Terrorism is committing atrocities to terrorise people for a political or religious reason. It never has, is not and never will be exclusively muslim in nature. To say that it is strikes me very anti-islam. Its most definately not the only religion or ideology to spawn hatred.
Well no of course not.
But the media has prepped everyone to automatically link terrorism with islam. That is the association they were hoping to invoke with their use of terrorism.
Give it a decade without any of the war on terror nonsense going on and terrorism might become a neutral enough word to not carry such associations.
Not using the word only helps the media though, so we should use it when ever its approperite regardless of associations, let it invoke islamic phantoms at first glance, it will only make it a better learning moment when it finally hits them that, no, it isn't a muslim attack.
I would imagine the reason that ‘terrorist’ and ‘islam’ are so tightly interlinked right now is because in the west the majority of attacks are that in origin. Further, yes, they tend to be more organised then some random right wing nutters. What would be the right wing example of al quieda? How systematic and widespread is the support network both direct and informal for right wing terrorist cells?
This is just the nature of the current status quo, and I don’t think it demonstrates anything that inherently needs challenging. Just like a couple decades ago terrorist and Irish were in exactly the same situation in the news media.
Leitner on
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
I would imagine the reason that ‘terrorist’ and ‘islam’ are so tightly interlinked right now is because in the west the majority of attacks are that in origin. Further, yes, they tend to be more organised then some random right wing nutters. What would be the right wing example of al quieda? How systematic and widespread is the support network both direct and informal for right wing terrorist cells?
This is just the nature of the current status quo, and I don’t think it demonstrates anything that inherently needs challenging. Just like a couple decades ago terrorist and Irish were in exactly the same situation in the news media.
Not really. Here's an excerpt from the article I linked earlier:
The European Union's Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2010 states that in 2009 there were "294 failed, foiled, or successfully executed attacks" in six European countries. This was down almost one-third from the total in 2008 and down by almost one-half from the total in 2007.
So in most of Europe, there was no terrorism. And where there was terrorism, the trend line pointed down.
As for who's responsible, forget Islamists. The overwhelming majority of the attacks- 237 of 294 - were carried out by separatist groups, such as the Basque ETA. A further 40 terrorists schemes were pinned on leftist and/or anarchist terrorists. Rightists were responsible for four attacks. Single-issue groups were behind two attacks, while responsibility for a further 10 was not clear.
Islamists? They were behind a grand total of one attack. Yes, one. Out of 294 attacks. In a population of half a billion people. To put that in perspective, the same number of attacks was committed by the Comité d'Action Viticole, a French group that wants to stop the importation of foreign wine.
Not using the word only helps the media though, so we should use it when ever its approperite regardless of associations, let it invoke islamic phantoms at first glance, it will only make it a better learning moment when it finally hits them that, no, it isn't a muslim attack.
When Islamic terrorist groups attack, people look for explanations in the Quran and start targeting and profiling all Muslims. When it's a white guy, he is a lone wolf madman, and we explain his behaviour as sociopathic instead of seeing it as part of a larger picture of right wing extremism.
Is there any evidence that this guy is connected to any group or movement? He seems like the textbook defintion of a lone wolf terrorist. And he's a pretty competent example of the breed. His plan seemed to work perfectly.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
From what I've read, he used World of Warcraft as a "cover" while actually playing Modern Warfare 2, using it as a training simulator. I've read a few quotes from his manifesto claiming that MW2 is "the most realistic military simulator on the market" or something similar to that.
Why is this something that even needs cover? There's a billion MW2 players.
From what I've read, he used World of Warcraft as a "cover" while actually playing Modern Warfare 2, using it as a training simulator. I've read a few quotes from his manifesto claiming that MW2 is "the most realistic military simulator on the market" or something similar to that.
Why is this something that even needs cover? There's a billion MW2 players.
