Top Menu

Why Does the Media Describe Dennis Ronald Marx As A “Shooter” And Not A “Homegrown Terrorist”?

Dennis_Ronald_Marx_Terrorism

By Mooneye

In the US, mass shootings and violence are just a part of our culture and accepted as our daily, living reality. Stories and reports about chronic nationwide urban violence have become redundant to the point where it is briefly mentioned, usually in the most casual and absurd ways.

Spectacular massacres and or attacks, while sensational for news headlines, are also becoming a banal feature of everyday life. Case in point is the attack on a Georgia courthouse by the self-identified sovereign citizen, Dennis Ronald Marx. Marx drove his SUV to the front steps of a Georgia courthouse, armed to the teeth, clearly planning to take control of the courthouse and those inside,

Marx had both homemade and commercially made explosives on his body and in the SUV he was driving, cops told the Macon Telegraph. Marx also had water, supplies and zip tie restraining devices, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. It’s not clear what type of explosives Marx had.

Most mainstream media outlets made no mention of Marx’s membership in the Sovereign Citizens Movement. Many of the reports on the attack mirrored CNN, which made no mention of Marx’s involvement with SCM. The FBI has designated SCM a “domestic terrorist organization.”

Responsible media outlets (of which we have few) would consider this aspect to Marx’s identity to be a major part of the story. Unfortunately, outside of Atlanta outlets the mainstream media has been woefully silent on the subject. The Atlanta Journal Constitution published one of the few articles on the subject, that made passing references to “terrorist” activity.

The group, which normally functions on a platform of inconveniencing the system has, as in cases like this morning been known to commit violent acts, primarily targeted at the law enforcement officials they claim have no authority when they are feeling desperate.

The SPLC reported seven law enforcement officers have been killed by Citizen extremists since 2000, with additional people injured.

Sovereign Citizens membership is believed to be sharply on the rise – as of 2011 an estimated 100,000 fully engrossed members and an additional 200,000 coming into the fold according to the SPLC .

However the description of “terrorist” or “homegrown terrorist” have practically not been employed to describe Marx or his attack. Is it because he is White and non-Muslim?

If he had been Muslim, you can be sure that it would be splattered all across the headlines. “Terrorism experts” would clog up the airwaves and Fox News would once again be agitating for war and proclaiming Obama’s drone attacks insufficient.

, , , , , , , , , ,

  • I disagree with you 100%. Though I disagree with “Argen Tino” 200%. Your liberal use of takfir is an affront. Especially during Ramadan.

  • “..that’s why they view comments before “approving” them unlike in most
    anti-islam site where anyone can comment freely and anyone can join in
    the discussion.”

    That is a blatant lie, as anyone who has been to one of these sites and tried to post facts contrary to the ideology of the site owners can attest.

  • Pingback: [WTF] Is this how Muslim in SG truly think on the Middle-East Conflict? - Page 39 - www.hardwarezone.com.sg()

  • Anonymous
  • JD

    “God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers,
    but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the
    injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our
    people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon,
    it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in
    America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop
    killing our children and women.”
    — Osama bin Laden, 2004

  • Ameer

    Religious muslims don’t think Pakistan should’ve been created either, since it was based on secular ‘muslim’ nationalism. Those who were hoping for sharia to be implemented in this new country would be very disappointed, even after Zia ul Haq’s ‘Islamization’ charade Pakistan is constantly scorned by muslims who want a caliphate.

    The suppression of Muslim Bengali culture by West Pakistan further deterioriated the hopes of Islamists for a ‘united muslim ummah’ in Hindustan, since it became more a case of Urdu supremacy than muslim unity.

    So please, keep muslims out of this and put the blame on those who pushed Jinnah to create Pakistan in the first place: the british colonialists.

  • Argen Tino

    Talking about occupation of India (including current Bangladesh and pakistan), India never had any significant muslim population until Arabs and Turks like Bin Qasim and Bakhtiyar Khilji invaded India, the land of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains etc. and converted them to islam in masses via killing, looting, burning (including the famous Nalanda University) and raping women. These are well-documented historical facts. What’s ironic is that you don’t consider those events as conquest or occupation because it happened to non-Muslims done by ur fellow muslims but u consider British invasion as occupation even though the Brits converted very few people to Christianity that those numbers are peanuts comparing those of Bin Qasim or Bakhtiyar Khilji. Then again, u r a muslim so by nature, u r a hypocrite. If you have any courage whatsoever, you should approve this comment.

  • Argen Tino

    “Even the BBC acknowledges the British colonization of what is now Bangladesh:”

    Nope! What they acknowledge is the British colonization of United India. The concept of another independent nation named Bangladesh did not even exist until in 1950s and at that time, they were part of pakistan, they fellow muslim bros! Even then, they couldn’t stay together. :v

Powered by Loon Watchers