Is this guy a terrorists?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There's been a pattern in the USA where you get sensationalized media coverage for days on end whenever there's an act of violence against the gov't, local cops or Americans in general by folk declaring to be converted jihadist, but yet you only get brief coverage when the same acts are done by declared anti-gov't "militias" or "seperatists" groups. Makes you wonder why.

Here's an example.....



Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader


Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader - ABC News

the difference is mulsim jihadists flew planes into buildings and killed almost 3000 americans in the process.

These knuckleheads are, so far, just being idiots.

They may be idiots, but they weren't harmless idiots. Terrorists plan and execute their agenda.... stopping them BEFORE they execute their plan does NOT remove the terrorist label, it just means either they were incompetant or the FBI was better at catching them.

I thought you were asking why the media treats the 2 different and thats basically why the muslim terrorists get 3-4 days of coverage and the homegrown ones get 2-3 days.

 

[taichiliberal]

You claimed there was no coverage, that is just one of the many pieces I read on this stupidity over the last few days.

No, I didn't say there was "no coverage"...I said there was 'Brief' coverage in comparison to the sensationalist review given by the MSM for a LONGER period of time when a islamic fundamentalist/fanatic is involved. Outside of local coverage, first I heard of this was on the Thom Hartmann radio show.....48 hours later my local CBS/ABC/NBC affiliate ran a short minute piece on it.

Let me see.

Did this guy fly a plane into anything? Did this guy blow up anything?

Maybe, just maybe, the reason you missed all the coverage of this that was out there is that he really didn't do anything all that spectacular.

Let me see:

You have a guy who belonged to a group that was on the FBI list....a group advocating overthrowing the gov't, separatist and racist bilge with the threat of violence. A guy with a rap sheet for crimes and some violent altercations with cops...A guy who shoots it out with the cops, who has stashes of weapons and supplies set up for such a situation and is on the lam.

Last time I checked...shooting it out with the cops gets you on the local news.....doing this and having a background in anti-gov't advocacy in a post 9/11 age would normally would have gotten EXTENDED NATIONAL news coverage and a local color code alert from Homeland Security. Case in point, the several lunkheads the FBI nailed trying to plot an attack on an airport a few years back. They didn't shoot anyone, or blow up anything or kill anyone. But, they were islamic extremist wanna-be's who happened to be black.

But it seems being a caucasian militia extremist exempts Burgert from such. And now YOU are essentially saying that you need a body count BEFORE being called a terrorist.....or be treated like one.


Maybe you just love making excuses and avoiding the FACTS that I put forth.

 

[taichiliberal]

the difference is mulsim jihadists flew planes into buildings and killed almost 3000 americans in the process.

These knuckleheads are, so far, just being idiots.

They may be idiots, but they weren't harmless idiots. Terrorists plan and execute their agenda.... stopping them BEFORE they execute their plan does NOT remove the terrorist label, it just means either they were incompetant or the FBI was better at catching them.

I thought you were asking why the media treats the 2 different and thats basically why the muslim terrorists get 3-4 days of coverage and the homegrown ones get 2-3 days.

Well first off, I didn't give the limited number of days....YOU did. Secondly, how has anything I've responded to or posted change the original premise of my opening post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I didn't say there was "no coverage"...I said there was 'Brief' coverage in comparison to the sensationalist review given by the MSM for a LONGER period of time when a islamic fundamentalist/fanatic is involved. Outside of local coverage, first I heard of this was on the Thom Hartmann radio show.....48 hours later my local CBS/ABC/NBC affiliate ran a short minute piece on it.

Let me see.

Did this guy fly a plane into anything? Did this guy blow up anything?

Maybe, just maybe, the reason you missed all the coverage of this that was out there is that he really didn't do anything all that spectacular.

Let me see:

You have a guy who belonged to a group that was on the FBI list....a group advocating overthrowing the gov't, separatist and racist bilge with the threat of violence. A guy with a rap sheet for crimes and some violent altercations with cops...A guy who shoots it out with the cops, who has stashes of weapons and supplies set up for such a situation and is on the lam.

Last time I checked...shooting it out with the cops gets you on the local news.....doing this and having a background in anti-gov't advocacy in a post 9/11 age would normally would have gotten EXTENDED NATIONAL news coverage and a local color code alert from Homeland Security. Case in point, the several lunkheads the FBI nailed trying to plot an attack on an airport a few years back. They didn't shoot anyone, or blow up anything or kill anyone. But, they were islamic extremist wanna-be's who happened to be black.

