NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a bit confused as to why the press consistently refers to certain terrorist and cult groups as "muslim extremists". I'm an American and not really affiliated with any established religious group, although I'm far from being an atheist. I have noticed that the press has not villianized any other religious group because of the actions of a few nutcases. For instance, in the Waco incident David Korrush (sp?) was NEVER referred to as a "militant christian extremist" despite the fact that he stockpiled arms, incited rebellion against the American government and encouraged his followers to suicide all while preaching from a Bible. Back in the 70's in Gueyana, Jim Jones led a similar group, hundreds of these members committed suicide at his direction after also stockpiling arms, etc. - he also preached from a Bible and was never referred to as anything other than a "cult leader". I know there are numerous other instances of this - these were just the first 2 that came to mind.

What these people are doing is not "in line" with the generally accepted teachings of Islam and is condemned by most mainstream Muslim leaders but that seems to have no effect on the press and their chosen terminology. Now there are also a plethora of anti-Muslim "hate crimes" being committed in this country and others against innocent and peaceful devout Muslims. I wonder if these crimes would be happening to the extent they are if the press did not consistantly and inappropriately link them to legitimate and true followers of the Muslim faith.

What do you think?

While those two people are certainly loony, a terrorist is someone that trys to get that what he wants done through a policy of spreading fear. This is usually directed against dissenters.

While those two people are certainly loony, a terrorist is someone that trys to get that what he wants done through a policy of spreading fear. This is usually directed against dissenters.


I understand that - my point is why they are being referred to as Muslim extremists when others who qualify as Christian extremists are called "cult" leaders.

I'm a bit confused as to why the press consistently refers to certain terrorist and cult groups as "muslim extremists". I'm an American and not really affiliated with any established religious group, although I'm far from being an atheist. I have noticed that the press has not villianized any other religious group because of the actions of a few nutcases. For instance, in the Waco incident David Korrush (sp?) was NEVER referred to as a "militant christian extremist" despite the fact that he stockpiled arms, incited rebellion against the American government and encouraged his followers to suicide all while preaching from a Bible. Back in the 70's in Gueyana, Jim Jones led a similar group, hundreds of these members committed suicide at his direction after also stockpiling arms, etc. - he also preached from a Bible and was never referred to as anything other than a "cult leader". I know there are numerous other instances of this - these were just the first 2 that came to mind.

What these people are doing is not "in line" with the generally accepted teachings of Islam and is condemned by most mainstream Muslim leaders but that seems to have no effect on the press and their chosen terminology. Now there are also a plethora of anti-Muslim "hate crimes" being committed in this country and others against innocent and peaceful devout Muslims. I wonder if these crimes would be happening to the extent they are if the press did not consistantly and inappropriately link them to legitimate and true followers of the Muslim faith.

What do you think?

The press, I think, is responsible for most all public feelings. This I take as general media to be press. We hear news from everywhere, MTV,MSNBC,Comedy Central . . . At least here in America, there are so many idiots that will believe anything they hear. We hate the War in Iraq because of the media, we hate Muslims because of the media, alot of people hate Bush because of the media. All because the media wants ignorant people to preach to. Makes me sick.

One thing you'll learn is that the press is completely and totally irresponsible, if you want accurate news you have to do more digging than the 24 hour info-tainment channels that are more interested in selling advertising than bringing the truth.

I don't think there's any such thing as a muslim terrorist, there are a lot of terrorists who claim to be muslim, but the Koran doesn't go saying you should go kill innocent people. They may of started out Muslim, but they're not anymore, they're just using it to get what they want.

I'd hate to say it, but I think it as more to do with how batshite some of the American public would go if they were refered to as anything else, on both sides. I DO know the reason that the two examples you mentioned were never refered to as Christian extreamists was due to the media knowing their heads would be on a platter if they did.

they are responsible for all the pandas and all the zebras in all the world

I'm a bit confused as to why the press consistently refers to certain terrorist and cult groups as "muslim extremists". I'm an American and not really affiliated with any established religious group, although I'm far from being an atheist. I have noticed that the press has not villianized any other religious group because of the actions of a few nutcases. For instance, in the Waco incident David Korrush (sp?) was NEVER referred to as a "militant christian extremist" despite the fact that he stockpiled arms, incited rebellion against the American government and encouraged his followers to suicide all while preaching from a Bible. Back in the 70's in Gueyana, Jim Jones led a similar group, hundreds of these members committed suicide at his direction after also stockpiling arms, etc. - he also preached from a Bible and was never referred to as anything other than a "cult leader". I know there are numerous other instances of this - these were just the first 2 that came to mind.

