<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: American freak-out over terrorism </title> <atom:link href="https://dangerousintersection.org/2013/04/22/american-freak-out-over-terrorism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2013/04/22/american-freak-out-over-terrorism/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=american-freak-out-over-terrorism&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=american-freak-out-over-terrorism</link> <description>Human Animals at the Crossroads of Science, Religion, Media and Culture</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:23:50 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <item> <title> By: grumpypilgrim </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2013/04/22/american-freak-out-over-terrorism/comment-page-1/#comment-122139</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[grumpypilgrim]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:23:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=25084#comment-122139</guid> <description><![CDATA[Freak-out, indeed. Curiously, the GOP is very selective about using inflammatory words like "terrorism." When the perpetrator is non-White, non-Christian and/or a non-citizen, the word is center-stage at maximum volume. Indeed, some in the GOP (e.g., John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc.) were nearly apoplectic last week when Obama didn't immediately use the term in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing. But when the perpetrator is a White, Christian, U.S. citizen who has bombed, say, an abortion clinic, the word disappears from the GOP lexicon. And. speaking of the conveniently elastic GOP lexicon, when has the GOP *ever* demanded that abortion clinic bombers be treated as "enemy combatants" or demanded that they be prosecuted in military tribunals? Likewise, when has the GOP ever suggested that any abortion clinic bombers be charged with "using a weapon of mass destruction?" I always thought a "weapon of mass destruction," was reserved for big weapons that cause truly widespread carnage -- things like nuclear, biologic or chemical munitions, or an jetliner packed with fuel. How does a pressure-cooker bomb that fits in a small backpack, and that only kills three people when two such bombs are detonated in a large crowd, belong in the same category? And how does an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine *not* fit the same category?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Freak-out, indeed. Curiously, the GOP is very selective about using inflammatory words like “terrorism.” When the perpetrator is non-White, non-Christian and/or a non-citizen, the word is center-stage at maximum volume. Indeed, some in the GOP (e.g., John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc.) were nearly apoplectic last week when Obama didn’t immediately use the term in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing. But when the perpetrator is a White, Christian, U.S. citizen who has bombed, say, an abortion clinic, the word disappears from the GOP lexicon. </p> <p>And. speaking of the conveniently elastic GOP lexicon, when has the GOP *ever* demanded that abortion clinic bombers be treated as “enemy combatants” or demanded that they be prosecuted in military tribunals?</p> <p>Likewise, when has the GOP ever suggested that any abortion clinic bombers be charged with “using a weapon of mass destruction?” I always thought a “weapon of mass destruction,” was reserved for big weapons that cause truly widespread carnage — things like nuclear, biologic or chemical munitions, or an jetliner packed with fuel. How does a pressure-cooker bomb that fits in a small backpack, and that only kills three people when two such bombs are detonated in a large crowd, belong in the same category? And how does an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine *not* fit the same category?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Erich Vieth </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2013/04/22/american-freak-out-over-terrorism/comment-page-1/#comment-122136</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Erich Vieth]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:34:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=25084#comment-122136</guid> <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook" rel="nofollow">Glenn Greenwald:</a> Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either. In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook" rel="nofollow">Glenn Greenwald:</a></p> <p>Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word “terrorism” was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that “terrorism” either. In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word “terrorism” is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: NIklaus Pfirsig </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2013/04/22/american-freak-out-over-terrorism/comment-page-1/#comment-122124</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[NIklaus Pfirsig]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:13:03 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=25084#comment-122124</guid> <description><![CDATA[How about this: On average, there are 70 traffic fatalities per day and hundreds of traffic related injuries. most of these could be prevented. It's so common place it rarely makes the news. The fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas killed 14 and injured almost 200. The Boston bombs killed three and injured almost 200. So why is the media so focused on the Boston bombs? Well the media is working hard to make a connection between the Boston bombers and radical Muslim terrorists. But the Texas explosion was the result of decades of neglecting and even ignoring safety regulations, combined with austerity driven cutbacks in training and inspections, to boost profits.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about this:</p> <p> On average, there are 70 traffic fatalities per day and hundreds of traffic related injuries. most of these could be prevented. It’s so common place it rarely makes the news.</p> <p> The fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas killed 14 and injured almost 200.</p> <p> The Boston bombs killed three and injured almost 200.</p> <p>So why is the media so focused on the Boston bombs?</p> <p> Well the media is working hard to make a connection between the Boston bombers and radical Muslim terrorists. But the Texas explosion was the result of decades of neglecting and even ignoring safety regulations, combined with austerity driven cutbacks in training and inspections, to boost profits.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>