No one calls these attacks "blowback"

[Orrex]

37. I don't see that as the point

The post came across as trying to draw some equivalence between the motivation for one violent act versus another, following DU's recent trend of calling out the perceived tolerance of Muslim extremism versus Christian extremism. To that end, the comparison falls flat, and I pointed out the reason why.

For that matter, our US media invariably labels attacks by Muslims as "acts of terror by Muslim extremists," while
Christian extremists are never labeled as such. They're rarely called terrorists, though they're sometimes said to have committed acts of "domestic terrorism," which the media doesn't treat as "real" terrorism.

Hell, even during the high of Ireland's Troubles, the US media never described IRA terrorists as Christian extremists, when that was exactly and explicitly what they were.

Christian extremists might be called "a fringe group" or "a radical sect," but media is always careful to distinguish these individuals from "mainstream" Christians, whereas non-violent mainstream Muslims (the vastly overwhelming majority) are a a little-mentioned afterthought for our media, at best.

Can you find, say, five somewhat recent articles in the mainstream US media that uses the phrase "radical Christian" or "Christian extremist" to describe the acts of a Christian terrorist operating in the US? I doubt it.


I appreciate your attempt to explain "comparison" to me, though. I was really struggling with that.