ST Alpha - "Because they haven't terrorized anyone? -- (edited)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 154

In response to "WaPo columnist wonders why the Oregon militiamen aren't being called terrorists in the press. -- (link)" by Baby New Mop

Because they haven't terrorized anyone? -- (edited)

Posted by iSpam (aka spamlet) Jan 4 '16, 04:51

Terrorism is meant to inspire fear in a populace. It's no different than when Occupy Wall Street took over public lands and refused to let the government in. I didn't see a rush to label them terrorists on here either.

If you call everything terrorism then you dilute the word. And shame on the WaPo for feeding into that for clicks.

Responses:

I think the point is that if they had been armed Muslims protesting unfair prisoner treatment at Gitmo, they'd almost certainly be labeled terrorists -- (edited) - Max Jan 4, 05:58 1
- So instead of MSNBC calling them terrorists it would be Fox? -- nm - spamlet Jan 4, 06:05
As a American, it scares me when gun-toting citizens occupy federal buildings illegally and state harm will come if they are dealt with. - Will Hunting Jan 4, 05:19 2
- Yeah I'm with you. Not a good precedent to set -- nm - Pippy Bells Jan 4, 06:10
- As soon as anyone changes their behavior because of these guys, let me know. -- nm - spamlet Jan 4, 06:03
Occupy Wall St. didn't take over public spaces with weapons. They weren't armed and ready to shoot it out with the government. -- nm - Krusty Jan 4, 05:18 1
- **pepper sprays you in the f'n face, hippy -- nm - Chateau du zeitgeist Jan 4, 11:41

Post a message top

Because they haven't terrorized anyone? -- (edited)

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.