From what I've read, he used World of Warcraft as a "cover" while actually playing Modern Warfare 2, using it as a training simulator. I've read a few quotes from his manifesto claiming that MW2 is "the most realistic military simulator on the market" or something similar to that.
Why is this something that even needs cover? There's a billion MW2 players.
He lived with his mom.
This raises a completely different set of questions.
Primary among them being how he managed to stockpile the munitions for this thing sharing a home with his mother.
From what I've read, he used World of Warcraft as a "cover" while actually playing Modern Warfare 2, using it as a training simulator. I've read a few quotes from his manifesto claiming that MW2 is "the most realistic military simulator on the market" or something similar to that.
Why is this something that even needs cover? There's a billion MW2 players.
He lived with his mom.
This raises a completely different set of questions.
Primary among them being how he managed to stockpile the munitions for this thing sharing a home with his mother.
From what I've read, he used World of Warcraft as a "cover" while actually playing Modern Warfare 2, using it as a training simulator. I've read a few quotes from his manifesto claiming that MW2 is "the most realistic military simulator on the market" or something similar to that.
Why is this something that even needs cover? There's a billion MW2 players.
He ran a farm equipment business, yeah? That's where he got the explosives. Fertilizer bomb I assume.
I'm not sure if he actually owned a farm or just had enough paperwork to indicate he did.
I read in the WashPo today that he had leased a farm from a guy who was going to jail for growing pot on said farm. The shooter claimed he was growing beets on the farm, since they apparently require a lot of fertilizer compared to other crops, giving him a good cover.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
He ran a farm equipment business, yeah? That's where he got the explosives. Fertilizer bomb I assume.
I'm not sure if he actually owned a farm or just had enough paperwork to indicate he did.
I read in the WashPo today that he had leased a farm from a guy who was going to jail for growing pot on said farm. The shooter claimed he was growing beets on the farm, since they apparently require a lot of fertilizer compared to other crops, giving him a good cover.
In a story on the Norwegian news. People did notice that he wasn't spreading the fertiliser on his fields, but didn't really know what to make of it. The idea that he was making a bomb was beyond their imagination.
In the future, this will be noticed more
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
From what I've read, he used World of Warcraft as a "cover" while actually playing Modern Warfare 2, using it as a training simulator. I've read a few quotes from his manifesto claiming that MW2 is "the most realistic military simulator on the market" or something similar to that.
Why is this something that even needs cover? There's a billion MW2 players.
He lived with his mom.
OK, that cuts it down to 700 million MW2 players.
More to the point, uhhh what? That's like saying you got your gun training watching the Die Hard movies. MW2 is a cheesey blockbuster war movie put in a game, not a realistic war simulator. I'm really irritated he said that though because if they haven't already it's only a matter of time before some ill informed jackass comes out screaming "BAN THE VIDJA GAEMS!!! THEY TRAIN TERRORISTS TO USE GUNZ!!!11!"
He got banned from Stormfront which is a pretty ridiculously racist forum
Damage control.
When I read the thread, a couple of people were saying things like "Look what you pushed this white man into" "Those kids would grow up into multi-cultis anyway" and similar things before their posts were deleted and the mods suddenly steered the discussion into the current direction - that he's a zionist, gay, potential Israely.-false flag meant to cast doubt on the white supremacist/anti-Islam/anti-multiculturalism movement.
You read that on stormfront? Because that is where I went; I was curious to see how they were reacting. I saw quite a mix of stuff right off the bat: those dirty muslims did it, or it was an israeli false flag, or it was a lone nut. The second option was probably the most common, until some existing islamic terrorist group claimed (falsely, obviously) responsibility. They certainly tried to smear the guy right off the bat once they found out he was white, especially by calling him gay. One poster was doing this so consistently the rest told him to shut up, which I found pretty funny. But I saw no posts that cheered the killing of the teenagers- white teenagers as they were saying. Maybe I got there late and they were culled or something.
The pro-israel and pro-homosexual stuff was supposedly from his manifesto and posts he'd made on some far-right blog, though I wouldn't know where as I haven't seen the document itself, only excerpts from it.
