the PIRA's.

Except for the targeting of civilians in Northern Ireland and England.

The IRA fought the war of independence against the occupying British. The modern IRA is fighting against British security forces and Loyalist civilians.

And they were vilified, executed and tortured over the centuries. Now all of them are Irish Heroes. And the jail cells in which they were kept before their executions, and torture, including Irish Women, are now part of Ireland's iconic, sad reminders of their long history of oppression.

Yes they were, and I have never denied any of this. That still doesn't excuse the bombing campaigns against Northern Ireland and English civilians.

You neglected to mention the violence against the native people of NI, Bloody Sunday eg and the sheer bigotry and hatred stoked by fundamentalist bigots like Ian Paisley.

I didn't mention it because we were discussing the IRA's status as a terrorist organization, not the violence perpetrated by Loyalists and Protestants.

For that Clinton will always be remembered by the people of Ireland. Few before him, made any effort to help those oppressed people.

The same Irish government that considers the PIRA and RIRA as treasonous and illegal organizations in Ireland at large.

And again, you completely ignored how I'm in favor of a total British withdrawal from Northern Ireland, and yet still have no love for the IRA.

[msanthrope]

98. Google her username, "awlaki" and "non-violent." She is consistent. nt

[sabrina 1]

105. I am very proud of my consistency, thank you. I am against all violent occupations of

sovereign nations. I am against violence of any kind. I am also against convictions without charges or trials especially when the Death Penalty is employed.

I am against all this for obvious reasons, to a Liberal anyhow.

Oppression inevitably leads to uprisings and more violence.

Invading and killing people in sovereign nations, which Cheney/Bush did over the vehement objects from us 'saddam lovers' on the Left, was predictably going to lead to resistance from the people of that country.

Torture and humiliation of a people will lead to even further violence, which it has.

War Criminals, something else I am consistent about, should be tried and convicted and put away for life to protect society from their madness.

Do not invite other DUers to stalk me on this site.

First and foremost it is not necessary as I am more than willing to restate my position on the assassination of a US Citizen and his teenage son without charges being filed, without indictment for crimes allegedly committed and without trial.

I stand by every post I have made here, so your nasty implication that I have something to hide and your encouragement of stalking to 'find out what that is' is simply reprehensible.

Just ask me for my opinion and I am more than willing to state and restate it.

[NuclearDem]

107. You seem to have about as accurate a definition of stalking as terrorism and mental illness.

That is, one that's tailored to served whatever purpose you need at the time.

[sabrina 1]

109. Please stick to the issues under discussion. I am not the issue. The issue is the term

terrorist and its use and who it is used against.

I am always flattered by the few here who find my opinions so interesting. However they are worth no more than anyone else's and it is fascinating that those screaming support right now for FREE SPEECH, have such a problem with the opinions of others here to the point of directing people to stalk them on the site to, presumably 'dig up their opinions' to condemn them with. The irony is amazing.

Only problem is I have no problem stating my opinions, because I actually do believe in Free Speech, not just when it's convenient.

[NuclearDem]

110. ...as well as free speech.

People finding your positions repulsive is not an attack on your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is protection against public institutions punishing you for speech; "Congress shall make no law".

Using Google to verify your previous positions is not stalking.

Committing violence is not inherently a mental illness.

And Sandy Hook wasn't an act of terrorism.

[sabrina 1]

114. Those are you opinions, nothing more. The victims are the ones who can define

whether or not what happened to them is a terror attack and I know for a fact that people subjected to such brutal crime, would completely disagree with you.

If you want to know what I said about Awlaki, ask me, I will repeat it with no problem. .

Searching for people's posts for the purpose of 'getting them', which won't work in my case since I stand by everything I have said here and am more than happy to repeat it, IS stalking.

Finding other people's opinions 'repulsive' is not supporting free speech, it is supporting 'speech I agree with'.

Insults, or attempts at insults, mean zero to me btw. If you simply stick to the topic, the level of discourse on this site would vastly improve.

[NuclearDem]

115. Ugh.

114. Those are you opinions, nothing more. The victims are the ones who can define
whether or not what happened to them is a terror attack and I know for a fact that people subjected to such brutal crime, would completely disagree with you.

No, it's not. Terrorism has a definition. It's not subjective. Sandy Hook doesn't meet the definition of a terrorist act. I'm sorry if reality doesn't conform to how you want it to.

Searching for people's posts for the purpose of 'getting them', which won't work in my case since I stand by everything I have said here and am more than happy to repeat it, IS stalking.

I have no intention of "getting you." I'm sure if you're proud of your positions, then you have no problem with other people saving you the work and finding them.

Finding other people's opinions 'repulsive' is not supporting free speech, it is supporting 'speech I agree with'.

What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't you understand? Freedom of speech is protection against public institutions punishing you for or restricting your speech. Having an opinion on your speech is not an assault on freedom of speech; it is, in fact, speech itself.

Freedom of speech, like terrorism, has a definition. I'm sorry that reality doesn't conform to how you want it.

You have your right to free speech, and I have mine, and until the government fines either of us or throws us in prison for it, it has not been violated.

Insults, or attempts at insults, mean zero to me btw. If you simply stick to the topic, the level of discourse on this site would vastly improve.