What these people are doing is not "in line" with the generally accepted teachings of Islam and is condemned by most mainstream Muslim leaders but that seems to have no effect on the press and their chosen terminology. Now there are also a plethora of anti-Muslim "hate crimes" being committed in this country and others against innocent and peaceful devout Muslims. I wonder if these crimes would be happening to the extent they are if the press did not consistantly and inappropriately link them to legitimate and true followers of the Muslim faith.

What do you think?
Vernon Wayne Howell was born on August 17, 1959 in Houston, Texas to a 15-year old single mother. He never knew his father and was raised by his grandparents. Koresh described his early childhood as lonely, saying that the other kids teased him and called him "Vernie". As a young boy, he was abused by his stepfather and developed dyslexia. A poor student, Vernon dropped out of high school. By 18, he was working as a carpenter.
When he was 20, Howell joined his mother's church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He fell in love with a 15-year-old girl, who became pregnant, but marriage was forbidden by the girl's father and church elders. Vernon began to challenge the elders on many points of scripture and was expelled for being a bad influence on young people.
Shortly thereafter, he went to Hollywood hoping to become a rock and roll guitarist, however nothing came of this. In 1981 he moved to Waco, Texas where he joined the Branch Dravidians, a religious sect which had split from the Seventh-day Adventists. They had established their headquarters at a ranch about 10 miles out of Waco, which they called the Mount Carmel Center (after the Biblical Mount Carmel, Israel), in 1955.
[edit]
Ascent to leadership of the Branch Dravidians
Howell allegedly had an affair with Lois Roden, the alleged prophetess and leader of the sect who was then in her late sixties. This included a trip the two took to Israel. In 1983, Roden allowed Howell to begin teaching his own message which caused controversy in the group. When Roden died in 1986, a power struggle ensued between Howell and Roden's son, George, with the majority of the group uniting behind George Roden, who forced Howell and his group off the property.
Late in 1987, Howell returned to Mount Carmel in camouflage, with seven of his male followers, armed with five .223 caliber semiautomatic assault rifles, two .22 caliber rifles, two 12-gauge shotguns and nearly 400 rounds of ammunition. In the ensuing gunfight, George Roden was wounded in the chest and hands, and took cover behind a tree. As a result of the incident, Howell and his followers were charged with attempted murder. At the trial, Howell testified that he went to Mount Carmel to uncover evidence of corpse abuse by George Roden. Howell testified further that they had come armed because George Roden had expelled him from Mount Carmel at gunpoint, and claimed that his shots had been aimed at a tree. Howell's followers were acquitted, and in Howell's case a mistrial was declared. Roden was later committed to a mental institution in an unrelated murder conviction, leaving Howell free to assume leadership of the Branch Dravidians at Mount Carmel.
In 1990 Vernon Howell legally changed his name to David Koresh. In the documentation involved, Howell stated that the change was for "publicity and business purposes." The switch arose from his belief that he was now head of the biblical house of David, Koresh being a Hebrew transliteration of Cyrus the Persian king who allowed the Jews who had been dispersed throughout Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar to return to their homelands. This belief stemmed from a vision he claimed to have received from God in 1985 during his trip to Israel.
Koresh openly advocated polygamy for himself and select others in the group, and asserted himself married to several female residents of the small community, and there were allegations of child abuse occurring at Mount Carmel.
[edit]
The raid & siege
For a more complete description of the circumstances surrounding the raid on and siege of Mount Carmel see the Branch Dravidian article. This article is concerned solely with the last days and demise of Koresh.
On Sunday morning, February 28, 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) raided Mount Carmel. The raid resulted in the deaths of 4 agents and 5 Dravidians. Shortly after the initial raid, the FBI took command of the scene and contact was established with Koresh inside the compound. Communication over the next 51 days included telephone contacts with various FBI negotiators.
As the standoff continued, Koresh, seriously injured by a gunshot to his side, and his closest male leaders negotiated delays, usually so he could write religious documents he said he needed to complete before he surrendered. His conversations, dense with biblical imagery, alienated the federal negotiators who treated the situation as a hostage crisis - despite a two hour video tape sent out by the Dravidians with some of the children, in which the adults and older children/teens explained clearly and confidently why they chose of their own free will to remain with David.
The 51 day siege of Mount Carmel ended when U.S Attorney General Janet Reno approved recommendations of veteran FBI officials to proceed with a final assault in which the Branch Dravidians were to be removed from their compound by force with the use of CS gas. The manufacturers of the chemical agent specify that it should not be used in enclosed buildings. In the course of the assault, the compound caught fire - probably due to a combination of kerosene lanterns the Dravidians were using for light that were knocked over by the tanks, the bales of hay used by the Dravidians to block holes in their walls to keep the wind out, the flammable nature of CS gas, and the incendiary devices that the government reluctantly admitted three years later to having used that day. Barricaded into their building, 75 Branch Dravidians, including Koresh, were unable to escape the blaze and died. Seventeen of these victims were children under the age of 12.

