Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

still_one

(98,883 posts)

7. Then it would be appropriate to refer to Baruch Goldstein as a "Jewish terrorist", and Meir Kahane

Reply to YarnAddict (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 09:21 AM

Feb 2015

along with the Kach political party?

However, that is not how our media described it at the time. They described him as a mass murderer, and part of an extremist group, but never used the word "Jewish terrorist"

In actuality it is probably appropriate in both cases, as long as the distinction is made that they do not represent the mainstream religion

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New York Post Puts A Blindfold On Obama In Outrageous Front Page [View all] still_one Feb 2015 OP

They don't represent Islam YarnAddict Feb 2015 #1

+1 TexasMommaWithAHat Feb 2015 #5

Then it would be appropriate to refer to Baruch Goldstein as a "Jewish terrorist", and Meir Kahane still_one Feb 2015 #7

+1. This is only an issue because Obama (and team) decided to start the practice of not saying it. Dawgs Feb 2015 #15

Yes....if they're called Islamic terrorists rather than terrorists Cali_Democrat Feb 2015 #22

it appears our media is promoting a holy war. spanone Feb 2015 #2

BBC Radio calls them radical Islamists TexasMommaWithAHat Feb 2015 #4

And if Obama also called them radical Islamists.... Cali_Democrat Feb 2015 #23

It's what they are. TexasMommaWithAHat Feb 2015 #24

Actually, he isn't spending much time on it Cali_Democrat Feb 2015 #27

What if Obama has a reason which cannot be disclosed for... JaneyVee Feb 2015 #3

Of course, it's a Murdoch rag C_U_L8R Feb 2015 #6

Well, the NYP doesn't represent Journalism either n/t n2doc Feb 2015 #8

Why do they get outraged over Obama not saying "Islamic terror", but not saying "Sunni terror"? ck4829 Feb 2015 #9

Your distinction is appropriate, but I suspect the media intentionally does still_one Feb 2015 #10

Labelling games are ludicrous. The focus on solutions and not labelling is giving Fox a sad. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #12

Rupert Murdoch wants a Holy War....just like ISIS does...who is the most dangerous enemy? Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #11

It looks that way, and that's what ISIS wants fadedrose Feb 2015 #14

The Post should look into what ISIS really wants.. fadedrose Feb 2015 #13

Based on that logic, we should call the Ku Klux Klan Christian terrorists. muntrv Feb 2015 #16

Actually that is the problem, selective labeling still_one Feb 2015 #17

i've seen outrageous NY Post covers Enrique Feb 2015 #18

I think it is the implication that he turns a blind eye toward terrorism still_one Feb 2015 #19

Is it Islamic? Yes. Is it terrorist? Yes. Waiting For Everyman Feb 2015 #20

there is a good strategic reason not to say it Enrique Feb 2015 #21

The New York Post is to journalism what arsenic is to nutrition. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #25

so there is no safe level guillaumeb Feb 2015 #26