They definitely deleted some posts, I tested this out by posting as well under a fake pseudonym ("I can't find anything about him being gay, maybe he was just a straight white male") and they ended up not approving that post (all posts need to be approved by a moderator before showing up on the site) as well as deleting another normal (which in their world turn me into a liberal marxist fascist, heh) by me.
There were a couple of posts celebrating the fact that these teenagers would only have grown up into more enemies of the white race, but a mod quickly stopped those posts by threatening to ban anyone else celebrating their deaths. While I'm sure that there's a decent bunch of people on that forum, as horrible as it is, that don't feel joy over innocent people's deaths it is frightening that there are some that aren't - and if all or most of the kids were non-white this would be an entirely different story (some were pointing out that the survivors who had been interviewed weren't white at all so I guess that might also have contributed to some people celebrating)
See what Abimelech wrote about the homosexual stuff, I too didn't find any positive endorsement of it in his manifesto so I assume it's just some mudslinging from the stormfronters.
He ran a farm equipment business, yeah? That's where he got the explosives. Fertilizer bomb I assume.
I'm not sure if he actually owned a farm or just had enough paperwork to indicate he did.
I read in the WashPo today that he had leased a farm from a guy who was going to jail for growing pot on said farm. The shooter claimed he was growing beets on the farm, since they apparently require a lot of fertilizer compared to other crops, giving him a good cover.
In a story on the Norwegian news. People did notice that he wasn't spreading the fertiliser on his fields, but didn't really know what to make of it. The idea that he was making a bomb was beyond their imagination.
In the future, this will be noticed more
The terrorist had it planned out pretty alright.
This is what happens when rather significant warning signs end up ignored because people's notion of what constitutes a terrorist does not include your fellow Norwegian christian right-winger.
Brooker hitting the nail on the head as usual. It annoys me that I heard the leader of a Muslim community council screaming racism on the radio this morning. Come on guys, while the press did engage in irresponsible and unhelpful speculation in the absence of any actual facts to report early on, I think it's equally unhelpful to stir the pot further by pulling the racism card. Let's face it, it wasn't racism that made (most) people jump to that conclusion, it was Occams Razor. Far right wing or Neo-Nazi terrorism is a completely different beast to Muslim Extremist terrorism, they tend to pull off hard hitting atrocities like these about once a decade as opposed to smaller attacks every few months.
I think this is one of those times where the rational people need to pull together rather than point fingers.
I would imagine the reason that ‘terrorist’ and ‘islam’ are so tightly interlinked right now is because in the west the majority of attacks are that in origin. Further, yes, they tend to be more organised then some random right wing nutters. What would be the right wing example of al quieda? How systematic and widespread is the support network both direct and informal for right wing terrorist cells?
This is just the nature of the current status quo, and I don’t think it demonstrates anything that inherently needs challenging. Just like a couple decades ago terrorist and Irish were in exactly the same situation in the news media.
We've had several instances of right wing terror in the US. US media merely refuses to tie right wing terrorism to terrorism. Hence why "lone gunmen"/"acted alone" are the usual descriptors. Mental issues are often brought up as well.
I would imagine the reason that ‘terrorist’ and ‘islam’ are so tightly interlinked right now is because in the west the majority of attacks are that in origin. Further, yes, they tend to be more organised then some random right wing nutters. What would be the right wing example of al quieda? How systematic and widespread is the support network both direct and informal for right wing terrorist cells?
This is just the nature of the current status quo, and I don’t think it demonstrates anything that inherently needs challenging. Just like a couple decades ago terrorist and Irish were in exactly the same situation in the news media.
We've had several instances of right wing terror in the US. US media merely refuses to tie right wing terrorism to terrorism. Hence why "lone gunmen"/"acted alone" are the usual descriptors. Mental issues are often brought up as well.