You don't control how conversations go. Of you don't want to discuss something, then all you have to do is stop replying.

And frankly, the level of discourse on this site would improve if you didn't, say, accuse someone of supporting the murder of unarmed black men with absolutely no basis.

[sabrina 1]

119. Why would I need help with what I have said in the past? The truth doesn't change, so when you

are telling the truth you don't need to go back and 'check' what you said before.

I can restate those opinions, being they are based on our Constitution, and are irt what rights our elected officials have to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.

My opinons on Bush's theories on Unitary Executive privileges are soundly based on the Constitution.

They haven't changed since we first learned of them, not even when the president I supported actually carried them out which was a sad disappointment to say the least. The ACLU among other Liberal Civil Liberties Orgs are also in agreement over the unconstitutionality of those 'policies'.

[NuclearDem]

123. Pardon me if I'm not going to take your word for it.

I'll check for myself with Google. Fact-checking is not stalking.

[sabrina 1]

125. I really don't care what you think. I care what those who

have been consistently supportive of our laws and judicial system think, people I respect. Other than that, the opinions of strangers on the internet mean little to me.

Feel free to do as you please.

[msanthrope]

113. Sabrina--no one is stalking you.

There is a helpful search box in the upper right hand corner. Your views on the terrorist Anwar Awlaki are pertinent to the conversation here, because this is yet another example of you ignoring other poster's evidence and facts about a terrorist.

Let's be clear here---the Terms of Service state--

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

You have been accused, earlier in the thread, (not by me) of apologizing for terrorists. What say you?

[sabrina 1]

117. I am very proud of my views on Bush's claim that one elected official has the right

the rights of a monarch, which we on the left vilified him for.

Those policies are still in effect sadly, hopefully one day they will not be. And a US Citizen was assassinated without charges filed or trial or conviction which I vehemently oppose.

It isn't so much about that one US Citizen, which everyone knows, it is about our Constitution.

You KNOW these are Cheney/Bush unconstitutional policies which Democrats have consistently opposed, along with the ACLU. So you disagree with the left on the constitutional rights of the accused then? Did you always?

My views are Constitutionally sound and your weak attempt to imply otherwise, is simply more of the same old 'let's IMPLY something nefarious about those we disagree with'.

Now if I supported Bush's unconstitutional policies, which this entire site was about, THEN you might have a point.

Btw, do YOU support Bush's 'unitary executive' policies, his claim to monarchical rights? I could search but truly I never do that, I prefer to ask people directly for their opinions.

[msanthrope]

118. Then why accuse me of stalking you, when all I am suggesting is that someone look at

your record on Anwar Awlaki? Are you still proud of calling him a non-violent cleric?

[sabrina 1]

120. You're talking about my opposition to Bush's unconstitutional Unitary Executive theories?

I still oppose them, and supported the current president assuming he did also. Sadly he apparently changed his mind.

Do YOU support Bush/Cheney's unconstitutional policies which give the President the powers of a king then?

[msanthrope]

122. I'm talking about your characterization of Anwar Awlaki as "non-violent." Do you admit your were

wrong?

[sabrina 1]

128. Do you support Bush's theories on the powers of the Executive Branch? I stand by

everything I said about the Awlaki case. What were the charges against him and were they filed? Was there a conviction, who ordered the DP, was it a judge AFTER a jury decision?

How about his teenaged son, what were the charges against him, where was the trial, who issued the DP, a Judge, after a jury decision?

Thanks, you say you are lawyer, so I look forward to you supplying this legal information. I couldn't find it, but I don't access to all legal information sites.

[msanthrope]

129. Again---are you still claiming that Anwar Awlaki was a non-violent cleric? It's a yes or no

answer, and I don't understand why you are hemming and hawing.

[sabrina 1]

137. It's a simple question, what is your position on Bush's claim that the

Exectutive Branch has the powers of a King?

I oppose those outrageous unconstitutional claims.

What charges were filed in what court against Awlaki, where was the trial, what did he do? He was assassinated, he got the DP along with his teenage son, both US Citizens. I have no idea what he did.I have seen no charges. Why don't you direct us to the court documents, this IS a democracy, people don't get the DP without trial, unless you subscribe to Bush's theories that the President can summarily order the execution of a US Citizen. What a scary thought.

[msanthrope]

138. Again.....do you still claim that Anwar Awlaki was a "non-violent" cleric? nt

[sabrina 1]

140. Is it so hard for you to answer the question: Do you support Bush/Cheney's claim that

the US President has the powers of a Monarch and can order the death of anyone without charges, trial and conviction?

I cannot discuss the case with you if I don't know where you stand. I know where I stand, and I oppose vehemently the assassination of an American Citizen without charges being filed and after a trial and conviction. Even then, as a Liberal, I oppose the DP anyhow, but without due process? That is Dictatorship, remember? Remember how outraged the Left was and rightfully so over the gall of Bush/Cheney to make such a claim.

IF you support their policies, then that would explain your defense of the assassination of two US Citizens who did not receive any due process.

But if oppose their policies, as I do, you would denounce those assassinations. Since you have not, I assume you support Bushes policies.

Btw, it doesn't matter if Awlaki was a violent criminal. He is still entitled to due process. As a lawyer, I would expect you know this.

