But why is it so easy for Americans to separate white terrorists from their backgrounds while they can't do the same for brown ones

Because racism is deeply ingrained in our society.

How true!

Before we anxiously play the "race card", let's step back a moment. We don't lump every lone nut who carries out violent acts, even with a political agenda, as a terrorist. We tend to classify those who carry out such deeds with organizational backing as terrorists. Sharing beliefs with others or having a religious faith doesn't earn such a classification alone. He is labeled a "survivalist" because as far as one can tell, he was acting alone. If we do away with this standard, every lone nut who commits murder, with his own bizarre political justifications, will be labeled terrorists and the term will be devoid of meaning.

--
Certainly this talking point- "Rudolph as terrorist" is all the rage on the Left given the "Read also" references made to left-wing sources such as CJR. Given that Rudolph seems to have acted alone and therefore doesn't meet the standard classification of terrorist, why are some leftists so eager to classify Christians as terrorists?

Regards,
Bob

Simpler than that: it's domestic ('criminals') vs. foreign ('terrorists'). It's why 'American Terrorist' sounds shocking. That Rudolph is a decent-looking white guy has an influence, but I doubt it's the main one.

He is labeled a "survivalist" because as far as one can tell, he was acting alone

Incorrect. The term "survivalist" has to do with a way of life, a particular ideology of self-reliance. It has nothing to do with whether he was acting alone or in conjunction with others as you have guessed. You can have a group of survivalists living together and acting in concert in fact. Survivalists however aren't bad people or driven by an ideology of mayhem as a rule. There is even a school that teaches survivalism (I know because I almost enrolled).

Applying a "was he acting alone or in concert with others" rule for terrorism seems kind of arbitrary to me. "Leftists" aren't eager to classify Christians as terrorists so much as they want desperately to hope that the label of terrorism isn't linked solely to skin color as Ennis points out in his post. For example, you never hear the extreme right wing Israeli settlers labeled as terrorists, even when they act without the sanction of the Israeli government and commit violence against Palestinians. They get labeled as "right-wing" or "militant" or some other euphemistic term.

why are some leftists so eager to classify Christians as terrorists?

Because blowing up an abortion clinic due to a skewed version of Christianity is tantamount to terrorism. It is using violence to further one's political or religious beliefs.

I doubt that most 'leftists' would consider your average churchgoer, Focus on the Family, or even that horrible Fred Phelps terrorists.

I also disagree with the whole "organizational backing" criterion for something being terrorism. Here is a page that gives various definitions of "terrorism." As you can see, the definition of a terrorist can be very widely or narrowly defined, but I think a person acting alone can certainly be a terrorist. They don't need the support of a well-funded organization to carry out acts of violence.

We don't lump every lone nut who carries out violent acts, even with a political agenda, as a terrorist.

You mean like shoebomber Richard Reid?
Anyway, the "t" word has been thoroughly abused and misused by the Bush Administration in its zeal to prosecute. Terrorism is a tactic not something you can wage a war against.

Also, I wonder how many desi folks who are so willing to castigate all "terrorists" as defined by the U.S. government are as willing to apply the label to people like Aurobindho Ghosh and others who advocated for or resorted to violence agains the British Raj (and actually called for independence).

My point is not to defend, but to point out that this is more complicated than "you're with us or you're against us."

Bob - as I should have made more clear, Rudolph fits the official US government definition of terrorism AND he's called a terrorist by US government sources. Interestingly enough, while the US government calls him a terrorist, the media does not.

As for whether he acted alone, that's up in the air right now, just as the question of whether he was a real survivalist or simply a dumpster diver who got handouts from the locals. The whole living off the land thing now seems to be a myth.

In any case, he's part of a broader community of people who feel and think as he does, and that's scary.

FWIW, Timothy McVeigh, on the other hand, is rarely mentioned WITHOUT the word "terrorist" following closely behind.

I just googled McVeigh, and checked a few stories at random. Some of the headlines said terrorist, but most didn't, and the stories whose text I read didn't use that term at all (MSNBC for example)

BTW, top hit for McVeigh is Gore Vidal's apologia:
http://www.isebrand.com/Gore_Vidal_McVeigh_2001.htm

"But why is it so easy for Americans to separate white terrorists from their backgrounds while they can't do the same for brown ones"?

1.) White Christian American terrorists operate alone or in small groups of like-minded wackos.

They don't operate with a worldwide funding network, receiving support from mainstream Christian American charities

They don't have the support of mainstream Chirstian American religious figures

2.) large numbers of White Christian Americans do not dance, cheer, and hand out candy in the streets when a White Christian terrorist commits an act of terrorism.

