Skip to main content

View Diary: The Terrorization of Crime (273 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have defended (9+ / 0-)

    people who have done similar things.   The Adams example is a great one.

    When Greenwald says there is "no evidence" he is full of it.  The youtube videos alone are evidence.

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:24:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So are all Christian extremists (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador, snoopydawg, AoT, NYFM

      automatically terrorists when they commit a violent and destructive act?

      •  yes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, fladem

        Just like Rudolph was...

        •  But Rudolph tried (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fladem, Nada Lemming

          clearly to influence policy, namely shutting down abortion clinics.

          What was these guys' agenda? What was their list of demands?

          A life philosophy isn't the same thing as a motivation.

          •  Rudolph never made any demands (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NYFM, Dr Swig Mcjigger

            and neither did McVeigh.  One was a rabid anti choice extremist, and the other an anti government, right wing nutjob.

            But Rudolph and McVeigh never made any demands and never claimed responsibility until their capture.

            Looks like this kid and his brother took credit for the bombing by telling the carjack victim that they did the bombing (even telling the victim that they spared his life because he wasn't an american).  These guys also got the instructions for their bombs by reading "Inspire", Al Qaeda's english language magazine that attempts radicalize young muslim men.

            •  The agenda? Whatever it is that violent Islamists (0+ / 0-)

              want.  Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than killing anyone in the West.

              Today's NY Times

              The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon attacks told federal agents that he and his late brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs
            •  Eric Rudolph (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nada Lemming

              Well, abortion clinic bombings are kind of self-evident. That being said, it is indeed problematic that neither Mcveigh or Rudolph made any demands. That makes them pretty lousy terrorists.

              But at least they were clear about their political motivations afterwards. Something of which it's way too soon to have any clue about in this case, yet media members and politician casually label this attack as terrorism.

      •  Yes, as far as I'm concerned (9+ / 0-)

        The issue here is not a legal one, as some would have it. Legally these two are clearly terrorists, no question at all. The issue is one of rhetoric in the media. The media refuses to call Christian terrorists what they are. The right is rewarded for their violence by the expansion of their  political goals. Abortion is a great example of this.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 10:56:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok (0+ / 0-)
          Legally these two are clearly terrorists, no question at all.
          Then can you explain how exactly they fit the official definitions:
             Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

              The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives .”

              Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal. In most cases, NIJ researchers adopt the FBI definition, which stresses methods over motivations and is generally accepted by law enforcement communities.

          http://www.nij.gov/...

          •  The legal definition is overly broad (0+ / 0-)

            and I'm not a fan of it, but this pretty clearly falls under and attempt to intimidate the public. I would prefer that the statutes include a requirement that the actions be in pursuit of some end, but they are not written that way.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  abortion clinic bombers and killers certainly are (9+ / 0-)

        by the very definition of the term terrorist and "hate crime" perpetrators.

      •  Yes, if he blows up a pizza parlor full of kids (0+ / 0-)

        No if he kills his wife

      •  You are drawing a conclusion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Be Skeptical

        and I am not.  I simply noted that there is some evidence that the acts in question may be terror.

        A Christian who blows up an abortion is also a terrorist.

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 11:57:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site