[msanthrope]

142. You can't say if Anwar Awlaki was or wasn't a non-violent cleric? nt

[msanthrope]

143. Now that it is apparent that Awlaki was the financer of terror.....do you admit you were wrong?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6064545

[sabrina 1]

144. Nothing is 'apparent'. There were no charges, why will you not admit this?

Until a case is presented in court, chargers filed, everyone under oath, all you have is hearsay.

Do you or do you not support the assasination of US citizens without due process?

Will you admit that the assassination of a US citizen on the order of one man with no evidence presented in a court of law, is against everything this country claims to stand for?

Without that process, all we know of Awlaki is, he was a radical preacher, no law against that.

Why you are insisting that anyone should accept 'apparent' as evidence, is beyond me.

The only explanation since you refuse to answer the question, is you support Bush's belief that the President is a King.

[msanthrope]

149. You mean that Rajib Karim was unlawfully convicted? The emails between him and Awlaki, presented in

open court were faked?

Nidal Malik Hasan was unlawfully convicted? The contacts between him and Awlaki, presented in open court, were faked?

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab lied in his confession, and was unlawfully convicted after he admitted in open court to his association with Awlaki????

Jacques Spagnolo....whose murder Awlaki was convicted of, in open court, was not really killed?

Awlaki did not issue a fatwa against Molly Norris?

You are asserting that none of these things happened?

[sabrina 1]

158. Wait! Emails from someone NOT the accused, are sufficient to administer the Death Penalty

in the US?

[msanthrope]

160. Sabrina---Was Anwar Awlaki a terrorist? Yes or no? nt

[sabrina 1]

164. Any US citizen who has been accused, charged and given a fair trial and convicted of the

crimes they are accused of, is guilty under the law.

Were Awlaki and his teenage son convicted after due process which both, as US citizens, have a right to, I'm sure you'll agree?

If so, then the answer would be 'yes'. Otherwise the public has no way of knowing. Our system, thankfully doesn't require that we just 'trust us' where the Government is concerned. That is not how our system works, well until BUSH.

I take it you agreed with Bush since, unless I'm misunderstand you, you are trusting the government to 'do the right thing'?

[msanthrope]

165. Was Osama Bin Laden a terrorist? Yes or no. nt

[sabrina 1]

170. You don't agree with due process under our system of justice? I do, it is essential

to maintaining this democracy as a civilized nation. Remember Saddam who used to execute those he deemed dangerous without trial, without charges, just shot them. And we were appalled at such lack of a judicial process and so proud of our own, rightfully.

Maybe those he shot were horrible people themselves, I don't know, but surely that isn't the issue. And we went there to bring 'democracy' and end those barbaric practices. Due process, for Iraq. A commendable goal.

I'm looking forward to restoring the rule of law in this country, sooner rather than later.

[msanthrope]

171. It's a yes or no answer.....was Osama Bin Laden a terrorist? nt

[sabrina 1]

172. Yes, it is. Either you support or you don't support our System of Justice.

Why are you unwilling to discuss this subject? .

I get that you think if thealleged crime is great enough, there is no need for due process. .

I also get that you believe that a piece of evidence used in trial, an email eg, can convict the author of the email even though they are not the accused. I find that to be an outrageous belief.

Why not just state WHY you support the denial of due process? All this trying to avoid it seems to imply that you are ashamed of your position. If your reasons are good enough, though personally I can't imagine that, I am willing to listen.

[msanthrope]

174. Was Osama Bin Laden a terrorist? Yes or no. nt

[AgingAmerican]

106. I have always sympathized with the IRA

...though I haven't always agreed with their motus operandi.

When is rebel group terrorist and no longer a rebel group? Where is the line?

[sabrina 1]

108. When the oppressed people they are fighting for are asked the question, they are

rebels and freedom fighters. And of course if they WIN, as in the case of the Founding Fathers, they are no longer terrorists but Founding Fathers of a free, democratic nation.

When the oppressors are asked the same question, no matter how brutally they have treated the people who are rebelling, the are of course, TERRORISTS.

I did not support any violence committed by the IRA either. For one thing they had so much support until those violent actions. They lost support as a result and gave the Brits ammunition against them.

[AgingAmerican]

102. That would make

...many of the founding fathers 'terrorists' too.

The word is applied to broadly.

[sabrina 1]

147. Religion was not a factor in the Irish 'troubles'. That has been so misunderstood

The ONLY reason 'Catholic' 'Protestant' was used in the struggle of the Irish in the North had to do with the history of both Ireland and England.

The people were not fighting over religion, nor was it even a factor.

They fight was over denial of rights to the native population of NI.

It goes back to what is called 'The Plantation of Ulster' (Ulster being one of Ireland's four provinces, the Northern province).

Britain changed religions pretty rapidly during the time of Henry V111. He was a Catholic, but became angry at the Church when they refused to grant him a divorce so he could marry Anne Boleyn. He created his own Church, the Church of England and declared himself head of that Church. Catholics were required to join his new church or in many cases, face imprisonment and/or death.

So England became Protestant. Until his death. It changed back again under his Catholic daughter, Bloody Mary. Again the people were required to return to the Catholic Church under similar threats.

