"Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist the "T" word

Crosstika · Apr 17, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Darkwolf\")</div>

Well, it was a terrorist attack, what would you call it?[/b]

So how's that different than what rudolph did?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Darkwolf\")</div>

What do you mean? Many of the terrorism statutes on the federal books were written in response to what McVeigh did. He was tried on terrorism charges as they existed prior to his committing his crime. [/b]

I mean you just made the claim Rudolph was the first of his kind and pretending like Mcveigh never happened. Ineteresting you mention many of the terrorism statues being in response to McVeigh, so why isn't Rudolph a terrorist again?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Darkwolf\")</div>

None of the new post 911 statutes can be used against Rudolph. He committed his acts before the passage of the Patriot act and similar legislation. You cannot try somone according to law which did not exist when they committed the crime. In order for them to get their domestic terror test case, somone must commit an act of terror now. Then they are subject to the PA.[/b]

So why were the people responsible for the 93 WTC attacks labeled by the media and tried for terrorism just a couple years ago, for crimes committed in 93? Are you flat out denying this hypocrisy?

Harte · Apr 18, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

I gotta go along with Crasstika here. I long ago gave up looking for accuracy and consistency in the media. This guy is a terrorist, no doubt about that. Why the some media refuse to label him as such is an open question. Perhaps they wish to stress his anti-abortion agenda, I don't know.

Harte

Crosstika · Apr 18, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

Why would " the great liberal media" do such a thing?

Darkwolf · Apr 18, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

Originally Posted by Darkwolf
What do you mean? Many of the terrorism statutes on the federal books were written in response to what McVeigh did. He was tried on terrorism charges as they existed prior to his committing his crime.

I mean you just made the claim Rudolph was the first of his kind and pretending like Mcveigh never happened. Ineteresting you mention many of the terrorism statues being in response to McVeigh, so why isn't Rudolph a terrorist again?

Where did I claim that Rudolph was the first of his kind? And the answer to why he did not get charged with terrorism I believe is that he plea bargened to avoid those charges and the death penelty. The media these days are very lothe to call somone a terrorist (or anything else) unless they have been convicted. Notice that even in a very clear cut case, the media will always use words like alleged when refering to a criminal. Why is this you ask? To avoid being sued. BTW I saw an article in the washington post where he was called a terrorist, so some of the media is doing it anyway.

So why were the people responsible for the 93 WTC attacks labeled by the media and tried for terrorism just a couple years ago, for crimes committed in 93? Are you flat out denying this hypocrisy?
?

Well, they were terrorists. So was Rudolph. The guy isn't going to see the light of day again. What more do you want?

Crosstika · Apr 18, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Darkwolf\")</div>

Where did I claim that Rudolph was the first of his kind?[/b]

Darkwolf said

If others follow in his footsteps expect the tune to change in a hurry.

OK you didn't say he was the first, but you sure made it sound you thought he was the first to pull this kind of stunt. BTW how many christian terrorists should there be before they start getting label terrorists? Apparently you don't think the OK city bombing and bombing the olympics was enough, what else will do it? How many more? How many 9/11's or WTC bombings had to occur for that to happen to Al queda?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Darkwolf\")</div>

And the answer to why he did not get charged with terrorism I believe is that he plea bargened to avoid those charges and the death penelty.[/b]

I'd love to see some proof of this, btw do you think osama could plea bargain his way out of being a terrorist?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Darkwolf\")</div>

The media these days are very lothe to call somone a terrorist (or anything else) unless they have been convicted.[/b]

I haven't seen Osama, Zarqawi or Saddam convicted yet, they got no problem slappin that label on those guys, any explanation?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Darkwolf\")</div>

. BTW I saw an article in the washington post where he was called a terrorist, so some of the media is doing it anyway. [/b]

Please do link it..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Darkwolf\")</div>

Well, they were terrorists. So was Rudolph. The guy isn't going to see the light of day again. What more do you want?[/b]

America to wake up and admit it's hypocrisy...

Darkwolf · Apr 18, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

OK you didn't say he was the first, but you sure made it sound you thought he was the first to pull this kind of stunt. BTW how many christian terrorists should there be before they start getting label terrorists? Apparently you don't think the OK city bombing and bombing the olympics was enough, what else will do it? How many more? How many 9/11's or WTC bombings had to occur for that to happen to Al queda?

It will take one more. There have been no major acts of domestic terrorism since the patriot act was passed. Now that it has, there is many a federal prosicutor drooling for a chance to be the first to nail a domestic terrorist with it.

Darkwolf · Apr 18, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0415/dailyUpdate.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkwolf
. BTW I saw an article in the washington post where he was called a terrorist, so some of the media is doing it anyway.

Please do link it..

Coulden't find the post article again, but theres one from as a matter of fact the CHRISTIAN science moniter. They don't seem to like him much. A search for Eric Rudalph + Terrorist yeilded many results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkwolf
Well, they were terrorists. So was Rudolph. The guy isn't going to see the light of day again. What more do you want?

America to wake up and admit it's hypocrisy...

Please, do lead by example.

Darkwolf · Apr 18, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

http://beta.abc3340.com/news/stories/0405/219356.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkwolf
And the answer to why he did not get charged with terrorism I believe is that he plea bargened to avoid those charges and the death penelty.

I'd love to see some proof of this, btw do you think osama could plea bargain his way out of being a terrorist?

There ya go.

Crosstika · Apr 18, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

so you're calling the christian science monitor the mainstream media?

Crosstika · Apr 18, 2005

Re: "Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist, the "T" word

So do you think osama could plea bargain his way out of being a terrorist?

"Lib'rul" media refuses to call christian terrorist the "T" word

Crosstika

Member

Harte

Senior Member

Crosstika

Member

Darkwolf

Active Member

Crosstika

Member

Darkwolf

Active Member

Darkwolf

Active Member

Darkwolf

Active Member

Crosstika

Member

Crosstika

Member

Forum statistics

Share this page