So you are basically admitting that there is media bias based on the topic and the media feels that abortion is more important then a terrorist killing a member of our military on our own soil?
Yep. It's not an either/or though, is one event somehow stealing coverage away from another? I hope more awareness is raised about BOTH issues. ...In terms of the nature of the victim and the motivations behind the issue however, sheer novelty alone makes me think the abortion story is more interesting. Apparently, the media thinks the same.
Hey guys check out the big bad nasty "assault rifle" he used! OMG it is so freaking ASSAULTY and NASTY!!! Quick note. This rifle is NOT BANNED under the 1994 semi-auto rifle ban. (the actual one I listed was banned from import because it is chinese (thanks GWB but you get the idea)
No, I'm basically admitting that there is an American public bias and the American public feels that abortion is more important then a terrorist killing a member of our military on our own soil. The media is just responding to market demand. It might have been different if he blew up the recruiting station, or if he was part of some kind of network. But, as it is, I think most people just see it as a successful murder and a failed terror attempt. Given his mediocre success, the spectre of pro-life violence is much more meaningful to people.
This was clearly another act of terrorism, trying to cause fear in military and would be military soldiers. Is the media bias? of coarse. The media also shows what will get them the best ratings. Maybe the public feels more compassionate about the man that was killed at church in front of his family.
Not terrorism, because he didn't target civilians, recruiters are military personnel on active duty AFAIK. Limiting yourself to attacks against military targets is the opposite of terrorism. I would say he is more of a partisan, guerrilla, or irregular.
Sorry to pull a Hayestreet on you but I think the targetting of military personal outside of a war zone and by a civillian could also be considered an act of terrorism.
Well, the law of the US agrees with you, so I won't argue the point. I just think we have other words that fit better.
"probably had political and religious motives for the attack." I'm sure you all don't mind, but personally, I don't think "probably" is good enough. lol Send him to jail for being an idiot. Whether he's a Muslim or Chritian or Atheist doesn't matter. Northside Storm, Just a quick note. islam doesn't support Jihad. There are two types of Jihad, inner and outer. Inner Jihad is the war within yourself - i.e., cleansing yourself spiritually and not be influenced you don't want to be influenced by (strong faith). Outer Jihad (which is the generally known one) isn't just fighting in ever war. It is a specific phenomenon applied to specific wars between specific people for a specific purpose. Some would argue that Jihad is only meant to happen once before judgement day. More importantly, Muslims are not allowed to start Jihad. It is an act of self defense and responding to visible aggression. Now, if someone acts outside of this stuff, blame their education, their teachers, etc. Personally, if they didn't teach him Islam in school or at home, I don't blame him for thinking he was doing the right thing. But just because he claims that it's in the name of Allah, doesn't mean that it is and doesn't mean that it is Islam's fault. The only problem here is misinformation.
That was so poorly written I'm going to re-write it here: Northside Storm, Just a quick note. Islam doesn't support war unless it is in self-defense. There are two types of Jihad, inner and outer. Inner Jihad is the war within yourself - i.e., cleansing yourself spiritually and not being influenced by things thar you don't want to be influenced by (having strong faith). Outer Jihad (which is the commonly known one) isn't just fighting in every war. It is a specific phenomenon applied to specific war(s) between specific people for a specific purpose. Some would even argue that Jihad is only meant to happen one time before judgement day. Again, Muslims are not allowed to start war. Responding in self-defense is allowed, but THAT is not necessarily Jihad. I could look up the exact terms and definition of Jihad for you if interested. Now, if someone acts outside of this stuff, then blame their education, their teachers, etc. Personally, if they didn't teach him (guy in the article) Islam in school or at home, I don't blame him for thinking he was doing the right thing. But just because he claims that it's in the name of Allah, doesn't mean that it is and doesn't mean that it is Islam at fault. The only problem here is misinformation. The reason this doesn't happen for Atheists IMO is simple: there is no religion or God to blame in their case. Another thing I've thoguht about... from a logical point of view, if I don't believe in God or an afterlife or anything of the sort, and I know I have x number of years till I become dust, then I'm less likely to put myself at risk of war or aggression for those years. Basically, life on earth is given a much higher value by atheists because, for them, there is no post-life goal to pursue so this is the whole shabang and you better hold on to it for dear life. Right?
this is what I came in this thread to discuss. don't we also consider the boming of the uss cole a terrorist act?
I think there are characteristics of "terrorism" as I know it 1. The disregard and actual intention to harm civilians and non-combatants in addition to combatants. 2. The desire to punish due to intolerance of ideas.
Not believing in a higher power doesn't necessarily mean that life is more valued. As noted earlier in the thread there has been a lot of blood shed by those who don't believe in god(s) and who are even outrightly hostile towards religion. Just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you don't have principles you would die or kill for. At the sametime a purely materialistic view of the World can also lead to devaluing life.
I'm not sure that is a characteristic of terrorism as a government could punish people for holding different ideas than what they approve of legally which wouldn't be terrorism. Also terrorists are motivated by all sort so causes and you could have a terrorist who is very tolerant of all sorts of ideas but is undertaking terrorism for reasons not having to do with philosophical ideas or even ideology.
Well, it is by the US code definition, because the Cole was not in a war zone (it was at a port in Yemen IIRC). I think the Cole was a legitimate military target, personally. That doesn't mean I am OK with the bombing, because it is still an act of war against my country, but when we toss around the word terrorism willy nilly, it just leads to everyone calling anything they don't like terrorism (see the propaganda of Hamas). I would limit terrorism to the intentional targeting of civilians by a military, paramilitary (SWAT, JSDF), or pseudo-military (Hamas) organization.
.gov definition of terrorism: - The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. - The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. - The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2419.htm