Ireland was under British occupation when England was mainly Protestant. In order to keep control of the stolen land, Britain 'planted' (gave land to) British lords and those who were loyal to the Throne.

In Ireland the people remained Catholic. So Protestants were British, the Irish were Catholics.

From then on that is how the distinction was made between the native Irish and the British who were given their land.

During the sixties, the Irish rose up against the horrible inequities inflicted on them (or Catholics to distinguish who they were). Protestants, see Ian Paisley eg, fought back refusing to give them the same rights they enjoyed.

But neither side was fighting over religion. they were fighting over rights and that struggle occurred at around the same time as the Civil Rights struggle here. The 'catholics' actually got a lot of support here from African Americans who understood their plight very well.

Probably would have been better to name the two sides by their actual heritage, 'Irish' and 'English'. However the 'English/Protestants' are not leaving after so long, and consider themselves Irish but loyal to Britain. Much like our ancestors here, before they too rose up against what they saw as unfair treatment by their 'mother country'. Protestants in Ireland, however, were treated very well by Britain so had no reason to rise up against them.

[sabrina 1]

30. That is true! n/t

[diabeticman]

34. I have wonder that myself.

[AgingAmerican]

36. Since about 1970

We have been conditioned to think this way. Since that time a large percentage of 'international incident' type of crimes were committed by Muslims or middle easterners.

After Bush invaded Iraq, the right wing ran away with the term.

[unblock]

39. it's a propaganda term, used to stoke fear and support for authoritarianism and the war machine

threats from "others", from the "outside" are best suited for this purpose, so the powers that be have lumped them together under the term "terrorism", and ignore cases when people who otherwise seem to "normal" or "like us" do virtually the same thing, e.g., oklahoma city or norway.

[sabrina 1]

45. It does seem to be that way. Because the bombing of the NAACP certainly

could be called a terrorist act by their standards. It was designed obviously to terrorize a group of people. Yet, not only was it not called a terrorist act, it was barely covered in the media.

And what about this one?

U.S. Army veteran Wade Michael Page, 40, opened fire in a Sikh gurdwara before he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound during a shootout with police. Total injured and killed: 10

Don't remember that being called a 'terrorist attack' either.

[SidDithers]

41. It isn't...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

51. It is!

Why is this guy not a terrorist?

U.S. Army veteran Wade Michael Page, 40, opened fire in a Sikh gurdwara before he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound during a shootout with police. Total injured and killed: 10

[Humanist_Activist]

56. He was labeled as one, what type of bullshit are you making up?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-shooting-oak-creek-wisconsin-domestic-terrorism/story?id=16933779#.UB7wNKldx8s

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/05/breaking-reports-of-shooting-at-sikh-temple/?hpt=hp_t1

It was also labeled as a hate crime by authorities:

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/gurudwara-shooting-a-hate-crime-us-official-admits/281123-2.html

And this was just a cursory search of news media, I'm sure you can find more.

[JonLP24]

44. It makes it easier for national security

funding, surveillance, war, & erosion of civil liberties.

It is a loaded word. Government may feel its not necessary to label a homegrown nut a terrorist but they may use the word 'radical' to infiltrate left-wing groups, I think they reserve the 'T' word for people like Bill Ayers. Assata Shakur is on the most wanted terrorist list for a domestic crime where she didn't kill anyone.

A little off the subject I was found it curious that many people will defend someone from the 19th or 18th century as a "man of his times" but then there is the "Was John Brown a terrorist?" debate.

[sabrina 1]

48. Yes, because there is an inconsistency in the use of the word.

Even if you go by their explanation of when it is to be used, they still refrain from using it when the circumstances fit their own description of a terrorist act.

This eg, would fit the government's definition of a terrorist act, yet I do not recall that it was:



U.S. Army veteran Wade Michael Page, 40, opened fire in a Sikh gurdwara before he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound during a shootout with police. Total injured and killed: 10

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet

Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor. A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"

[sabrina 1]

49. Yes, funny how that works, isn't it?

Clearly those who killed those people in France are murderers. But there have been plenty of murderers who killed even more people, yet are not called terrorists.

[Jack Rabbit]

52. The answer to your question is really simple, Sabrina

They are terrorists because our oil is under the sand on which most of the people who live are Muslims. That make them terrorists. Or animals. Or savages (we used that one on the people who had been living on our land even before it was our land or before our ancestors knew that the land in North America was ours, or even that there was a North American land at all).

We can't call them human beings because then we'd have to respect their mineral rights. We can't call them human being because then we might have to negotiate a fair price for the oil, instead of just taking it from them. The funny thing about that is that just taking it costs more than a fair price would, but somebody figures that's OK because only real people pay taxes and never artificial persons.

Thank you for the thoughtful OP.

[JonLP24]

53. It depends

The United States doesn't call the Saudi regime terrorists because ever since Chevron found oil there we have been a very close ally even though the oil exports helped spread Wahabbism which was fairly new and Saudi Arabia was the first. I think we recently sold them about $70 billion worth of weapons & equipment.

They show a remarkable amount of stunning hypocrisy when it comes to Saudi Arabia but kiss their ass because of their oil. The other countries, not-so-much. Any conflict against the nation-states in the Arabian Peninsula US will be there to help out the oil kings.

