IIRC, Timothy McVeigh was repeatedly referred to as a “terrorist”, and rightly so.

Daniel, my “beef” is that this kind of terrorism gets a pass because it’s Christians — white, American Christians — targeting abortion clinics. And the mainstream press certainly does use the term “ecoterrorist.”. Not a big stretch, when you consider that several state legislatures were looking at labeling vandalism by animal-rights or environmental activists as “ecoterrorism.” Oklahoma, in fact, did.

I totally get what your saying zuzu, and I absolutely agree, a spade is a spade.

But I had another Idea, because of all the fear the government has instilled into the American Sheeple, maybe they thought it prudent not to use it so as not to cause a “panic” such as an incident in a crowded theater and someone screams “fire”. Surely the panic that is caused will get someone hurt.

I think the press has to be careful as well to not create a panic in which people will fight back. Watching their words as well as shaping the fear from the government to control us. (Or attempt to) Those of us who are above that kind of crap of course see it for what it is.

But those people who are completely wrapped up in the political landscape (ie. SHEEPLE) will not see it for what it is, and of course not even question. But should they label this dude what he is, it could cause a huge out cry across the nation. A panic that would not be prudent.

Just my observation. I could be wrong.

I dunno, it seems pretty clear that the religious far right in this country feels as though they are under attack and quite vulnerable…see the “War on Christmas,” and such. They seem to feel the gay athiest abortion doctor darwinists are coming ot get them or something.

They think it’s Satan. They think all this stuff is a vast conspiracy run by the actual, literal Devil. And everything sexual, secular, or in any way contradictory to their dogma is a calculated ploy by Satan and his minions to exterminate the faith and bring about Hell on Earth.

They unabashedly view themselves as a persecuted minority.

Of course, they’re not entirely wrong. Their rhetoric is horrifying to people who take them seriously, most notably lefties who view them as part of a different monstrous conspiracy. But, seen in their proper context, it’s pretty clear that the Christian Right are a bunch of sideshow freaks. The fear they arouse in the Left can only be matched by the contempt they arouse in the Republican elites.

The same thing happens every election cycle. The Republican party fabricates some totally superfluous “social,” “values” or “moral” issue, bait some lefty kooks to make statements that get the fundies all wound up, and then the fundies start sending checks to the Republicans, who build up steam behind some meaningless symbolic gesture, get re-elected, do nothing, and ignore the Christians until they need their votes and money again.

That’s what they did with gay marriage, that’s what they did with Terry Schiavo, and that’s what they’ve been doing with abortion for longer than most of us have been alive. Bush winds up these people’s anxieties, but doesn’t actually deliver on any of their social agenda.

If you look at the domestic agenda, there’s been a lot of movement on tax cuts, like the removal of the estate tax for the wealthiest 10th of a percent, and broad income tax cuts.

There has also been a continuing policy of deficit spending, which is a conservative assault on social programs. They call it “starving the beast.” The goal is to drive the budget so deep into the red that they have to cut out the programs to right the ship.

And finally, there was the big, failed push to privatize Social Security (which I support. Social Security looks like a pyramid scheme to me).

Meanwhile, 12 years of Republican control of Congress, and almost 7 years of control over the entire US government, and Roe v. Wade is still there. Right-wing abortion politics is like a soap opera. They give them enough to keep watching, but they never really tie up the loose ends, because the show has to keep going.

The push for an amendment against gay marriage is also an issue engineered by the Republicans to motivate the Christians without actually having to do anything for them. Massachusetts is the only state that’s marrying same-sex couples, and it’s only for Massachusetts residents. No other states have legalized gay marriage and 45 states have banned it. Civil unions and legal recognition is more widespread, but it’s a lot easier to stand at a podium and say “marriage is for a man and a woman” than it is to discuss joint-filing of taxes and health-care decisionmaking.

The Christian Right is the Republican counterpoint to the Democrats’ Progressive Left. However, the Republicans have the Christians completely under control and marching in lockstep, while the Democrats lose the Left to things like Nader if they try to court the middle. This is the primary reason that the Republicans are currently the majority party.

Well, an SF Trib feature/interview…

Ah, that explains it. You’re posting from a different space-time continuum.

The east coast. I I’m not that familiar with the SF papers. That article was actually from the Chronicle, which I think is a pretty good paper. I just got mixed up.

Ah, that explains it. You’re posting from a different space-time continuum.

I dunno, it seems pretty clear that the religious far right in this country feels as though they are under attack and quite vulnerable…see the “War on Christmas,” and such. They seem to feel the gay athiest abortion doctor darwinists are coming ot get them or something.

Indeed, but it does raise doubt about zuzu’s assertation that terrorism is used against the strong. Seems to me that terrorism can be used equally well by the strong to keep the weak down.

The activities of many groups considered terrorist groups by the US state department are usually not described as “terrorist” though it may be noted that State has designated the group as such. The explanation is strictly pragmatic; someone can argue with you over whether a Palestinian suicide bomber is a terrorist, but if you just call him a suicide bomber, they can’t dispute the accuracy of the description.

I don’t think antiabortion groups get a pass on this stuff. The killers seem to be lone nuts, and any group that was implicated would probably be gutted by criminal conspiracy charges. I don’t think there’s a serious argument that people are getting wrist-slap sentences for shooting doctors. The newspaper here just practiced reasonable editorial judgment in following the general rule of describing what somebody did in a factual manner without sticking any labels on it.

I don’t know where you get the idea that the IRA was never known as a terrorist organization. They don’t get that label much now because they haven’t been committing any acts of terror for several years. Same with the other groups that were active in Europe in the 80s and 90s.

And there’s good reason to call the people in Iraq “insurgent” — they’re trying to expel an occupying military. Which is a bit different than shooting up an abortion clinic or a subway in unoccupied territory, wot?