Terrorist incident in Colorado Springs

[Kalbear]

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. 

 

Here's what the US says:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

1 and 3 are obvious. The question again goes to 2. Is Dear trying to intimidate people or influence government policy by intimidation? I don't buy it. 

And I also think that in general the connotation isn't there. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

 

Here's what the US says:

1 and 3 are obvious. The question again goes to 2. Is Dear trying to intimidate people or influence government policy by intimidation? I don't buy it. 

And I also think that in general the connotation isn't there. 

It certainly seems plausible to me that one of his motivations would be to deter the use of Planned Parenthood facilities by the general public, and that by targeting such facilities for this kind of violence, people are less likely to use them. 

But at the end of the day - doesn't this really just come down to definitional ambiguity in the FBI's definition of terrorism? What exactly does it mean for something to "appear intended to" do something? That seems like a half-way point between the intent of the perpetrator and the perception of the general public that actually resolves no issues and creates no clarity. Would it still be terrorism if it "appeared intended to" intimidate the public if the actual reality is that his motivations were personal? I'm not even sure how you really evaluate something like that with meaning. 

[Kalbear]

I don't understand your rationalization that Dear is not trying to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population".  Isn't he almost obviously trying to intimidate both Planned Parenthood providers and those utilizing PP services?

No? I guess that's what i don't consider obvious. Another way to say it is this: just because it's an attack against a certain thing on the government doesn't make it a terrorist action against that part of the government. A guy shooting up the post office doesn't mean he is trying to deter people from using the post office. 

[Kalbear]

But at the end of the day - doesn't this really just come down to definitional ambiguity in the FBI's definition of terrorism? What exactly does it mean for something to "appear intended to" do something? That seems like a half-way point between the intent of the perpetrator and the perception of the general public that actually resolves no issues and creates no clarity. Would it still be terrorism if it "appeared intended to" intimidate the public if the actual reality is that his motivations were personal? I'm not even sure how you really evaluate something like that with meaning. 

Yeah. I think that this is intended to go after folks like the Unabomber - people who have specifically stated a set of goals as part of their actions. That's true about things like ISIS as well, for that matter. Without that stated motive I doubt the US would consider it terrorism, even if it is a public resource or government office that's targeted. 

[JonSnow4President]

He engaged in violence against strangers based on his ideals.  Whether that's technically terrorism or not, who cares.  

And I happen to agree with the shooter that abortion is awful, but in this case, violence is not the answer that would go about changing anything.  We have decided as a society that human life does not start at conception, but rather at an arbitrary point during pregnancy.  I disagree with the decision, but shooting up a bunch of people doesn't change that decision.  

[TerraPrime]

No? I guess that's what i don't consider obvious. Another way to say it is this: just because it's an attack against a certain thing on the government doesn't make it a terrorist action against that part of the government. A guy shooting up the post office doesn't mean he is trying to deter people from using the post office. 

But there is currently no political movement to end US postal services on the premise that it is murdering babies, either.

And, in your view, does Timothy McVeigh's actions count as terrorism? How does that contrast to Dear's action?

[ChillyPolly]

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

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

 

Yes.  How many progressives who resort to this tactic (and I include the folks here on this forum), think "the left" must accept responsibility for the acts of Floyd Lee Corkin?

 

[Kalbear]

But there is currently no political movement to end US postal services on the premise that it is murdering babies, either.

And, in your view, does Timothy McVeigh's actions count as terrorism? How does that contrast to Dear's action?

Just because there exists something opposed to something else doesn't conflate actions. That's a very specious argument. 

Tim McVeigh absolutely counts as terrorism, certainly by the FBI definition - but we know his motive. It wasn't to punish specific people, it wasn't even to punish generically government employees. It was specifically to attack the government itself. It's not state-sponsored, so it's not quite the same level as ISIS or AQ, but it's still terrorism. 

[ChillyPolly]

But there is currently no political movement to end US postal services on the premise that it is murdering babies, either.

What's your point?

[TerraPrime]

Just because there exists something opposed to something else doesn't conflate actions. That's a very specious argument. 

Tim McVeigh absolutely counts as terrorism, certainly by the FBI definition - but we know his motive. It wasn't to punish specific people, it wasn't even to punish generically government employees. It was specifically to attack the government itself. It's not state-sponsored, so it's not quite the same level as ISIS or AQ, but it's still terrorism. 

The FBI definition states "appear intended to" specifically to, by my guess, address the issue of intent and motive.

