“1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.” 2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners. 3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion. 4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed. 5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream. 6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies. 7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations. 8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies. 9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane. 10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.”
—Juan Cole, 08/09/2012
“American workers are more likely to be killed by their boss than a terrorist.”
—Every day, workers are forced to minimize safety in order to keep their jobs. The vast majority of American workers have no unions to defend their right to workplace safety. The U.S. Department of Labor and other federal agencies do not protect workers from being killed on the job.
The explosion in West, Texas was as big as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, yet there will be no war on this kind of terrorism. This is because the prevailing philosophy is profit before people.
American workers are more likely to be killed by their boss than a terrorist. Last year, approximately 5,000 workers were killed at work by unsafe conditions.
Kevin Harrington, New York City
Reporter asks White House if US airstrikes that kill Afghan civilians qualify as 'terrorism'
Amina Ismail, a journalist at McClatchy: I send my deepest condolence to the victims and families in Boston. But President Obama said that what happened in Boston was an act of terrorism. I would like to ask, Do you consider the U.S. bombing on civilians in Afghanistan earlier this month that left 11 children and a woman killed a form of terrorism? Why or why not?
Jay Carney, White House press secretary: Well, I would have to know more about the incident and then obviously the Department of Defense would have answers to your questions on this matter. We have more than 60,000 U.S. troops involved in a war in Afghanistan, a war that began when the United States was attacked, in an attack that was organized on the soil of Afghanistan by al Qaeda, by Osama bin laden and others and more than 3,000 people were killed in that attack. And it has been the President’s objective once he took office to make clear what our goals are in Afghanistan and that is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda. And with that as our objective to provide enough assistance to Afghan National Security Forces and the Afghan government to allow them to take over security for themselves. And that process is underway and the United States has withdrawn a substantial number of troops and we are in the process of drowning down further as we hand over security lead to Afghan forces. And it is certainly the case that I refer you to the defense department for details that we take great care in the prosecution of this war and we are very mindful of what our objectives are.
…in an attempt to completely dodge the original question. Just throw in the words “al Qaeda” & “terrorism” here & there, & you’ve got a White House response.
“This was a heinous and cowardly act, and given what we now know about what took place, the FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism. Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror.” - President Obama
“James Holmes was read his Miranda rights without controversy, despite his home being booby trapped with explosives that the authorities spent several hours dismantling after evacuation of an entire apartment building. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has invoked the public safety exception to Miranda so they can question Dzhokhar Tsarnaev “extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices” before reading him his Miranda rights. James Holmes’s religious background was never closely examined as a potential motivating factor in his decision to shoot up a movie theatre. His family’s Pastor was never expected to declare his love for America and denounce Christian extremists to prove his loyalties. Adam Lanza attended a Catholic church but no one ever speculated that the Vatican played a role in his deadly rampage. The NRA material found in Adam Lanza’s home (shooting guides, certificate) was never viewed as suspicious or worthy of further investigation into the NRA’s potential role in provoking the Newtown massacre. Despite Holmes dressing up like a military soldier while committing his crime, GOP lawmakers never issued a statement demanding he be prosecuted as an enemy combatant. Yet, this is exactly what happened today in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Holmes killed more people than the Boston bombers, yet Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) never urged Obama to ship him to Guantanamo.”
—James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Double Standards | Dispatches from the Underclass
“We’re getting to the point where the media habit of 'false equivalency' is inadequate to describe or explain the wilful blindness of so much of the paid political commentariat to the historically unusual (if not unique) extremism of the contemporary Right... [M]any journalists are suffering from a version of the 'Stockholm Syndrome' whereby they have become so traumatized by conservative extremism that they will lift heaven and earth to deny its existence and assign responsibility for polarization elsewhere (e.g., to Obama’s 'leadership failure').”
—Ed Kilgore, on the media’s virtual blackout of a poll showing that 44% of Republican voters believe that “in the next few years, an armed revolution may be necessary to protect our liberties.”
Keep in mind, 44% — nearly half — of all Republican voters believe it very well may become “necessary” to murder their fellow Americans and the mainstream media doesn’t think that’s worth more than a mention.
The math is simple: our media is about twice as broken as the Republican Party is insane.