[Jamastiene]

134. Very good answer and

very good points about how America was taken.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. Most mass murders are not terrorism.

No matter how many people I murder, it doesn't make me a terrorist unless my motivation is terrorism - it just makes me a mass murdered.

And it so happens that, at present, most - although by no means all - terrorist acts against westerners are by Muslims.

A better question is "why is terrorism viewed as worse than other kinds of murders, and should it be?" (to which the answer is "because of the psychological impact of 9/11, and no&quot .

[Humanist_Activist]

55. Well that's just false.

You forgot about this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

or this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

Or this guy and incident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

I could also mention the Troubles of Ireland, etc. However, I just wanted to illustrate that all of these attacks were and are labeled as terrorism. So what you said was false.

[Jamastiene]

58. I refer to non Muslim related terrorism as terrorism.

Terrorism is terrorism to me. Doesn't matter who is doing it. I understand why you are asking the question though. It should be called terrorism if it is, regardless to who perpetrated it.

[sabrina 1]

112. Yes, that is how it should be. All mass killings are terrorism imo. But our government and media

and of course the Right Wing Islamophobics, want to make a distinction when it comes to Muslims for what I think are obvious reasons.

[SidDithers]

116. No, all mass killings are not terrorism...

When Charles Whitman was shooting people from the bell tower at the University of Texas, he wasn't committing an act of terrorism.

Words have meaning. You don't get to make up your own definitions to suit your fallacious imaginings.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

121. Yes, they are. And yes, that was a terrifying event to the victims. Words do have meanings

and the word 'terror' means exactly that, terror, which victims of mass killers suffer, or are you denying that?

Now there are people, many in various governments, who try to limit the use of words and to attempt to give them different meanings, and to deny their meaning to confine them to their narrow agenda. But intelligent people know the meaning of the terror, many have experienced it.

And Governments don't get to make up their own definitions to suit their political agendas. not without challenge anyhow.

You are actually saying that the sniper victims were not terrorized? Seriously?

[SidDithers]

131. A "terrifying" event is not a "terrorist" event...

Sid

[NuclearDem]

124. Completely different fucking reality.

[SidDithers]

136. It's pointless to engage that poster...

they'll make unsourced, spurious claims until the cows come home, all the while proclaiming what a great "liberal democrat" they are.

You're talking about a poster that will, on one hand say "I am against violence of any kind." and in the very next breath "rightfully" glorify the IRA for bombing, killing and doing "whatever was necessary to take their country back from its occupiers."

It's better to make your point and walk away.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

162. What WAS your point? I looked but couldn't find it. Could you link to it?

[SidDithers]

168. My point was that your OP was incorrect...

and I disproved your assertion that the terrorist decpscription is reserved for Muslims by providing an example of a non-Muslim terrorist.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

169. Why was the NAACP bombing not called a terrorist attack?

[yellowwoodII]

61. Not really

[Coventina]

65. It isn't. There are and have been many non-Muslim terrorist groups.

Or groups designated as such.

It very definitely is NOT reserved only for Muslims.

[sabrina 1]

67. Why was the attempt to bomb the NAACP offices not called a terrorist attack?

The media barely covered it. I

No one died, thankfully. No one died when the Shoe Bomber tried something similar but failed also.

We had wall to wall coverage of that attempt despite the fact there were no deaths.

And no one waited to find out what the motivation was. The incident brought out all the 'security' experts almost instantly.

But the NAACP bombing has hardly received any coverage.

[Coventina]

70. I don't know why it wasn't called a terrorist attack. Personally, I would classify it as such.

But that doesn't mean that only Muslims are called terrorists.

The coverage of the shoe bomber was due to him attempting to blow up a plane full of people.
That is an attention-grabbing story.

The NAACP bombing story of yesterday WOULD have been a much bigger deal if it weren't for the attack in Paris.
I call it "C. S. Lewis Syndrome."

One of the 20th century's most popular authors died on the day of the JFK assassination, and so went virtually ignored.

12 people gunned down for their "blasphemy" is going to trump criminal property damage. That's just the way it is.

That doesn't mean that racism and hatred is not a problem that needs addressing in our society. It just means that one brand of hatred made a bigger show yesterday.

Just sad all around.

[sabrina 1]

74. Actually the NAACP bombing was not covered in the media when it happened which was before the

attack in FRance. Twitter members were asking for coverage which didn't happen until a day after it happened.

I see no difference frankly between what happened with the shoe bomber and an attack on a group like the NAACP in terms of 'attention getting', considering the history of violence against the NAACP and the recent controversy over the brutality of the police towards African Americans.

Imagine if the bomber had been a Muslim and the building a Church or Temple eg?

So it wasn't the French attack that prevented coverage, the lack of coverage had already been noted on social media AFTER which there was some coverage.

[Coventina]

75. Well, I really don't know what to say to you, as I don't work in the media and are not privy to

how they make their choices.

You won't get any argument from me that our news media is disappointing.

[Bluenorthwest]

159. CS Lewis as well? Also Aldous Huxley died that day.

Not really the topic but that stopped me cold. I did not know about Lewis. A bad day that was.