But it seems being a caucasian militia extremist exempts Burgert from such. And now YOU are essentially saying that you need a body count BEFORE being called a terrorist.....or be treated like one.


Maybe you just love making excuses and avoiding the FACTS that I put forth.

The guy wore a fanny pack, how dangerous was he?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

They may be idiots, but they weren't harmless idiots. Terrorists plan and execute their agenda.... stopping them BEFORE they execute their plan does NOT remove the terrorist label, it just means either they were incompetant or the FBI was better at catching them.

I thought you were asking why the media treats the 2 different and thats basically why the muslim terrorists get 3-4 days of coverage and the homegrown ones get 2-3 days.

Well first off, I didn't give the limited number of days....YOU did. Secondly, how has anything I've responded to or posted change the original premise of my opening post.

There's been a pattern in the USA where you get sensationalized media coverage for days on end whenever there's an act of violence against the gov't, local cops or Americans in general by folk declaring to be converted jihadist, but yet you only get brief coverage when the same acts are done by declared anti-gov't "militias" or "seperatists" groups. Makes you wonder why.

Here's an example.....



Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader


Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader - ABC News

the difference is mulsim jihadists flew planes into buildings and killed almost 3000 americans in the process.

These knuckleheads are, so far, just being idiots.

You aked why muslim terrorists get more coverage than home grown terrorists. I answered your question. Your being a bit, well, weird about it.

 

[taichiliberal]

I thought you were asking why the media treats the 2 different and thats basically why the muslim terrorists get 3-4 days of coverage and the homegrown ones get 2-3 days.

Well first off, I didn't give the limited number of days....YOU did. Secondly, how has anything I've responded to or posted change the original premise of my opening post.

There's been a pattern in the USA where you get sensationalized media coverage for days on end whenever there's an act of violence against the gov't, local cops or Americans in general by folk declaring to be converted jihadist, but yet you only get brief coverage when the same acts are done by declared anti-gov't "militias" or "seperatists" groups. Makes you wonder why.

Here's an example.....



Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader


Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader - ABC News

the difference is mulsim jihadists flew planes into buildings and killed almost 3000 americans in the process.

These knuckleheads are, so far, just being idiots.

You aked why muslim terrorists get more coverage than home grown terrorists. I answered your question. Your being a bit, well, weird about it.

No, I'm merely taking you to task about the specifics of your answers.....what's "weird" is your persistence in the idea that you have to have a death count before a person is labled a terrorist (or potential terrorist, for that matter), which suggest that Burgert's lack of sensational coverage is justified.....as opposed to the idiots who plotted to attack an airport and DID NOT shoot anyone or acquire any bombs or guns, and got the full media "terrorist" treatment for weeks.

 

[taichiliberal]

Let me see.

Did this guy fly a plane into anything? Did this guy blow up anything?

Maybe, just maybe, the reason you missed all the coverage of this that was out there is that he really didn't do anything all that spectacular.

Let me see:

You have a guy who belonged to a group that was on the FBI list....a group advocating overthrowing the gov't, separatist and racist bilge with the threat of violence. A guy with a rap sheet for crimes and some violent altercations with cops...A guy who shoots it out with the cops, who has stashes of weapons and supplies set up for such a situation and is on the lam.

Last time I checked...shooting it out with the cops gets you on the local news.....doing this and having a background in anti-gov't advocacy in a post 9/11 age would normally would have gotten EXTENDED NATIONAL news coverage and a local color code alert from Homeland Security. Case in point, the several lunkheads the FBI nailed trying to plot an attack on an airport a few years back. They didn't shoot anyone, or blow up anything or kill anyone. But, they were islamic extremist wanna-be's who happened to be black.

But it seems being a caucasian militia extremist exempts Burgert from such. And now YOU are essentially saying that you need a body count BEFORE being called a terrorist.....or be treated like one.


Maybe you just love making excuses and avoiding the FACTS that I put forth.

The guy wore a fanny pack, how dangerous was he?

Ask the cops he shot it out with. Better yet, READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY the article I linked in the first post of this thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me see:

You have a guy who belonged to a group that was on the FBI list....a group advocating overthrowing the gov't, separatist and racist bilge with the threat of violence. A guy with a rap sheet for crimes and some violent altercations with cops...A guy who shoots it out with the cops, who has stashes of weapons and supplies set up for such a situation and is on the lam.

