Terrorist incident in Colorado Springs

[Gears of the Beast]

No, that would be exactly the claim by definition. Since, you know, your example says they did it because of their religion. Your example's setup assumes the conclusion you are attempting to dismiss.

I think you're having trouble understanding. Atheism and theism are equivalent in my examples as they are both positions on one thing, the existence of gods. Thus you can't get from "I believe in gods" to "I want to murder this abortion doctor", you need something else like a system of poisonous beliefs (i.e a religion) to actually cause that action. Similarly you don't get from "I don't believe in gods" to "I'm going to kill these religious people", you need some other belief/ideology that would by definition be outside of atheism to cause that action. 

[Wise Fool]

I think you're having trouble understanding. Atheism and theism are equivalent in my examples as they are both positions on one thing, the existence of gods. Thus you can't get from "I believe in gods" to "I want to murder this abortion doctor", you need something else like a system of poisonous beliefs (i.e a religion) to actually cause that action. Similarly you don't get from "I don't believe in gods" to "I'm going to kill these religious people", you need some other belief/ideology that would by definition be outside of atheism to cause that action. 

Well said.

It's nice to see respect for theism and atheism, I mean someone who understands what they are, and what they aren't. Too often people try to conflate these pretty simple positions with other, much more nuanced sociopolitical issues just because it's convenient.

I guess that's what religion is. "Convenient." Instead of striving for actual spirituality or wisdom or self-knowledge or being a good person, one can use religion as the reason you can't go to your cousin's wedding.

[Bonesy]

We have a thread for this.

[Shryke]

I think you're having trouble understanding. Atheism and theism are equivalent in my examples as they are both positions on one thing, the existence of gods. Thus you can't get from "I believe in gods" to "I want to murder this abortion doctor", you need something else like a system of poisonous beliefs (i.e a religion) to actually cause that action. Similarly you don't get from "I don't believe in gods" to "I'm going to kill these religious people", you need some other belief/ideology that would by definition be outside of atheism to cause that action. 

No, it wouldn't be outside of it, it would be an extremist version of it. Same with religious-based motivations for violence. You can easily get from "I believe in god" to "I want to murder this abortion doctor". It's why every abortion doctor who is murdered for his job is murdered. "Abortion is murder" is a fairly widely held tenet of christianity in it's various forms. All you need to do is be extreme in your belief in that aspect of it and then extreme in your reactions to that crime/"crime" and there you have yourself gunning down a man at Sunday church.

These aren't beliefs or ideologies outside the scope of a belief in god or a belief in no god, they are simply extensions of that belief and/or reasons for it. You get from "I don't believe in God" to "Religious people are a blight on the world" or some such based on how you got to the initial belief in the first place and then taking that to an extreme.

That's why we call these people extremists.

And that's why a women's health clinic like Planned Parenthood has "hide from the shooter" drills and bulletproof glass.

[Gears of the Beast]

No, it wouldn't be outside of it, it would be an extremist version of it. Same with religious-based motivations for violence. You can easily get from "I believe in god" to "I want to murder this abortion doctor". It's why every abortion doctor who is murdered for his job is murdered. "Abortion is murder" is a fairly widely held tenet of christianity in it's various forms. All you need to do is be extreme in your belief in that aspect of it and then extreme in your reactions to that crime/"crime" and there you have yourself gunning down a man at Sunday church.

Yeah and now you've managed to switch from theism to christianity while trying show how theism can get you to killing abortion doctors (fail), demonstrating my point that the causal factor invariably is religion, not theism. They are motivated by specific beliefs in their religion, not their general acceptance of the theist position. A non religious theist is not going to murder an abortion doctor no matter how 'extreme' their belief in god is because that action is tied to specific religious beliefs. People that commit horrible acts in the name of their religion are not extreme theists and are never described as such. The theist position is simply "a god exists", not "a god exists and also the tenets of christianity are valid and true". Not sure why you're having so much trouble with that. 

 These aren't beliefs or ideologies outside the scope of a belief in god or a belief in no god, they are simply extensions of that belief and/or reasons for it. You get from "I don't believe in God" to "Religious people are a blight on the world" or some such based on how you got to the initial belief in the first place and then taking that to an extreme.