[Coventina]

161. Ah! Thanks for the reminder!

At the time I wrote the post I knew there was another person who died that day that should have been recognized, but I couldn't remember it off the top of my head.

That was a terrible day.

[LordGlenconner]

73. The OP must have been born after 1995

(this is a tremendous book by the way)


And then there were these guys



And then there's this crazy bastard



And this nutbag

[sabrina 1]

83. Were all American military personnel included in the 'terrorist' label when McVeigh

committed that massive crime? I remember a lot of attempts to 'understand' why he did it, no implication that he represented millions of other people.

Bobby Sands is an Irish hero, to the Irish.

And he was a hero to many Americans. It was the Bush Sr admin who called the IRW terrorists, Clinton had a different view and invited leaders of the IRA, banned by Bush, to the US for peace talks.

[LordGlenconner]

89. Millions?

Probably not millions, fortunately. But at the time, yes, part of the debate was about how many people there were out there just like him in militias, which were obviously almost exclusively made up of whites. The militia angle was actually talked about quite a bit in the weeks and months after the OKC bombing.

I'm sure Bobby Sands is a hero to some in Ireland. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But we all know that.

I'm not really interested in quibbling about whether or not the US Military can be considered a terrorist organization, which I think is the point you are probably trying to make. But I don't think your assertion that the terrorist label is reserved "only" for Muslims is entirely accurate either. Just not a big fan of dealing exclusively in absolutes/black and white.

[sabrina 1]

95. You got my point wrong. I was referring to the FACT that when a couple of Muslim criminals

murder people, as they just did in France, ALL 1.6 Billion Muslims are blamed. See DU and definitely Fox and all Right Wing forums and the coverage in the media which spreads fear of all Muslims. Too bad we are seeing it here now though.

So my question re McVeigh was rhetorical, of course we did not blame the entire US Military for his act of mass murder. HE was blamed, the military continued to command the respect it has always had. THAT is the logical outcome when someone commits such a horrific crime. NOT to blame all those with whom he can be connected who are perfectly innocent and most likely abhor the horrible act.

But when it comes to Muslims, that dynamic changes. Why is that? It is as illogical to blame over one billion people for what a few criminals have done, simply because they have something in common, in this case their religion.

[LordGlenconner]

96. Okay, thanks for clarifying

I agree with your point about broad strokes when assigning blame.

[sabrina 1]

100. Thank you n/t

[Throd]

76. It isn't. I remember ETA when I lived in Spain in the 1970's.

They were referred to as terrorists. Quite properly I might add.

[sabrina 1]

81. Who was referred to as terrorists, was it an entire group of people who happened to

share a religion, or ethnicity, or just those who actually were responsible for crimes? Eg, there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and right here on DU we have a rec'd OP attaching blame to all of them for the actions of the killers in France. This is not unusual which is why I am asking the question. Why were all American military personnel not viewed as terrorists after McVeigh's mass murder or the killer in the Sikh mosque, also from the US military?

Even if the word terrorist is applied to a white, western mass murderer, it is reserved for that individual, not the entire society he comes from.

And that is what should happen. But when it comes to Muslims, it doesn't. They are ALL 'terrorists'. All nearly two billion of them. That is what my question is about.

[Throd]

94. You seem to be the only one saying this.

[Orsino]

77. Terrorism is a term reserved for the ruling class...

...in the sense that they determine which enemy of convenience is so labeled.

[sabrina 1]

88. It certainly seems that way. n/t

[mb999]

79. Of course

terrorist means muslim or arab.
thug means black
mentally disturbed means white....

See whites can't be considered terrorists or thugs by the media or society. When a white man does something bad it's because he is mentally disturbed and the entire race is not to blame for it. They can see it's just one bad person. The "others" aren't given the same treatment. The entire group is judged based on the actions of one individual. This is a form of privilege.

[sabrina 1]

80. 'The entire group is judged based on the actions of one individual'. Exactly.

McVeigh certainly fit the description of a terrorist, yet he was judged alone for his crimes. No wall to wall coverage scaring people that there were millions more of him who 'hated us for our freedoms'.

Good post, I think you perfectly described the difference in coverage of these killers.

[hack89]

82. Lets look at the DOJ Domestic Terrorism web site, shall we?

Current domestic terrorism threats include animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchists, antigovernment extremists such as “sovereign citizens” and unauthorized militias, Black separatists, White supremacists, anti-abortion extremists, and other unaffiliated disaffected Americans, including “lone wolfs.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/priority-areas/national-security/domestic-terrorism

It doesn't even mention Islam or Muslim

[sabrina 1]

85. And we just found out from the FOIA on OWS that THEY were listed as a terrorist group also.

However, when any one of these 'white' organizations commit a crime, we don't blame all Americans for their crime.

But when a Muslim commits a crime, it is all 1.6 billion of them. See DU and the media eg.

I want to know why this is as it makes no sense.

[hack89]

86. DU stereotypes all kinds of groups on a daily basis

look no further than any thread on gun owners, conservatives, Christians, white privilege, etc.

[4Q2u2]

111. Or her Favorite

Stereotyping Vets as crazed killers. She has at no less than 10 times posted that meme on this OP alone.