Last time I checked...shooting it out with the cops gets you on the local news.....doing this and having a background in anti-gov't advocacy in a post 9/11 age would normally would have gotten EXTENDED NATIONAL news coverage and a local color code alert from Homeland Security. Case in point, the several lunkheads the FBI nailed trying to plot an attack on an airport a few years back. They didn't shoot anyone, or blow up anything or kill anyone. But, they were islamic extremist wanna-be's who happened to be black.

But it seems being a caucasian militia extremist exempts Burgert from such. And now YOU are essentially saying that you need a body count BEFORE being called a terrorist.....or be treated like one.


Maybe you just love making excuses and avoiding the FACTS that I put forth.

The guy wore a fanny pack, how dangerous was he?

Ask the cops he shot it out with. Better yet, READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY the article I linked in the first post of this thread.

He shot at some cops, and missed. Sounds deadly.

 

[Ringel05]

There's been a pattern in the USA where you get sensationalized media coverage for days on end whenever there's an act of violence against the gov't, local cops or Americans in general by folk declaring to be converted jihadist, but yet you only get brief coverage when the same acts are done by declared anti-gov't "militias" or "seperatists" groups. Makes you wonder why.

Here's an example.....



Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader


Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader - ABC News

Only people who haven't a clue how the media works would question this. I'll give you a hint, home grown, non-jihadist radicals aren't what the news consumer (the average TV viewer) is buying these days so while they still get mention they generally don't get the same coverage as the Islamic jihadists.

People don't "buy" broadcast news on commercial television now-a-days in so much as it's what the SPONSORS and OWNERS want to be sold to them (some say it's always been that way, but I suggest it's ten fold now).

But let's say your assertion is true....then what YOU are telling me is that the American viewer is more accepting of extremist/separatist/racist shooting at the police or planning to (and sometimes succeeding) in killing civilians because they are NOT Islamic jihadists! That is SO messed up on so many levels I don't know where to begin!

So what you are claiming is the media is not consumer driven. Yeah, right. The media sells (airs) what the viewers want, controversy and fear, in this case, fear. It creates ratings which transfers into advertising which translates into money. What has been the biggest fear in this county since 9/11? Foreign (Islamic) terrorism. People don't really know about homegrown terrorists, or care that much because they don't see it as affecting them personally even though it does much more than they think. Another Oklahoma bombing type scenario would change all of that, unfortunately.
I'm not sure accepting is the appropriate word, complacency would be more appropriate.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well first off, I didn't give the limited number of days....YOU did. Secondly, how has anything I've responded to or posted change the original premise of my opening post.

the difference is mulsim jihadists flew planes into buildings and killed almost 3000 americans in the process.

These knuckleheads are, so far, just being idiots.

You aked why muslim terrorists get more coverage than home grown terrorists. I answered your question. Your being a bit, well, weird about it.

No, I'm merely taking you to task about the specifics of your answers.....what's "weird" is your persistence in the idea that you have to have a death count before a person is labled a terrorist (or potential terrorist, for that matter), which suggest that Burgert's lack of sensational coverage is justified.....as opposed to the idiots who plotted to attack an airport and DID NOT shoot anyone or acquire any bombs or guns, and got the full media "terrorist" treatment for weeks.

Thats not what I said.

You asked why the media pays more attention to the muslim terrorists and I told you because the muslim terrorists have been more dangerous (killed more americans) than the homegrown terrorists therefore they get more media attention.

Why the twist? What is it you really want to get across with this thread?

 

[California Girl]

There's been a pattern in the USA where you get sensationalized media coverage for days on end whenever there's an act of violence against the gov't, local cops or Americans in general by folk declaring to be converted jihadist, but yet you only get brief coverage when the same acts are done by declared anti-gov't "militias" or "seperatists" groups. Makes you wonder why.

Here's an example.....



Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader


Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader - ABC News

the difference is mulsim jihadists flew planes into buildings and killed almost 3000 americans in the process.

These knuckleheads are, so far, just being idiots.

No, they didn't. They killed almost 3,000 PEOPLE. People. Not Americans. 86 countries lost citizens on 9-11. Can we stop disrespecting those countries, and those individuals, by claiming them as Americans.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There's been a pattern in the USA where you get sensationalized media coverage for days on end whenever there's an act of violence against the gov't, local cops or Americans in general by folk declaring to be converted jihadist, but yet you only get brief coverage when the same acts are done by declared anti-gov't "militias" or "seperatists" groups. Makes you wonder why.

Here's an example.....



Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader


Montana Manhunt for David Burgert, Survivalist Militia Leader - ABC News

the difference is mulsim jihadists flew planes into buildings and killed almost 3000 americans in the process.

These knuckleheads are, so far, just being idiots.

No, they didn't. They killed almost 3,000 PEOPLE. People. Not Americans. 86 countries lost citizens on 9-11. Can we stop disrespecting those countries, and those individuals, by claiming them as Americans.

Bajeesus caligirl, chill out. Your right but it doesn't change the point I was making.

EDIT: The fact that taichiliberal thanked you is kinda funny though in light of everything

 

[taichiliberal]

You aked why muslim terrorists get more coverage than home grown terrorists. I answered your question. Your being a bit, well, weird about it.

No, I'm merely taking you to task about the specifics of your answers.....what's "weird" is your persistence in the idea that you have to have a death count before a person is labled a terrorist (or potential terrorist, for that matter), which suggest that Burgert's lack of sensational coverage is justified.....as opposed to the idiots who plotted to attack an airport and DID NOT shoot anyone or acquire any bombs or guns, and got the full media "terrorist" treatment for weeks.

Thats not what I said.

You asked why the media pays more attention to the muslim terrorists and I told you because the muslim terrorists have been more dangerous (killed more americans) than the homegrown terrorists therefore they get more media attention.

Why the twist? What is it you really want to get across with this thread?

The only person twisting things here is YOU....specifically because NOW you are tagging a body count as the determiner for media coverage. Essentially, you're saying that the victims of the anthrax mailings and the Oklahoma City bombing don't rate.

As my previous examples shows, there seems to be a pattern of excuses and attempts to minimalize whenever there's a militia nut involved, but justified near panic when there's a would be/wanna be jihadist. That's the point of this thread....to ask a question and to see the reactions and reasons for those reactions.

 

[taichiliberal]

The guy wore a fanny pack, how dangerous was he?

Ask the cops he shot it out with. Better yet, READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY the article I linked in the first post of this thread.

He shot at some cops, and missed. Sounds deadly.

And you sound like an insipidly stubborn little Windbag just making foolish statements. Bottom line: would you feel the same if this guy were a brown/black skinned wanna be jihadist?

 

[taichiliberal]

Only people who haven't a clue how the media works would question this. I'll give you a hint, home grown, non-jihadist radicals aren't what the news consumer (the average TV viewer) is buying these days so while they still get mention they generally don't get the same coverage as the Islamic jihadists.

People don't "buy" broadcast news on commercial television now-a-days in so much as it's what the SPONSORS and OWNERS want to be sold to them (some say it's always been that way, but I suggest it's ten fold now).

But let's say your assertion is true....then what YOU are telling me is that the American viewer is more accepting of extremist/separatist/racist shooting at the police or planning to (and sometimes succeeding) in killing civilians because they are NOT Islamic jihadists! That is SO messed up on so many levels I don't know where to begin!

So what you are claiming is the media is not consumer driven. Yeah, right. No, I pointing to the FACT that the corporation with the bigger bucks buys more advertising time whether the specific product they're pushing has the initial consumer demand or not. The media sells (airs) what the viewers want, controversy and fear, in this case, fear. It creates ratings which transfers into advertising which translates into money. Not quite.....I'll use an old example: You had a TV show on CBS called "The Equalizer", that was suddenly pulled off the air because of "ratings". It was shot in NYC....THE PEOPLE showed up protest outside the studio in large numbers, and the program was reinstated. If "consumer" demand (via successful commercials) was always in place, there would have been no cancellation, no protest. What has been the biggest fear in this county since 9/11? Foreign (Islamic) terrorism. People don't really know about homegrown terrorists, or care that much because they don't see it as affecting them personally even though it does much more than they think. Another Oklahoma bombing type scenario would change all of that, unfortunately.
I'm not sure accepting is the appropriate word, complacency would be more appropriate.

Ahhh, so in effect you're saying that Oklahoma and the Anthrax mailings don't rate because the media tells us it's NOT as important as Al Qaeda wanna be's....and that's what people want to hear as well. THAT'S MY POINT....forget the FACT that you've had FBI agents state for the public record how much more dangerous and numerous these rabid militia groups are....the PEOPLE are told that death by a foreign/domestic dark skinned or white skinned convert jihadist is more heinous than death by a white skinned rabid militiaman. And to some degree, the people accept such (so we are led to believe by the MSM). Somehow, I don't think the victims and their surviving family members see it that way.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No, I'm merely taking you to task about the specifics of your answers.....what's "weird" is your persistence in the idea that you have to have a death count before a person is labled a terrorist (or potential terrorist, for that matter), which suggest that Burgert's lack of sensational coverage is justified.....as opposed to the idiots who plotted to attack an airport and DID NOT shoot anyone or acquire any bombs or guns, and got the full media "terrorist" treatment for weeks.