I'm going to guess you mean the Congresswoman shooting in AZ, and the guy who crashed a plane into the IRS building here in Austin, TX. Neither of those were "right wing". Or were there others? You mention "several", I guess that's more than 4? So which ones?
Is your point to try and suggest that the US media is giving cover to rightwing terrorists? Because if it is, you need to stop tossing around speculation and innuendo, and put up some examples with sources.
Or stop doing it.
Edit: I don't mean to suggest that it's not happening, or that it can't happen. It's the passive-aggressive jabs with no substance, just the assumption that you're speaking conventional wisdom, that is bugging me here.
spool32 on
0
Options
JakarrdIn the belly ofOklahomaRegistered Userregular
I would imagine the reason that ‘terrorist’ and ‘islam’ are so tightly interlinked right now is because in the west the majority of attacks are that in origin. Further, yes, they tend to be more organised then some random right wing nutters. What would be the right wing example of al quieda? How systematic and widespread is the support network both direct and informal for right wing terrorist cells?
This is just the nature of the current status quo, and I don’t think it demonstrates anything that inherently needs challenging. Just like a couple decades ago terrorist and Irish were in exactly the same situation in the news media.
We've had several instances of right wing terror in the US. US media merely refuses to tie right wing terrorism to terrorism. Hence why "lone gunmen"/"acted alone" are the usual descriptors. Mental issues are often brought up as well.
I dunno, sheep, I think the media does tie it for somethings. I mean, the Oklahoma City bombing got tied the right wing terrorism to at least domestic terrorism from what I recall on the news and in the paper. I think the lone gunmen/acted alone labels are for more when they can only find one person that did it, as opposed to 2 or more in a group. But I can't recall incidents similar where the media wasn't mentioning right-wing and terrorism together.
Greetings Starfighter! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada.
The way the press has been covering the Norwegian Terrorist attacks has lead me to the following conclusion:
There should be a fine for any inaccurate reporting.
Sure, you might truly believe what you are reporting but that shouldn't matter - culpability should exist regardless of whether you're just unlucky, ignorant or deliberately misleading when it comes to facts.
Feel free to plaster "AL-QUAIDA" as the terrorist all over your front page (Yes, even quoting a rumour should be liable if you turn out to be wrong), but if it turns out that they are not responsible then your paper is going to have to pay a fine big enough to make them second guess themselves next time.
I can think of a dozen of downsides to this system but would it really be worse than the current one?
1604: Island death toll revised down to 68 - Norwegian police
1605: Norwegian police say eight people were killed in the Oslo blast.
1606: Norwegian police are giving a news conference right now.
1608: The previous death toll for the shootings on Utoeya island was 86.
1611: So in total, the known death toll is now 76, not 93. Explaining the confusion, police cited difficulties in gathering information at Utoeya.
I would imagine the reason that ‘terrorist’ and ‘islam’ are so tightly interlinked right now is because in the west the majority of attacks are that in origin. Further, yes, they tend to be more organised then some random right wing nutters. What would be the right wing example of al quieda? How systematic and widespread is the support network both direct and informal for right wing terrorist cells?
This is just the nature of the current status quo, and I don’t think it demonstrates anything that inherently needs challenging. Just like a couple decades ago terrorist and Irish were in exactly the same situation in the news media.
We've had several instances of right wing terror in the US. US media merely refuses to tie right wing terrorism to terrorism. Hence why "lone gunmen"/"acted alone" are the usual descriptors. Mental issues are often brought up as well.
I'm going to guess you mean the Congresswoman shooting in AZ, and the guy who crashed a plane into the IRS building here in Austin, TX. Neither of those were "right wing". Or were there others? You mention "several", I guess that's more than 4? So which ones?
Is your point to try and suggest that the US media is giving cover to rightwing terrorists? Because if it is, you need to stop tossing around speculation and innuendo, and put up some examples with sources.
Or stop doing it.