Those people serving in the military has as much to do with them killing people as the type of underwear they have on does, but not to Sabrina 1. We Vets are all one bad bowl of soup away from murdering rampages.

Talk about lapping up MSM BS. Crazed Killer Vet news at 11.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

84. Terrorism is just that - meant to terrorize

It's like a hate crime, but somehow on a larger scale.

[sabrina 1]

87. Sandy Hook certainly was a killing on a mass scale, worse they were mostly children.

Frankly I think all murders are terrorism.

My question is about the way we use the word terrorism instantly when the killers are Muslim.

Eg, the NAACP bombing has not been referred to as a terrorist act. In fact it has hardly received any coverage.

Someone told me that is because there were no casualities.

But there were no casualties in the Shoe Bomber case either. Seems both of them were, thankfully, pretty inept.

Yet one received months of saturation coverage, with all the 'National Security' experts, Giuliani, Chertoff et al, all over the media SCARING people, using that incident to get MORE 'security equipment' etc. Because of Muslims!

What is the difference? Apparently bombing the NAACP isn't so scary as far as the media is concerned.

[MicaelS]

139. As has been pointed out before YOU do not get to define Terrorism.

Last edited Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Which is what you are attempting to do. Terrorism is the targeted killing of human beings by other human beings to fit a political, religious, or ideological goal or agenda.

Neither Sandy Hook, nor Aurora, fits that criteria, no matter what WHAT YOU THINK.

Just as the killing of humans beings by other human beings can be defined as "homicide", not all homicides are murder. Murder has a very specific Legal meaning in Western society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human.

If I kill a person who has broken into my home, and is attempting to kill me, it will be labeled as "justifiable homicide" under our legal system. No doubt there would be people who might label my "justifiable homicide" as murder, because of some rhetoric like "you don't have the right to take the law into your hands", or some other rhetorical bullshit.

So your "all murders are terrorism" is just another example of rhetorical bullshit.

Killing other human beings in the modern civilized world is sometimes legal. Those in power that write and oversee the laws are the ones defining when said killing is legal and justifiable and when it is not.

[malaise]

93. Great post

Sadly the West has a particular meme and they control the global agenda. and M$Greedia.

[cherokeeprogressive]

99. I'd have to say it's because "terrorism", as is the case with most other words has a definition.

Dictionary.com defines it as:

N
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Bombing an abortion clinic? Terrorism.

Killing American Servicemembers on a military base (Fort Hood) because you disagree with what this country is doing in their lands? Terrorism.

Assassinating workers at a magazine because in your mind they shouldn't have published a cartoon, and you're going to teach them a lesson about doing it again? Terrorism.

Tucson, Sandy Hook, and all the other "mass shootings" I can think of offhand weren't intended to change any kind of political or other behavior. Not terrorism.

[DuckBurp]

101. Wasn't it Christian terrorists who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City?

... a few years ago?

[Jamastiene]

133. Yes, but officials and MSM never called Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph

or any of the other non-Muslims terrorists, at least not the homegrown ones. You'd have to really search a lot through the archive footage to even hear one MSM reporter calling either Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph a terrorist. They just never call domestic terrorists, terrorists, for some odd reason. Why is that?

[Renew Deal]

153. That's just not true

I remember it being referred to as terrorism. The FBI calls it that too. http://m.fbi.gov/#http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing

[Throd]

135. The OKC bombing wasn't done to avenge some slight against Jesus.

[m-lekktor]

145. Tim McVeigh identified himself as an agnostic

according to Gore Vidal who had an ongoing correspondence with him and wrote about him while McVeigh was in prison.

[ileus]

152. Just because they're white doesn't make them Christian just terrorist.

They didn't go out on any mission from their pastor financed by some fat cat rich Christian. There aren't millions of "willing" Christian terrorist out there...that's just a basic fact.

Sure it makes some feel good to try and associate Christianity with Terrorism but for most folks it just doesn't fit.

[DuckBurp]

175. Were they terrorists? Were they Christians?

Last edited Sun Jan 11, 2015, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Did they murder people thinking they were upholding Christian vaues? I rest my case.

[Sunlei]

103. I understand and see your point. Our Gov seems to use their 9/11 terror laws against Muslims, & envi

environmentalists, animal rights groups, Native Americans, Undocumented persons and protesters.

[randome]

132. Most of our mass killers are lone madmen. Non-American madmen tend to combine their madness.

It's all terrorism, I agree, but the group aspect seems more prevalent with non-American madmen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[MrMickeysMom]

150. Is that a fact, or just an opinion?

Most of our mass killers are lone madmen. Non-American madmen tend to combine their madness.

I know that didn't come from that Tony Randall movie…

[randome]

156. Neither. It's a guess.

But judging from what appears in the OP, a lot of mass killings are school or workplace-related and these are nearly always perpetrated by a lone madman.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Yo_Mama]

141. It isn't, of course.

Terrorism was quickly reported after the Charlie attack because of what witnesses reported the attackers said about their motives - including the statement by one woman spared that she was told to convert to Islam, read the Koran and adopt hijab ("cover up&quot . The attackers were very clear about their motives.

The FBI terrorism detail has been sent to investigate the CO bomb - it's not confirmed. Could have just been standard arson attempt for insurance proceeds.

