Ad Terras Per Aspera

Craig Baracco over at Craigorian Chant has an article up about the NPR story covering the guilty plea of serial bomber Eric Rudolph in front of the federal court. He brings up an important point,

What struck me about this when listening to an NPR story about Rudolph this weekend is the fact that the coverage of this story does not include the word “terrorist”.

My question for the readers of The Chant, is when should a criminal be described a terrorist? Obviously the term is appropriately applied to members of Al-qaeda, but what about the insurgent forces within Iraq? What about the insurgent forces within Ireland? Do radical Christians deserve the same label as radical Muslims? What about eco-terrorists and drug dealers?

I personally think they all should be considered terrorists. Anyone who kills to instills fear in people who oppose him/her or his/her views is a terrorist. Rudolph clearly did this, and he is correctly labeled as a terrorist. Back during the Atlanta Olympics bombing incident, I clearly remember the media labeling him as a terrorist, and the only reason they aren’t now is because the US government doesn’t want our current image of terrorists (IE, the stereotypical Al-qaeda camel-riding rag-head) diluted.

The White House has spent the last 5 years trying to convince America (and whoever else will listen) that there is only one kind of terrorist, and they all look like the rejects in the Team America movie; they don’t want us to remember that sometimes terrorists are also our fellow Americans, and come in many forms such as the Rudolphs of the world, and CEOs of major corporations, or are elected President.