"religious people are a blight on the world" is not an extreme version of the position "I don't believe in god", it is a separate position. 

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Please take the discussion of the details of various religions/theism/deism/atheism to the relevant thread. Thank you. [/mod]

[Paladin of Ice]

Mike Huckabee has called the shooting an example of domestic terrorism.

Well, color me surprised.

[Wise Fool]

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has declared that the shooter was a "transgendered leftist activist".

Rep. Kinzinger suggested that perhaps the shooter was "sent by God directly to act as the blade of righteousness."

Throw the fucking GOP out. They're done.

[Theda Baratheon]

You know it's astounding how easy it is for people to associate muslims with terrorism as a natural step in their religion, albeit EXTREMIST but when the same kind of argument is suggested in this thread (it makes logical sense that an angry, violent anti-woman, anti-abortion -likely Christian- white man would decide to attack an abortion clinic) so many of you want to keep calling the shooter crazy and mentally ill and cray cray. That wouldn't be the defining fact, even if he was mentally ill; being mentally ill doesn't make you murderous but warped, extremist beliefs (which can be held by perfectly sane idiots) certainly can if you have a specific target for your fevered, hyped up rage and 'righteous' fury.  Fuck this guy. But this doesn't surprise me. I'm not gonna blame all christians just like i dont blame all muslims for extremist terrorists but this bloke was a terrorist and these attacks should acknowledge that and not rely on calling middle aged right men crazies or lone nutters because this bloke didn't cultivate all his nasty toxic beliefs alone did he

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has declared that the shooter was a "transgendered leftist activist".

Rep. Kinzinger suggested that perhaps the shooter was "sent by God directly to act as the blade of righteousness."

Throw the fucking GOP out. They're done.

Woah. More proof that Cruz will say anything that he thinks will get him closer to the nomination. The man is truly evil.

[TerraPrime]

Woah. More proof that Cruz will say anything that he thinks will get him closer to the nomination. The man is truly evil.

No, I don't think Cruz was being opportunistic, like say Trump is. I think Cruz actually is a believer of those things he said. But it's a distinction without a difference, in terms of how his actions impact others around him.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

No, I don't think Cruz was being opportunistic, like say Trump is. I think Cruz actually is a believer of those things he said. But it's a distinction without a difference, in terms of how his actions impact others around him.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Kalbear]

I'm going to burn my liberal card here. I don't think what Dear did was a terrorist attack. 

First off: it wasn't meant to terrorize. It was meant to destroy something he hated and thought was evil, specifically. Compare this to attacks against the Bataclan; do you think that ISIS hated that concert? The goal was to kill innocent people in that case to incite terror; the goal against PP was to specifically attack PP. Assassins aren't considered terrorists when they go after one specific person. Disgruntled ex-workers going into their prior place of work and destroying things aren't considered terrorists either. Killing your spouse after you find them cheating on you isn't considered a terrorist act, even if you kill other people nearby. The motive matters - and in this case, it's very doubtful that his motive was to incite fear; it was to lash out against something he personally considered morally abhorrent. 

You can make the argument that it was politically motivated, and that's probably fair. I suspect it was more motivated by morals, rather than a political view, but in the US landscape it's hard to separate the two. That said, it's pretty clear that it wasn't sanctioned or sponsored by any state or NGO entity. That also is a strike against it being a terrorist act. As far as we know the murderer did not have a manifesto or some political aim, much less any kind of entity. It was just him being absolutely angry at PP. 

I don't think that really reduces other talking points. This guy was clearly riled up by falsehoods perpetuated by Fiorina and others. The political environment that espouses hate and fear is going to create more of these kinds of people; we're already seeing that with the BLM shooting, with armed men following and stalking and doxxing muslims, and with PP attacks. It still seems a big stretch to call this an act of terrorism. 

[TerraPrime]

I don't think it's a far-fetched point to state that the goal of his attack is to stop PP from providing abortion services, and misguidedly in his head, to sell baby parts of profits. In that context, it is a political goal. Or as political as other forms of attacks like "stop Western imperialism" are. So I think the turning point is whether he expects his attacks will stop future PP, or not. Because if he hopes and intends his attack to stop other PP, then he's achieving his political goal by physical harm to civilians, and that's one definition of terrorism, in my books.

