Why aren't the people that commit hate crimes terrorists?

[nosmokes]

I'm so tired of every other action by an environmental group being referred to as ecoterrorism, yet when some skinheads or other prejudiced assholes throw bricks through synagogue windows and spray swastikas on the homes of Jewish people it takes the cops two or three days to even classify it as a hate crime. One action is simply meant to raise awareness. The other is clearly intended to terrorize, yet it's the enviro folks labeled by the media as terrorists and the hard core hate criminals who get passed off as regular criminals with maybe the added consequence of a hate crime thrown in on top.Maybe.

[flvegan]

1. Because rarely do the skinheads/prejudiced cost corporations money.

They commit "crimes" against people. The environmental/animal activists rage against corporations and specific activities.

Money.

Make sense?

[New Dawn]

2. Right wing/corporate "think tanks" came up with the "ecoterrorism" propaganda

Now you can even find the idea explained as "fact" in university level "security" classes.

[Fridays Child]

3. If the world view behind the act is perceived to be liberal in nature...

...that's "terrorism." Everything else gets a pass because so many wing nuts are bigots, and they control the corporate media.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

5. It seems to me that "eco-terrorists"

are the only liberal "terrorists." Most of the others are far from progressive in any issue. The "terrorist" label applied to enviromentalist groups that have resorted to violence is probably because it is seen as a political movement. Skinheads painting swastikas on Jewish homes and synagogues are usually targeting just that one target.

[Occulus]

6. But then, describe a real-world incident of "ecoterrorism".

Take your time and look it up. By the way the "My DU" section works, it looks like you have about two whole days.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

7. I doubt if there is one.

That is why I kept putting "eco-terrorists" in quotes. I was not validating that it was proper that they are classified that way, only stating my opinion on why I believe they are placed in that particular group.

[LaPera]

4. Like torture boy Bush?

[leftofthedial]

8. the oligarchy derives no benefit from declaring them "terrorists."

our rulers use the word for creating ambiguity, uncertainty and fear, not for clarifying threats.

[old mark]

9. Because the media doesn't say they are.

Why were the bastards who blew up the OK City building called terrorists?
Because they were right wingers? Because they were from the US?

We need some angry Democrats on the news programming, but I won't hold my breath till we see any.

mark