I provided that definition to show that this is terrorism.

Hijacking a plane is violence, which includes forcefulness and the threat of violence. So this story is about terrorism just as any other terrorist news story is. If it were not violence, the flight crew and passengers would've been able to ignore the hijackers and continue their flight without any obstruction. There wouldn't have been a newstory or the story would've read "attempted hijacking on a commercial airline...but no one cared or felt fearful so the hijackers just sat down and asked the flight attendant for peanuts."

And they all deserve the appropriate title of "terrorists" and equal media coverage.

I wonder if we'e looking at different versions of CNN.com. What I'm looking at doesn't have any red-bolded text at the top of the page. The Dow story is the first one under "Latest News," followed by Foley, Bush on Dems and Congress, and then the Turkish highjacking story.

The absence of injury or a loss of life is only the difference between "terrorists" and "attempted terrorists." "Terrorist" is still in there.

No, it's still there.

Not on what I'm looking at. No bold, red-text, breaking news at all. Weird.

Yeah, what else is weird is that your signature says FMA but I see the greek with some other peoples

Yes, but currently Islamists are way ahead of Fundamental Christian terrorists in terms of current events.

The media determines media coverage. This story certainly meets the So What Factor. But given that Christianity is the dominant Western religion, I don't think we're going to see huge exposes on the Christian Fundamentalist Conspiracy.

That's too bad. Seriously.

This is fair - my reading of 'violence' as 'causing injury' was probably too narrow, and it makes more sense now that I see we're headed in the same direction.

I think _Opi_ made a good point with the title of this thread... in that because Christianity is the dominant faith in the West, we are forgiving or give a pass to, fundamentalists and radicals in "our" own faith...

Also look at the labelling of the thread, or even how it is reported in the news... the two hijackers (who yes, are terrorists according to the 'Bush' doctrine of terrorism) are reported as just that 'two hijackers' ~ BUT if they had say been Muslim, then it would have been all over the news as 'two MUSLIM men'. Why though? Why is that the "Western" media is so ready to use faith (and ethnicity) as an identifier or qualifier? I mean why is one gunman who goes on a rampage described as "disturbed" or "deranged" and others simply described as "Muslim"?

/cosign

Seriously, even the most radical or fundamentalist Muslim doesn't consider "the end of the world" or "end times" a good thing, or at least something to look forward to...

Did you guys not read the part where the passengers didn't even know the plane was being hijacked? Now I mean, label them terrorists if you will, but from what I've read they were never really a threat to anyone.

My guess is that with so much going on between the school shootings and the Page/Congress scandal, what might have been a story on a slower news day simply got pushed aside.

The whole thing seems to have been pretty tame in relation to what we have come to expect from a hi-jacking.

Whether that's right or wrong, I'd have to leave that to an expert on journalistic ethics.

There have been several times when an airliner has been diverted (a couple here to Denver) when a passenger became unruly or made comments they shouldn't have. The ones here were carried by local media, but did not make the national press.

So if some gelhead drugs you and, you know, sticks it in the ol' pooper but you're passed out and don't know it's happening, that's totally cool, right?