It depends on your definition of mainstream religious figures for both sets of religions. This guy was a folk here, and had some support and sympathy from religious figures. Others agree with his message, even if they deplore his actions. The same is true for terrorists who are muslims.

also, if you extend your critique of "terrorists" to people who use violence against civilians to alter political outcomes (which is the central feature of the definition of terrorism), large numbers of White Christian Americans routinely condone other White Christians who commit violent acts directly or by proxy.

I'm not saying "it's the same thing"--just that it comes close. Maybe if I were a better, more independent-thinking person, I would say that state violence has worse consequences (by numbers alone, at minimum) than violence by isolated networks of politically violent groups. Al Qaeda hasn't dropped an atomic bomb on anyone yet, unlike...

They get labeled as "right-wing" or "militant" or some other euphemistic term.

This is not exclusively done by the right. Depends on where the information is coming from, groups from the left also get labeled "extreme left-wing", "militant", and serpatist. However, you are right, Israeli terrorists are not highlighted in the news and there is a significant history of their intimidation tactics and violence.

The GoI has beef with foreign media when people who they see as terrorists are labeled Kashmiri seperatists or militants.

also, if you extend your critique of "terrorists" to people who use violence against civilians to alter political outcomes (which is the central feature of the definition of terrorism)

From Dictionary.com
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I would go further than just people. Terrorist acts specifically target civilians in order to achieve their goals. I saw a cartoon somewhere that was simple but very powerful.

It was an Israeli Soldier facing off a Palestinian Hamas member with rifles pointed at each other. The difference was that the Israeli soldier had himself placed between the Palestinians gun and an Israeli chile while on the other side, the Palestinian Hamas guy was using the child as a shield from the Israeli weapon pointing at him.

Also, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) isn't given too much slack for being 'militant'. They have been a terrorist organization, only in their political aspirations the United Kingdom and others were their targets. If there is any example of a 'white chirstian' organization that is terrorist, the IRA is that. Since their acts were not perpetrated against the United States, they simply have not entered the minds of the public via the fear generated.

The Unabomber is considered a terrorist and so are the OKC bombers. But you see, something as spectacular in effects as 911 really leaves an imprint that is VERY difficult to erase.

Try this exercise. Close your eyes, clear your mind, and then recall the first images of terrorists and terrorist acts in your mind.

What are the images that show up? For most Americans it is 911 and Osama. If people put more thought into it, you can conjure up other folks like McVeigh et al.

Rudolph is a terrorist, so is McVeigh, so is Osama. Big difference is that McVeigh and Rudolph did NOT represent an organization that gives them repeated exposure over the years. Out of sight, out of mind. The "White" terrorists rear their ugly heads once in a while to obvious tragic results. The Islamic groups have waged a constant battle with a 911 as their climax and turing point in history. Even before 911, the most consistent organized terrorist attacks against the United States were also conducted by Islamic extremists.

Today, the primary efforts are concentrated against Islamic radical groups because they constitute the bulk of resources (manpower, money, logistics) trying to attack the United States.

If you go the British Isles, you may get a different picture where the IRA is seen in such light. If you go to India, the first image that pops into a person's mind would likely be Pakistani terrorists, in Darfur you would get a similar reaction with locals and their images of the Janaweed. African Americans during the 50s and 60s would probably think of the KKK.

IMHO, you CAN blame people for not calling out their own when they clearly are terrorists (ie Rudolph), thereby giving people exposure to information that incrementally balances out the picture, opinions, and erasing some ignorance. However, it would be intellecutally dishonest to say that in current times, majority of the terrorist acts are not a fruit of Islamic extremism. Couple the sheer numbers with drastic images of 911, and it leaves very deep traumatic impressions that take time, effort, patience, honest conversation and a reduction in terrorist activity by said groups to alter perceptions.

Al Qaeda hasn't dropped an atomic bomb on anyone yet, unlike...

Those who might be tricked into seeing Eric Rudolph as some sort of a ‘hero’ or champion of the unborn might want to open their eyes and see who he really is. He is a cold-blooded murderer and a terrorist. Rudolph is no different than the 9-11 hijackers, no different than those who bombed innocents in Madrid and London. If a baby, a small child or a pregnant woman had been killed or injured by one of his bombs, I’m sure that this man would have shrugged it off as “collateral damage”. This man does not care about life. He just used abortion as an excuse for mass-murder-and if abortion didn’t exist I’m sure that he would have found another excuse. This man is a disgrace to the pro-life movement (which is supposed to protect all human life), and to his nation.