It was funny how in the hours after news of the Norwegian bombing/shootings came out, everyone assumed it must be the work of Islamic terrorists. Not Islamic "extremists" or Islamic "crazies" but Islamic "terrorists". Then as soon as it became known that it wasn't Islamic terrorists, but in fact a right-wing Norweigan anti-Islamic nationalist, all of a sudden the word "terrorist" seemed to drop out of the discussion.
So can you only be a terrorist these days if you are a Muslim? You can't be a "terrorist" if you are a white, Nordic male? It sure is beginning to look that way.
chickaree wrote: Of course he's a terrorist. Only an idiot would say otherwise.
Well then I guess there are a lot of idiots out there, because they aren't calling him one. Almost all of the headlines you can google about him call him a "shooter" but not a terrorist. Do you think those headlines would say "shooter" and not "terrorist" if his name had been something like Mansoor bin Abu Ibraheem instead?
Terrorist: someone who spreads terror to scare people in order to further an agenda. Clearly the Norway shooter counts. He was trying to scare people into doing something about the Islamics.
But I disagree with you about the word terrorist, it has fallen out of favor with AP. They call them insurgents and other terms.
Fox would probably call him a radical Islamist if his name was Mohammed.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
