Attacks like the one yesterday at Planned Parenthood are terrorism just the same as any Islamist attack. Terrorism is any violence that is in the name of a religious or political cause, and meant to strike fear into the opponents of that cause. If the antiabortionists were muslim, we would have started WW3 over it. Dylann Roof, is also someone I would consider just as much of a terrorist as the Tsarnaev brothers. This is not an abortion debate. I think crime should be treated equally no matter what religion the criminal believes in.
Sure, I have no doubt he’ll be convicted and given life in prison. I’m not more you’re looking for except for the U.S. to start bombing the country he came from which I’m thinking might be politically difficult.
There is no way to treat homegrown terrorist the same way that we treat foreign terrorists. If it makes you feel better I have no problem calling the right wing nut jobs and the crazy environmentalists terrorists but I don’t see any path forward besides treating them like the criminals like they are and jailing or killing them. On the other hand we’ve proven that we will bomb the country that grow terrorists and sends them to us. Do I think it’s a great idea? No, but we do have further recourse in countries that aren’t ours.
Captain Obvious is that you?
Who says those aren’t terrorist attacks?
You do realize that there is also something called degrees of violence.
I am absolutely pro choice- more like pro don’t care what some stranger does but I am also realistic and can plainly see that ALL violence against planned parenthood since day 1 does not equal the damage done in Paris or 9/11. Yes, they are both factually acts of terror.
Why is it in the US every little group wants to horn in on the pain and suffering of others.
Yes attacking planned parenthood is wrong but to try and equate what is going on globally with Islamic terrorism to plan parenthood is in short pathetic and weak.
Can’t the people of Paris mourn a bit before all these groups try to exploit the tragedy?
You probably didn’t mean it to come out this way, but terrorism doesn’t need to be linked to any religion at all.
And yet we didn’t start WWIII after the Boston Marathon bombing, so no, we would’t have started WWIII if this guy had been a Muslim.
Oh, and where do you want to stop this double standard? Here? Not seeing it.
No argument here, it was a terrorist attack by an individual, probably, in support of a strong but non-mainstream religious belief, and, yes, because the religious belief is loosely associated with the most prevalent religion in this country, it is not being identified as such.
Unless, of course it turns out this is just some average gun-owning nut job who couldn’t find a school open on Friday.
What groups? And what exploitation? What has Paris got to do with the OP?
Apparently calling something “terrorist” means it has to be as bad as every other thing you call “terrorist”, else it shows you don’t take those things seriously.
Personally, it’s just a label to me. The reaction is what matters, and a nutcase who shoots up Planned Parenthood will not get the same reaction as a coordinated bombing/hijacking attack, nor should he.
Maybe not. But it sure seems to help.
I think there’s a double standard because Christian terrorism doesn’t get politicians to propose not letting Christians immigrate to the US.
But there are all kinds of other differences in this case.
For one thing, at least a few hours ago, it wasn’t clear this shooter actually had an interest in abortion. Amazingly, it sounds possible that this guy just randomly picked a target that also happens to be threatened by terrorists all the time.
Words have meanings. Terrorism, in addition to the use fear to change policy or behavior, implies a successful challenge to the state’s ability to protect its citizens, which certainly applied here.
I find this most recent attack pretty disturbing; I’m more likely to visit a small medical facility in the U.S. than a huge entertainment venue in Europe.
I hope the various law enforcement groups are investigating the possibility this is not a random lone attack, that Dear could be part of a coordinated action.
The Islamic apologists cross into an intellectual vacuum when they try to use abortion clinic bombing to try to establish parity between Islamic terrorist murder and other terrorist murder.
Per Wiki there have been about ten- that’s t-e-n ** TEN abortion clinic bombing fatalities worldwide since 1990.**
Per Wiki there have been over 1,000 Islamic terrorist murders so far in 2015 alone, leaving out possibly 2,000 more who disappeared during a Boko Haram operation. That does not include any of the likely thousands who have been murdered under the most bestial circumstances in ISIS-controlled territory.
Parity, anyone? Parity? Get real.
I dunno. The Oklahoma City bombing seemed to get on all right without any religious engagement by anybody. It was, at the time, by far the worst terrorist atrocity every perpetrated in the US.
Plus, it’s worth pointing out that the term “terrorism” was coined to describe a campaigned waged for an explicitly secular and, often, anti-religious cause. And the term has frequently been applied to anarchisist, socialists and adherents of other secular ideologies.
Like the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists? The poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko? Drone double taps? Shock and awe? Hiroshima? Every war ever?
Also Baader-Meinhoff and the SLA, for example.
Terrorism has become a completely meaningless term used by any government to label people they see as a serious threat. When convenient its been thrown around even on environmental groups that have strict policies of Non violent protest.
Japan calls the sea shepherds Terrorists, again they have a policy of non violent direct action.
Its been so de-valued that we need a new word for actual deliberate killing of innocent civilians terrorism. When we work out what that new word should be then I’m just as happy to label the Planned Parenthood nutjob as one.
What purpose does the label really serve anyway? Its not as though our choices of response need be at all constrained by one word.
It seems as if every “attack” is quickly turned into a PR opportunity for the opposing side. Folk can’t get on twitter fast enough to make political capital out of such attacks on Planned Parenthood etc.
We can call the attack on Planned Parenthood what we wish. The distinction *I *make between Christian and Islamic terrorism is that we have already seen the worst that modern Christianity can throw at us; and modern Christianity’s worst isn’t really so bad. Modern Christianiy does co-exist with the modern nation state. On the other hand we cannot yet judge just how bad an Islamic “war” inside a Western nation state can become.
I also suspect a major difference between the two attacks is financing, organisation and support. The levels of these, I think, will be greater within the Islamic community than in the Christian community.
Sure, it’s terrorism. Terrorism against people who have made a career out of the premeditated killing of unborn children.
It’s all about the body count for you? Violence and terrorism doesn’t matter to you until a threshold of death is crossed? Others disagree, and some find attacking people seeking or providing medical help particularly egregious, no matter the name of the god in which it is done.
Are you suggesting that people should never decry violent attacks on social media, or only not attacks on medical facilities?
If you define “co-existance” as ongoing demands to deny basic legal rights to citizens, and successfully doing so. Being denied the right to marry, public accommodation, or medical services, for example, is not being stoned to death or be-headed, but it’s still not right.
The radical Christian community has a stranglehold on one of the two major political parties in the U.S.
It’s not murder, because there is no child. An embryo is not a child.
How do you know?
What a fantastic combination of blind optimism and ignorance of the historical record.