Thats not what I said.

You asked why the media pays more attention to the muslim terrorists and I told you because the muslim terrorists have been more dangerous (killed more americans) than the homegrown terrorists therefore they get more media attention.

Why the twist? What is it you really want to get across with this thread?

The only person twisting things here is YOU....specifically because NOW you are tagging a body count as the determiner for media coverage. Essentially, you're saying that the victims of the anthrax mailings and the Oklahoma City bombing don't rate.

As my previous examples shows, there seems to be a pattern of excuses and attempts to minimalize whenever there's a militia nut involved, but justified near panic when there's a would be/wanna be jihadist. That's the point of this thread....to ask a question and to see the reactions and reasons for those reactions.

Yes Im saying the media determines is coverage by how much attention it will bring to their media outlets so that they can maximize advertising revenues.

Im not twisting anything. The fact that muslim jihadists have killed way more americans since 2000 than any other group of terrorists means that they are the ones most citizens are concerned about. This means the viewers and readers of media are going to be more interested in those terrorists hence the additional coverage of their acts.

you are trying to twist it into something nefarious when all im am doing is telling you the economic reality of the situation.

Your point was to find out why the media gives them more coverage, i told you, you didn't like my answer because it doesn't fit into your pre-determined notion which you were hoping people would provide as an answer.

 

[taichiliberal]

Thats not what I said.

You asked why the media pays more attention to the muslim terrorists and I told you because the muslim terrorists have been more dangerous (killed more americans) than the homegrown terrorists therefore they get more media attention.

Why the twist? What is it you really want to get across with this thread?

The only person twisting things here is YOU....specifically because NOW you are tagging a body count as the determiner for media coverage. Essentially, you're saying that the victims of the anthrax mailings and the Oklahoma City bombing don't rate.

As my previous examples shows, there seems to be a pattern of excuses and attempts to minimalize whenever there's a militia nut involved, but justified near panic when there's a would be/wanna be jihadist. That's the point of this thread....to ask a question and to see the reactions and reasons for those reactions.

Yes Im saying the media determines is coverage by how much attention it will bring to their media outlets so that they can maximize advertising revenues.

And you're partially wrong...because coverage is determined by the OWNERS in the end. In the last 20 years, alternative news services such as Pacifica Broadcasting, or old fashioned news services like McClatchey were ALWAYS ahead of the MSM regarding the who, what, how and why regarding our post 9/11 world. Remember Judith Miller?

Im not twisting anything. The fact that muslim jihadists have killed way more americans since 2000 than any other group of terrorists means that they are the ones most citizens are concerned about. This means the viewers and readers of media are going to be more interested in those terrorists hence the additional coverage of their acts.

Sorry, but repeating yourself doesn't magically make your assertions true. But since you're into repetition, then I'll repeat my previous response: NOW you are tagging a body count as the determiner for media coverage. Essentially, you're saying that the victims of the anthrax mailings and the Oklahoma City bombing don't rate. If you STILL don't get it, I'll elaborate......since 9/11 ANY terrorists intentions/actions by actual or wanna-be individual(s)associated with muslim extremist gets maximum coverage while since Oklahoma City and the Anthrax mailings ANY terrorist intentions/actions by actual or wanna-be individual(s) associated with right wing and/or racist separatist or militia or hate groups is given a significant LESS coverage. Were the victims of Oklahoma City any less significant?



you are trying to twist it into something nefarious when all im am doing is telling you the economic reality of the situation.

Actually, I'm pointing out some FACTS that YOU are trying to twist into an economic formula devoid of reality when it comes to the human element of preference.

Your point was to find out why the media gives them more coverage, i told you, you didn't like my answer because it doesn't fit into your pre-determined notion which you were hoping people would provide as an answer.

Actually, my point was to find out why Burgert isn't given the same Homeland Security "terrorist" media watch that someone who advocated islamic extremism would. Your "answer" presented a few misconceptions that just didn't stand up to real life example scrutiny....your "beliefs" don't shake out when ALL factors are considered. I asked the question in order to gain insight in to the mindset that goes along with what I pointed out. Interesting results. I look forward to your honest response to the question I've posed here again.