Is the media referring to Christian militia as "suspected terrorists"? Greenwald asks

[Pesci11]

Via twitter, Glenn Greenwald asks a good question:

"Have any large media outlets used "suspected Terrorists" to describe the Christian militia broken up by the FBI Joint TERRORISM Task Force?"

Let's see: MSNBC calls them "suspects" and "group" with no reference to "terror" or "terrorist" and Fox does the same. Newsweek does not call them suspected terrorists either. Nothing in the New York Times about terrorism either. Nothing in the Washington Post either.

Etcetera, etcetera.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-security/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/29/militia-members-charged-police-killing-plot/
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/03/29/militia-charges-shows-upsurge-in-hate-groups.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032900223.html


I think they should. What do you guys think?

[kestrel91316]

1. WMD's? Levying war against the US? Gee, I dunno. I though only

liberals were terrorists.

:sarcasm:

[Raksha]

12. A small clarification--only liberals or Muslims are terrorists.

White "Christians," not so much or not at all. :sarcasm:

[kestrel91316]

13. Yes, thank you. My bad.

[movonne]

2. Maybe we should define the word terrorist...either you are or you

are not one...how come a home grown one is not a terrorist and foreign ones are...is the media protecting them...if this had been a liberal group they would be yelling terrorist all over the place...

[Cirque du So-What]

3. Hell, yes!

Although I make no excuses for ELF or similar groups that attack property - especially since their actions can endanger firefighters, law enforcement officers & loggers who may contact nails in 'spiked' trees with their chainsaws - the corporate media have no problem addressing these groups as 'eco-terrorists.' These RW groups fit the textbook definition of terrorists, and they're definitely a murderous lot, so why in pluperfect hell cannot the corporate media bring themselves to apply the label of 'terrorist' to these groups? That's a rhetorical question, BTW.

[get the red out]

4. Terrorist

Terrorist - somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes.

Yea, that fits. And the definition doesn't say anything at all about what color, religion, or ethnicity someone has to be in order to be a terrorist.

[damntexdem]

5. Of course not: they're right wing and Xian!

"Terrorist" is reserved for left wing or Muslim.

Even when, as at Ft. Hood, the act doesn't technically qualify as terrorism.

[guitar man]

6. furthermore

Can we connect any right wing politicians with them? Who's been "Palin' around with terrorists?" :shrug:

[Matariki]

7. Silly man

Terrorists are brown and non-christian.

[Echo In Light]

8. And certainly no mention of "Christian militia" in the headlines

[LostInAnomie]

9. The fact that they call themselves "Christians" will protect them from the label.

In the US, as far and the media is concerned, you cannot be a Christian and a terrorist. They are mutually exclusive terms.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. The indictment says members of the group conspired "to levy war against the United States...

... (and) to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States."
9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
The words in that indictment conform to the Section 3 definitoin of treason in the U.S. Constitution. So are they terrorists or just traitors?

[Jefferson23]

11. If you are not from the ME, how could you possibly be a terrorist? You guys crack me up sometimes.

:sarcasm: