Bring It On!

Deep Thought of teh Day

October 28th, 2008 | by Steve O |

Doesn’t it strike you as peculiar that white homegrown right-wing fascist killers are somehow exempt from being called what they are — terrorists?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 4 Responses to “Deep Thought of teh Day”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 29, 2008 | Reply

    No. Not really. I mean, the msm mostly refuses to use the “terrorist” label in regard to anyone, including those who kill civilians for the achievement of their political ends. Why should right wing mass-murderers be treated any differently by the msm. I, for one, have no problem using the “T” word of such goons. The msm avoids the word because one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter and the word is irredeemably biased as a pejorative term.

    For some reason, the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City is quite often referred to as domestic terrorism. I’m not sure why the disparity in usage.

    a word that normally our media and government fling about with unscrupulous abandon.

    Yes to the government flinging “terrorism” about with unscrupulous abandon but our media? Not so much.

    On a completely unrelated issue, I read this in the news today:

    Yemeni captive Ali Hamza al Bahlul is on trial at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. naval base in Cuba, where a jury of nine U.S. military officers will have to decide whether creating propaganda is a war crime.

    If I had a vote, I’d have to say no — not if there’s even a little bit of respect left for the freedom of speech and the press. Creating propaganda, more and more, appears to be the mission of both our government and our press in this country as the walls between editorial/op-ed and straight news reporting dissolves into the production of partisan pamphlets passing themselves off as news. To convict a person of a war crime for producing propaganda would necessitate the prosecution of every politician in America for a crime.

    Okay…one might argue that the Constitution protects Americans, not America’s enemies but I’d prefer not to go there. Particularly, the things of which the man is accused of producing appear to be related to ideology and point of view and encouraging avenging perceived injustices against Muslims by America and the West. I may consider what he wrote to be abhorrent to me but sticks and stones and so forth. Prosecuting this guy is too much like prosecuting Holocaust deniers or neo-Nazis for marching in Skokie or skinheads for arguing that blacks are subhuman. Either we regard truth as more powerful than untruth, believe that good ideas come out on top in the marketplace of ideas — both arguable propositions but the basis of classical liberalism and of the current jurisprudence on first amendment issues — or we believe that ideas are as dangerous as airplanes flown into hi-rise buildings. If the latter is true then the first amendment is a dangerous thing that we ought to amend out of the Constitution. If, on the other hand, we are committed to the former, this guy is no war criminal and he should not be prosecuted as one.

  3. By Chris Radulich on Oct 29, 2008 | Reply

    I’m a firm believer that unless there is an overt act towards the completion of a crime, there is no crime. Talking about robbing a bank is no crime. Going to the bank with weapons after planning a robbery is.

  4. By Paul Watson on Oct 29, 2008 | Reply

    Craig,
    Given this:
    To convict a person of a war crime for producing propaganda would necessitate the prosecution of every politician in America for a crime.

    What exactly do you perceive as the downside?

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 29, 2008 | Reply

    Paul,

    Excellent point! :lol:

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel