Speaking as a liberal socialist gun-owning queer, I of course am chagrined to learn that I am filth, but it’s not like the anti-gun folks are the only ones who’ve given me that label. They can get in line behind the Christians and the other gay-bashers, who, as your post indicates, still cling to this peculiar and non-historical idea that monogamous marriage between one man and one woman is “traditional.”
The people I have to put up with. :smack:
I’m not seeing how calling it “single issue terrorism” makes any difference, especially since you don’t even know that the guy is motivated by a single issue.
The most likely reason this attack happened is because Dear was unhinged, just like Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) and James Holmes (Aurora theater) where unhinged. He just happened to pick Planned Parenthood instead of a school or theater.
It’s possible that evidence will come forth that he was goaded by some anti-abortion group (or maybe was an active member) but right now he appears to have been a solitary figure. Some of you guys are falling all over yourselves jumping to the same kinds of conclusions you (rightly) berate the hard right for doing. It is hypocritical and disappointing.
He was handing out anti-Obama pamphlets to his neighbors. It would be interesting to find out what the content of those pamphlets was and who published them.
You don’t know how this guy was motivated either but you’re happy to slap a label.
From a prevention viewpoint, labels should be used to figure out methods and motivations. Since “whatever-religon terrorists” attack a wide variety of targets often with symbolic value or maximum victims and “single issue” terrorists basically are very predictable in their targets being directly tied to that issue, it would be goddamn stupid for the FBI or RCMP to follow your categorization strategy.
But yes, if you are interested in a political slapfest then your style makes perfect sense. Sorry, I don’t want to get on board.
In this case, the issue is abortion so just call him an anti-abortion terrorist and everyone can be happy. Well, except for the dead and wounded.
So if a person sincerely believes that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, he should not say that publicly because a non-zero portion of the public will be lunatics who will decide to use violence? Where does this line of thought end? Should we not criticize the President or Congress because there might be crazies out there?
Calling these lone nuts “terrorists” attempts to lump them in with Islamic terrorism and suggests that they are no different so why are we picking on Muslims? When these so called “Christian terrorists” are: 1) more than a handful, 2) are located in an area which does not punish them and allows them to thrive, 3) are organized into cells, 4) well funded and trained, 5) given a wink and a nod by quasi-mainstream denominations, and 6) take over and govern entire areas of the country then we can talk.
Do you believe that carpet bombing Alabama is the correct response to this? If not, then you see why it is dangerous and irresponsible to attempt to equate Christian and Islamic terrorism.
Pot meet kettle. You should be able to take “lecturing”, seeing as how you are dishing out so much of it.
Those who use terror and violence to get their points across are terrorists, period. They(and their supporters) don’t get to say “Since we aren’t as bad as those those guys, we aren’t really terrorists”-it just doesn’t work that way.
Activists and political figures who genuinely do not favor violent means to achieve their goals should be careful with their rhetoric, of course, so as not to inadvertently inspire something terrible. An actual act of terrorism from their side should impel them to speak out more forcefully and explicitly than ever on the point of nonviolence.
If they do neither of these things, if they dissemble and shift blame, the reasonable conclusion is that they don’t really have a problem with violence from their side.
Yep. It’s a good argument.
Uh… perhaps the takeaway should be that carpet-bombing Muslim communities isn’t right either.
I agree that you are linguistically correct. But what your side seems to be doing is to set up a false equivalency between the lone nuts in this country and the organized terrorism in the middle east.
It takes away from the needed action to fight Islamic extremism by all civilized countries by saying that it is absolutely no different that a handful of right wing idiots in the United States.
We punish people who do these things; they don’t. This guy Dear will never see the light of day as a free man again, and might receive a lethal injection. He doesn’t get to rule his own country. That is the major difference which is blurred when you use the same term to describe him as you do the organization that is responsible for 9/11 and the Paris attacks.
The only reason they don’t get punished in their own country is because they control the government (or at least the government has little control in the region).
Which is exactly the situation that Huckabee and Cruz wish to happen here.
Both have expressed a desire to see the US turned into a theocracy.
Both have declared that God’s law is above man’s law.
Both spoke at an event supporting a man who advocates for the death penalty for homosexuals.
“Equivalence” does not mean “absolutely no different.” Of course there are differences. That doesn’t mean that valid and useful parallels cannot be drawn.
Do you really believe that if Huckabee or Cruz was elected President that they would pardon right wing terrorists and advocate for the death penalty for homosexuals? Really?
I’m not voting for Huckabee or Cruz, but their beliefs, whether right or wrong, simply seem to advocate a return to the type of government that we traditionally had: one with a church state separation heavy influenced by Judeo-Christian morality.
I know your side hates that but the suggestion that there would be a theocracy and rounding up of gay people is simply absurd hyperbole.
What are these valid and useful parallels? I don’t see any. The end game in the fight against Islamic extremism is to set up societies which punish it and do not allow it to thrive. That is exactly what we have against right wing nuts in the United States.
OK, then we disagree. I do not believe that the United States is so very hostile to right-wing extremists.
From here(Huckabee)
Explain then, why he spoke in support of a man who advocates rounding up and executing homosexuals.
I am really interested in why you feel that way. Seriously, I’m not being snarky. We don’t have Dear and McVeigh as leaders of their own armies. When right wing terrorism happens, we investigate it and punish those involved. We executed McVeigh. We may execute Dear.
All of the others (like Terry Nichols) spend the rest of their days in a supermax federal prison. Please explain how we do anything other than come down harshly on right wing terrorists.
Randomly shooting at a clinic would be terrorism. deliberately going after the doctor/staff is premeditated murder. There is no intent to terrorize but to eliminate a very specific target. Doing either on behalf of a religion adds the appropriate adjective to the process.
You are missing the point. Of course Right Wing Extremists get punished…after they’ve committed their heinous crimes. Meanwhile, the constant rhetoric of the Right Wing echo chamber is promoting hate towards Gays, Muslims, Mexicans, and Planned Parenthood, a legitimate and fully legal organization. Do you honestly think that these psychotic morons choose their targets based on their own ideas? And there are a lot of morons out there, just look at any Trump rally, or the Fox News comment section.