[MrMickeysMom]

146. I've enjoyed catching up tonight with this thread

I had to do a little "time out" on related subjects in GD when it came to the insanity of how we are supposed to set an example of world leadership. Nothing I've heard or read gives justification to the idea the you can drone strike murder suspects, or opinions becoming facts so you need not use due process of law. Apparently law doesn't matter as needed. That's why some are called terrorists, but others aren't.

The answer to why we seem to reserve that word for Muslims is that we have not learned. You've no doubt got the better history background. This is why I appreciate Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States book. It's a true account from those who lived it, and it addresses ethnicity and class perception, all the prejudices, all the double standards to different ethnic groups. Muslims are taking top billing currently.

When an oppressed group fights back, but nothing changes over the course of long history, then insanity prevails and then something horrible happens… we experience acts of terrorism by those who go nuts. Well… THAT worked well. Again and again… We don't seem to get how we get to there from time to time it as a nation since the royal "we" have not progressed away from dominion and wars of aggression, occupation and outright fascism. We just pit different groups of the oppressed for someone to gain some position of power over whatever resources we need.

We need to stop making more and more victims by stopping our own aggression. With all of the military resources and none of the brain trust controlled by outside forces in Washington, NOTHING will unite unite us as a whole world until we learn by those past mistakes.

Hey, I didn't say the answer was simple. But, I loved the way you defended it. You are far more professional than most of us in doing so.

K&R, sabrina & peace out

[sabrina 1]

148. Amazing isn't it? This:

Nothing I've heard or read gives justification to the idea the you can drone strike murder suspects, or opinions becoming facts so you need not use due process of law. Apparently law doesn't matter as needed.

How outraged we were when Bush declared his powers, to unilaterally order the death of another human being without due process. I don't know if he ever actually did it. But I do remember that even he felt the need to assure the public that 'this would not be applicable to US citizens'.

And yet, here we are. And for some, it has suddenly become okay. Suddenly the outraged Left became very silent.

Very thoughtful post MMM, I agree with all of it.

As far as my experience, lol, I got it mostly from my years of arguing with Right Wingers on mixed forums during the Bush years. They actually taught me a lot, without intending to of course. I have to say I never expected to have to use that experience on a Dem forum. But it's a sign of the times, I suppose, which I hope will be short-lived.

Thank you for your post, and peace to you also :hI;

[msanthrope]

154. On my thread about Molly Norris, I've asked you to clarify a remark about fatwas. Can you visit

that thread and clarify?

[MrMickeysMom]

155. I will respond to this one time in this thread...

If my input to the thread you think I haven't assured was concluded, and you persist in chasing me for more input (since you don't like the word "stalking" to be associated with you), hear me in that I've made clear what my opinion is on the due process of law on that subject. You don't agree with it. That's fine. I'm not in charge of how you have to agree

But, if you PERSIST in your chasing me about the other thread, I'm going to officially put you on ignore, where you probably should have been LONG AGO.

Have a nice DU without me.

[msanthrope]

157. I'm asking you, as did another poster, to clarify your remarks regarding fatwas, because you

seem to be supporting the fatwa issued against Molly Norris...or at least, Awlaki's right to issue one.

Now, PLEASE.....if that is NOT what you meant, PLEASE visit the thread, and clarify your remark to both me and to the other posters who have asked you to clarify.

[sabrina 1]

163. Thank you for standing up for the US Constitution, MMM. You are not, thankfully, by any

means alone. Ignoring the attempts to twist your honorable stand into 'terrorist supporter' is the correct response. One day we will get the leadership this country needs to end these grotesque, anti-Constitutional policies and restore the Rule of Law we once were so proud of.

Countries go through these periods throughout their history and I am confident, considering the enormous negative reaction to Bush policies among most of our Constitutional legal authorities, that it will happen here sooner rather than later.

[Renew Deal]

151. I keep bringing it up but they keep ignoring the terrorism in Norway

I wonder why.

[MineralMan]

166. By whom is it so reserved?

Not by me, certainly. There are, and have been, terrorists of all religions and of no religion at all.

[sabrina 1]

167. I agree, so why have they not all been called 'terrorist attacks'? The bombing of the NAACP

building eg? Not referred to in the media as a terrorist attack. In fact barely covered at all by our media.

The escalating mass murders in this country by what I would call terrorists.

I'm glad we agree on something though.

[kelliekat44]

173. You noticed? nt

[Dirty Socialist]

176. Real 'Murrcans Hate The Swarthy Man

There is a racial element (Even though Arabs are Caucasians).

[Gothmog]

177. The people who claim that only Muslims can be terrorists are idiots

[Man from Pickens]

178. "Terrorism" is a propaganda term

There's pretty much no way to use the word honestly, except in the context of a meta-discussion on what "terrorism" actually means.

When you see the word used in a newspaper article, it is a subliminal signal to STOP ALL RATIONAL THINKING AT THAT POINT. Anyone who has watched enough TV this side of 9/11/2001 has been trained, Pavlov-style, to do just that: see the word "terrorism", all rationality goes out the window and emotions - fear and hate, primarily - take over.

There is no honest way to use the term. Anyone who does use it is trying to manipulate and control you, and prevent you from analyzing facts to come to an independent conclusion.