Edit: I don't mean to suggest that it's not happening, or that it can't happen. It's the passive-aggressive jabs with no substance, just the assumption that you're speaking conventional wisdom, that is bugging me here.
Just off the top of my head: Oklahoma city bombing, the Unabomber, abortion clinic bombings/arsons, and of course terrorism against blacks during desegregation (assuming you don't want to go back to the 1800s.)
1604: Island death toll revised down to 68 - Norwegian police
1605: Norwegian police say eight people were killed in the Oslo blast.
1606: Norwegian police are giving a news conference right now.
1608: The previous death toll for the shootings on Utoeya island was 86.
1611: So in total, the known death toll is now 76, not 93. Explaining the confusion, police cited difficulties in gathering information at Utoeya.
That is somewhat relieving to hear, if only the death toll could have been lower.
Just off the top of my head: Oklahoma city bombing, the Unabomber, abortion clinic bombings/arsons, and of course terrorism against blacks during desegregation (assuming you don't want to go back to the 1800s.)
There's also the huge number of bank robberies, murders, frauds, gun and drug running, etc. tied to American neo-Nazi and militia movements. Many of these crimes are done to finance the organizations, which do sponsor violence against regular citizens for political reasons when they take time out from doing violence on regular citizens for financial motives. Their membership is also growing.
I would imagine the reason that ‘terrorist’ and ‘islam’ are so tightly interlinked right now is because in the west the majority of attacks are that in origin. Further, yes, they tend to be more organised then some random right wing nutters. What would be the right wing example of al quieda? How systematic and widespread is the support network both direct and informal for right wing terrorist cells?
This is just the nature of the current status quo, and I don’t think it demonstrates anything that inherently needs challenging. Just like a couple decades ago terrorist and Irish were in exactly the same situation in the news media.
We've had several instances of right wing terror in the US. US media merely refuses to tie right wing terrorism to terrorism. Hence why "lone gunmen"/"acted alone" are the usual descriptors. Mental issues are often brought up as well.
I'm going to guess you mean the Congresswoman shooting in AZ, and the guy who crashed a plane into the IRS building here in Austin, TX. Neither of those were "right wing". Or were there others? You mention "several", I guess that's more than 4? So which ones?
Is your point to try and suggest that the US media is giving cover to rightwing terrorists? Because if it is, you need to stop tossing around speculation and innuendo, and put up some examples with sources.
Or stop doing it.
Edit: I don't mean to suggest that it's not happening, or that it can't happen. It's the passive-aggressive jabs with no substance, just the assumption that you're speaking conventional wisdom, that is bugging me here.
Just off the top of my head: Oklahoma city bombing, the Unabomber, abortion clinic bombings/arsons, and of course terrorism against blacks during desegregation (assuming you don't want to go back to the 1800s.)
Tiller and the Holocaust Memorial shooting are both pretty textbook terrorism, and happened in the last couple of years.
I would imagine the reason that ‘terrorist’ and ‘islam’ are so tightly interlinked right now is because in the west the majority of attacks are that in origin. Further, yes, they tend to be more organised then some random right wing nutters. What would be the right wing example of al quieda? How systematic and widespread is the support network both direct and informal for right wing terrorist cells?
This is just the nature of the current status quo, and I don’t think it demonstrates anything that inherently needs challenging. Just like a couple decades ago terrorist and Irish were in exactly the same situation in the news media.
We've had several instances of right wing terror in the US. US media merely refuses to tie right wing terrorism to terrorism. Hence why "lone gunmen"/"acted alone" are the usual descriptors. Mental issues are often brought up as well.
I'm going to guess you mean the Congresswoman shooting in AZ, and the guy who crashed a plane into the IRS building here in Austin, TX. Neither of those were "right wing". Or were there others? You mention "several", I guess that's more than 4? So which ones?
Is your point to try and suggest that the US media is giving cover to rightwing terrorists? Because if it is, you need to stop tossing around speculation and innuendo, and put up some examples with sources.