[Shryke]

I don't think it's a far-fetched point to state that the goal of his attack is to stop PP from providing abortion services, and misguidedly in his head, to sell baby parts of profits. In that context, it is a political goal. Or as political as other forms of attacks like "stop Western imperialism" are. So I think the turning point is whether he expects his attacks will stop future PP, or not. Because if he hopes and intends his attack to stop other PP, then he's achieving his political goal by physical harm to civilians, and that's one definition of terrorism, in my books.

It's also ridiculous to pretend like this kind of attack is not part of a larger political movement. This is 100% political. It's terrorism. An attampet to use violence to stop PP from providing abortion services. One in a long line of attacks to that end.

[Inigima]

Kalbear: Is the goal to stop people at this clinic from performing abortions? Or is it to make people at clinics everywhere afraid to continue? Or both? That's important to the distinction you're trying to make.

I don't really think the exact label is all that important, though. As you said, this is going to keep happening under the kind of rhetoric Republicans and other pro-lifers are regularly employing.

[Kalbear]

I don't think it's a far-fetched point to state that the goal of his attack is to stop PP from providing abortion services, and misguidedly in his head, to sell baby parts of profits. In that context, it is a political goal. Or as political as other forms of attacks like "stop Western imperialism" are. So I think the turning point is whether he expects his attacks will stop future PP, or not. Because if he hopes and intends his attack to stop other PP, then he's achieving his political goal by physical harm to civilians, and that's one definition of terrorism, in my books.

Yeah, I disagree with this fundamentally. Saying that his goal is to stop PP from providing abortion services is a reach. He was trying to hurt them. He isn't trying to stop all PPs from doing anything (or if he is, he's not doing a very good job about it). I doubt very seriously that he's thinking that if he attacks PP that the government will stop doing PP. There's no sign of a calculated campaign or anything of the sort. 

So yeah, if he hopes that his attack will stop planned Parenthood and is achieving it by attacking random people that would be terrorism. Except...he's not attacking civilians exactly. He's attacking the people that work at planned parenthood and the people who happen to be there. Again, this isn't a random attack with the goal just to rack up bodies; he's deliberately targeting the thing he hates with violence. 

It's also ridiculous to pretend like this kind of attack is not part of a larger political movement. This is 100% political. It's terrorism. An attampet to use violence to stop PP from providing abortion services. One in a long line of attacks to that end.

What political movement endorses attacks on planned parenthood directly? 

And something can be politically motivated and not be terrorism. Again, assassinations aren't terrorism and they're often politically motivated. Was the goal to inspire terror and cause terror? Was the goal to sow fear? I doubt it. I suspect the goal was to punish those who were at planned parenthood because he hated Planned Parenthood. 

Kalbear: Is the goal to stop people at this clinic from performing abortions? Or is it to make people at clinics everywhere afraid to continue? Or both? That's important to the distinction you're trying to make.

I don't know, but my guess is that the goal was not to stop abortions or to make people afraid. It was instead to punish those who did do abortions and work for or go to Planned Parenthood. It was considered an act of vengeance and retribution. I doubt very seriously that he thought about stopping them from doing abortions again, and I especially don't think that he was thinking he would make all PP clinics stop. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Not to ask a very obvious question, but is anyone actually asserting a definition of "terrorism?" Seems like a simple starting point for trying to figure out whether this incident is "terrorism" or not, and whether that really matters at all. 

 

[ChillyPolly]

Not to ask a very obvious question, but is anyone actually asserting a definition of "terrorism?" Seems like a simple starting point for trying to figure out whether this incident is "terrorism" or not, and whether that really matters at all. 

 

Don't waste your time.  Nobody who cares about clarity in communication uses such terms.  "Murder" is reasonably defineable, and is a perfectly fine thing to be against.  

[Commodore]

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has declared that the shooter was a "transgendered leftist activist".

That's not what Cruz said. He was pointing out how using unsubstantiated rumors as a basis for questions is dumb.

I don't really think the exact label is all that important, though. As you said, this is going to keep happening under the kind of rhetoric Republicans and other pro-lifers are regularly employing.

Blaming violence on political speech is a means of silencing said speech (and a favorite tactic of the left).