Wait a minute here. You've altered the parameters. You replaced an abortion clinic, which may be a privatly or state funded location with a national landmark which is on the federal level. Much different case. If a white christian did the same ther would be little argument as well. If you keep the same criteria (bomb, gun, abortion clinic) then it should and probably would not be any difference. Levay was considered a terrorist and he was a white guy. The target has a LOT to do with it.
On a third hand it also counts on who's doing the reporting. I've been to Israel and I'm a Jew. To some insane people in America (specific white Christians if you want a race/religion) I could be considered a terrorist. Note that the racism angle has been totally downplayed with this as the first reports stated their race and the later ones (including rewrites of the first ones) simply put them as 'Americans'. Same with their religion to a lesser degree. > If a Palestinian Muslim man stole guns from his neighbor in Maryland, > blew up his neighbor's house, and had concrete plans to blow up a > national landmark, would it be terrorism? > > With very little argument. > > In this case, the only difference is the possible race/religion of > the > possible terrorist and his target. > > So, the question is, is he being given a pass because of this > race/religion, or because of his target? > > I can guarantee if this man was a Muslim, he would immediately be > label a terrorist until proven otherwise, regardless of target. > > I think that if he is white and middle class, then he would only be > labeled a terrorist based on his target and motives. > > If he planned to bomb a government building, he would be labeled a > domestic terrorist. > If he planned to bomb a black church or a synagogue , he would either > be called a white supremacist, or a good boy (depending on the > prejudace of the speaker), but probably not a terrorist. > If he planned to bomb an abortion clinic, he would either be called a > hypocrite or a hero, depending on the religious fanaticism of the > viewer, but probably not a terrorist. > > So, I think it is a case of racism/religious bigotry first, and > idealogy second. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:210143 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