Or stop doing it.
Edit: I don't mean to suggest that it's not happening, or that it can't happen. It's the passive-aggressive jabs with no substance, just the assumption that you're speaking conventional wisdom, that is bugging me here.
I'm referring to the George Tiller murder, the Byron Williams attempted massacre, the Hutaree Militia that was broken up by the FBI, the Shawna Forde murders, the James Von Brunn attack.
That's off the top of my head. Either not considered a terrorist act or barely picked up en masse by our popular media.
And often when these are picked up by the media, influences are often disregarded and the killer(s) are often merely labeled "mentally incapable", crazy, etc.
anyone willing to open fire on unarmed civilians could be considered crazy be definition. I can't think of a rational or sane reason to do so
Were the people who manned the gas chambers during WW2 all crazy? Was there a hidden stockpile of crazy people that they tapped, or did they have a method for crafting crazy people for their purposes?
Agree. One of the metrics for consideration whether or not someone is "crazy" shouldn't include murder. Your average, regular, human being can commit murder for a variety of reasons. Being crazy isn't often one of them.
anyone willing to open fire on unarmed civilians could be considered crazy be definition. I can't think of a rational or sane reason to do so
Were the people who manned the gas chambers during WW2 all crazy? Was there a hidden stockpile of crazy people that they tapped, or did they have a method for crafting crazy people for their purposes?
Sane people do terrible things.
Definitely. "Is capable of things I couldn't conscience" is a pretty subjective (and terrible) definition for insanity.
Someone can do something that other people view as horrible and still be mentally competent.
Posts
Well no of course not.
But the media has prepped everyone to automatically link terrorism with islam. That is the association they were hoping to invoke with their use of terrorism.
Give it a decade without any of the war on terror nonsense going on and terrorism might become a neutral enough word to not carry such associations.
This is just the nature of the current status quo, and I don’t think it demonstrates anything that inherently needs challenging. Just like a couple decades ago terrorist and Irish were in exactly the same situation in the news media.
Not really. Here's an excerpt from the article I linked earlier:
I'd totally lime this if i knew how.
Rigorous Scholarship
Why is this something that even needs cover? There's a billion MW2 players.
He lived with his mom.
Primary among them being how he managed to stockpile the munitions for this thing sharing a home with his mother.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think that might have been a joke, dude.
Echo: he a nutjob, he don't tink like us.
I'm not sure if he actually owned a farm or just had enough paperwork to indicate he did.
OK, that cuts it down to 700 million MW2 players.
Rigorous Scholarship
In a story on the Norwegian news. People did notice that he wasn't spreading the fertiliser on his fields, but didn't really know what to make of it. The idea that he was making a bomb was beyond their imagination.
In the future, this will be noticed more
More to the point, uhhh what? That's like saying you got your gun training watching the Die Hard movies. MW2 is a cheesey blockbuster war movie put in a game, not a realistic war simulator. I'm really irritated he said that though because if they haven't already it's only a matter of time before some ill informed jackass comes out screaming "BAN THE VIDJA GAEMS!!! THEY TRAIN TERRORISTS TO USE GUNZ!!!11!"
There were a couple of posts celebrating the fact that these teenagers would only have grown up into more enemies of the white race, but a mod quickly stopped those posts by threatening to ban anyone else celebrating their deaths. While I'm sure that there's a decent bunch of people on that forum, as horrible as it is, that don't feel joy over innocent people's deaths it is frightening that there are some that aren't - and if all or most of the kids were non-white this would be an entirely different story (some were pointing out that the survivors who had been interviewed weren't white at all so I guess that might also have contributed to some people celebrating)
See what Abimelech wrote about the homosexual stuff, I too didn't find any positive endorsement of it in his manifesto so I assume it's just some mudslinging from the stormfronters.
The terrorist had it planned out pretty alright.
This is what happens when rather significant warning signs end up ignored because people's notion of what constitutes a terrorist does not include your fellow Norwegian christian right-winger.
Brooker hitting the nail on the head as usual. It annoys me that I heard the leader of a Muslim community council screaming racism on the radio this morning. Come on guys, while the press did engage in irresponsible and unhelpful speculation in the absence of any actual facts to report early on, I think it's equally unhelpful to stir the pot further by pulling the racism card. Let's face it, it wasn't racism that made (most) people jump to that conclusion, it was Occams Razor. Far right wing or Neo-Nazi terrorism is a completely different beast to Muslim Extremist terrorism, they tend to pull off hard hitting atrocities like these about once a decade as opposed to smaller attacks every few months.
I think this is one of those times where the rational people need to pull together rather than point fingers.
We've had several instances of right wing terror in the US. US media merely refuses to tie right wing terrorism to terrorism. Hence why "lone gunmen"/"acted alone" are the usual descriptors. Mental issues are often brought up as well.
I'm going to guess you mean the Congresswoman shooting in AZ, and the guy who crashed a plane into the IRS building here in Austin, TX. Neither of those were "right wing". Or were there others? You mention "several", I guess that's more than 4? So which ones?
Is your point to try and suggest that the US media is giving cover to rightwing terrorists? Because if it is, you need to stop tossing around speculation and innuendo, and put up some examples with sources.
Or stop doing it.
Edit: I don't mean to suggest that it's not happening, or that it can't happen. It's the passive-aggressive jabs with no substance, just the assumption that you're speaking conventional wisdom, that is bugging me here.
I dunno, sheep, I think the media does tie it for somethings. I mean, the Oklahoma City bombing got tied the right wing terrorism to at least domestic terrorism from what I recall on the news and in the paper. I think the lone gunmen/acted alone labels are for more when they can only find one person that did it, as opposed to 2 or more in a group. But I can't recall incidents similar where the media wasn't mentioning right-wing and terrorism together.
There should be a fine for any inaccurate reporting.
Sure, you might truly believe what you are reporting but that shouldn't matter - culpability should exist regardless of whether you're just unlucky, ignorant or deliberately misleading when it comes to facts.
Feel free to plaster "AL-QUAIDA" as the terrorist all over your front page (Yes, even quoting a rumour should be liable if you turn out to be wrong), but if it turns out that they are not responsible then your paper is going to have to pay a fine big enough to make them second guess themselves next time.
I can think of a dozen of downsides to this system but would it really be worse than the current one?
1605: Norwegian police say eight people were killed in the Oslo blast.
1606: Norwegian police are giving a news conference right now.
1608: The previous death toll for the shootings on Utoeya island was 86.
1611: So in total, the known death toll is now 76, not 93. Explaining the confusion, police cited difficulties in gathering information at Utoeya.
Just off the top of my head: Oklahoma city bombing, the Unabomber, abortion clinic bombings/arsons, and of course terrorism against blacks during desegregation (assuming you don't want to go back to the 1800s.)
There's also the huge number of bank robberies, murders, frauds, gun and drug running, etc. tied to American neo-Nazi and militia movements. Many of these crimes are done to finance the organizations, which do sponsor violence against regular citizens for political reasons when they take time out from doing violence on regular citizens for financial motives. Their membership is also growing.
The Department of Homeland Security - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4944701-503544.html - did a report on this When they tried to release it, they got shouted down by the right-wing.
I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'm referring to the George Tiller murder, the Byron Williams attempted massacre, the Hutaree Militia that was broken up by the FBI, the Shawna Forde murders, the James Von Brunn attack.
That's off the top of my head. Either not considered a terrorist act or barely picked up en masse by our popular media.
That doesn't make them less of a terrorist.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Were the people who manned the gas chambers during WW2 all crazy? Was there a hidden stockpile of crazy people that they tapped, or did they have a method for crafting crazy people for their purposes?
Sane people do terrible things.
Someone can do something that other people view as horrible and still be mentally competent.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.