:headbang: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

The press, I think, is responsible for most all public feelings. This I take as general media to be press. We hear news from everywhere, MTV,MSNBC,Comedy Central . . . At least here in America, there are so many idiots that will believe anything they hear. We hate the War in Iraq because of the media, we hate Muslims because of the media, alot of people hate Bush because of the media. All because the media wants ignorant people to preach to. Makes me sick.
Well how are people supposed to hear about anything if not through the media? Holding conch shells to their ears? The rumour mill? Or should they simply discuss local matters like garbage pickups and the state of road repairs on the stretch of nearby highway?

Well, Hemingsoft? What do you propose?

Well how are people supposed to hear about anything if not through the media? Holding conch shells to their ears? The rumour mill? Or should they simply discuss local matters like garbage pickups and the state of road repairs on the stretch of nearby highway?

Well, Hemingsoft? What do you propose?

I propose kids learn to read the newpaper instead of hearing their knowledge from Kurt Loder. I hate hearing a bunch of 15-20 year olds running around saying their opinions of shit verbatim from Best Week Ever. And personally, I hate people who try to strawman everything to death. I propose that every human being take a critical thinking class and a logic class so that we don't have idiots ruling great countries.

I will interpret now. I want people to understand that just because the glowing screen in front of people says it, doesn't mean it's accurate. Just because it happened to be a Muslim that shot someone, doesn't make it right to hate Muslims. I'm sick and tired of the media preying off the ignorance of people. The media knows that if they say something with a given tone, most people do not have the understanding capabilities to see past the tone and they come out believing what the media wants them to believe. Though anyone who doubts this probably are those who this applies to and just doesn't want to believe it.

As to my proposition: Media is not bad. The abuse towards the stupid populous is bas.

For instance, in the Waco incident David Korrush (sp?) was NEVER referred to as a "militant christian extremist" despite the fact that he stockpiled arms, incited rebellion against the American government and encouraged his followers to suicide all while preaching from a Bible. Back in the 70's in Gueyana, Jim Jones led a similar group, hundreds of these members committed suicide at his direction after also stockpiling arms, etc. - he also preached from a Bible and was never referred to as anything other than a "cult leader".

What do you think?

Cult:
n
1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

The definition fits groups like Korrush and Jones as they maintained exactly these types of unconventional living arangements. It does not however fit the situation that most muslim extremists live under as they are somewhat less concentrated in very small groups. You might consider the additional label that christian militants are almost always tagged with "white supremacist" whether they are or not, an additional attack on their situation. By definition, the term Muslim Supremacist would certainly be an accurate description of the muslim extremacists you seem to think are being discriminated against, however, I have never heard that term so liberally pasted on them by the press or government.

And personally, I hate people who try to strawman everything to death.The populace is only as intelligent or as informed as the many branches of government are willing to allow them to be. If they're stupid, Hemingsoft, it's because someone or other along the way decided it was in their best interests for them to be that way.

Stupid people are more easily managable. It's easy to deride "Media" as the root of all evil, but what's needed is education. And fulfilling that need isn't difficult, in and of itself, but it's presented by government as being difficult - after all, it might mean raising taxes, something Americans are far too mean-spirited and stingy to ever consider doing.

Don't blame the messenger. Don't blame the message. Blame those who seek to continue keeping you and your fellows down.

And if you really feel slighted by all this, go ahead and start a thread for you to rant about it. Oh, I see you've already done that. Whaddaya know.

so they did - I've been hijacked lol

The populace is only as intelligent or as informed as the many branches of government are willing to allow them to be. If they're stupid, Hemingsoft, it's because someone or other along the way decided it was in their best interests for them to be that way.



No-parents have a much larger role in this. The government has no role in how intelligent my children are.

I do not, Dobbsworld, put blame on the ignorance,Dobbsworld, of society, I am merely pointing out, Dobbsworld, that I dislike how the media, Dobbsworld, uses it to portray biased and occasionally inaccurate accounts.

No-parents have a much larger role in this. The government has no role in how intelligent my children are.
Well unless you're homeschooling them (and you happen to very good at it) or if you're sending them to some private learning academy, then yes, a branch of government has the single greatest role in how your children are permitted to develop their intelligence.

But, as has already been remarked by the thread instigator, this is a hijack. Best discussed elsewhere.

No-parents have a much larger role in this. The government has no role in how intelligent my children are.
Don't they provide at least a basic level of education? WEll, since they are partaking in educating your children, then they have a responisibility to make sure they are properly educated