A group of white supremacists firebombing a black church may not intend to intimidate all black churches or all black Americans, and in fact might be focusing their attack to punish one particular black person or one black congregation, but the impact of their actions would be an intimidation of other black congregations in the area and possibly nation wide.

[Kalbear]

A group of white supremacists firebombing a black church may not intend to intimidate all black churches or all black Americans, and in fact might be focusing their attack to punish one particular black person or one black congregation, but the impact of their actions would be an intimidation of other black congregations in the area and possibly nation wide.

But that can be said for all sorts of crimes. Is someone who kills their cheating wife a terrorist because other cheating wives might be intimidated? Is someone who rapes a man a terrorist because other men will be more intimidated? 

[TerraPrime]

But that can be said for all sorts of crimes. Is someone who kills their cheating wife a terrorist because other cheating wives might be intimidated? Is someone who rapes a man a terrorist because other men will be more intimidated? 

There's obviously a spectrum here with various factors involved. For instance, if we go by avowed intent, then nothing is terrorism until we get an allocution. And if doing so would result in terrorism charges as opposed to regular murder, then we might not that many willing to do so even if that was their intent. So somewhere between the two extremes is where the line ought to be, imo.

In the two counter-example, I think that some of the factors would include whether there are political or cultural movements to intimidate and punish them. While wives who are seen to be cheating are often victims of domestic violence, there really isn't a political movement targeting them per se. Same with men in general.

I feel like a lot of this is quite parallel to the discussion on hate crimes, no?

[ChillyPolly]

He engaged in violence against strangers based on his ideals.  Whether that's technically terrorism or not, who cares.  

And I happen to agree with the shooter that abortion is awful, but in this case, violence is not the answer that would go about changing anything.  We have decided as a society that human life does not start at conception, but rather at an arbitrary point during pregnancy.  I disagree with the decision, but shooting up a bunch of people doesn't change that decision.  

I agree in not caring about the definition of "terrorism".  Murder is murder.  

Is he guilty of murder?  Probably, unless he's so loony that he though he was defending the earth from space aliens, and sincerely thought all his victims were man-eating bug-eyed monsters.  Determining whether he is sane enough to be guilty of murder is a thorny enough problem at this point, without worrying about "terrorism".  This is a guy who thought his cabin in the woods needed a metal roof to protect him from government espionage.  And that may have been on one of his good days before he really went down-hill.

Nobody here is suggesting his acts are objectively justifiable.  Rather, the suggestion is being made that pro-life/anti-choice rhetoric is responsible for the 3 deaths that occurred here.  Everyone is being rather vague about what sort of rhetoric they have in mind.  But the only thing I could agree with is that one should not tell lies, and one should not advocate murder.  But it seems the real idea being proposed is that anyone who refers to abortion as "murder", or suspects that PP trades ghoulishly in foetal tissue, should anticipate that this will result in people spraying a parking lot with an AK47 rifles and killing a Black man, an Asian woman, and a White Christian cop.   And I cannot agree with that idea at all.

No-one should tell lies.  But anyone who honestly believes that PP is trafficking in foetal tissue and/or profiting from it, has the right to say so; and anyone who thinks such people are wrong should try to convince them with honest argument.  Accusing them of being responsible for the acts of random madmen is not an honest argument.  The only honest argument is to try to convince them they are wrong and that PP is not in fact doing this.

You say "abortion is awful".  I see no grounds for thinking that abortion is "awful" unless one gives some credence to the idea that a foetus is an at-least-somewhat human life, and that human life may be at least somewhat sacred, and that taking human life ought to be considered at least somewhat immoral or at least regrettable.  And as for trafficking in foetal tissue, if it's not the tissue of an at-least somewhat human entity, then who cares whether PP is selling it or not?  "Murder" is simply a word for any immoral homicide: any distinction is largely semantic.  And if people who say "abortion is murder" can be silenced (by equating saying "abortion is murder" with complicity for the acts of random maniacs); well what's to prevent the next step:  To silence people who say "abortion is awful"?  You're next, JonSnow4President.

Reconstructing the thought processes of mad people, on inadequate information, can be a hopeless task.  Imagine trying to guess, on limited information, why Anissa Weier and Morgan Geyser stabbed their friend and classmate 19 times.  We know their motives (maybe) only because they gave a coherent explanation of their motives, which from all accounts Mr. Dear has failed to do.  But hey, maybe he thought he had been poisoned by aliens or evil government agents, and needed "baby parts" for the antidote.

[all swedes are racist]

Kalbear,

I think the problem with your counter examples of workplace shooting or murdering unfaithful spouses is that those seem to be some kind of vengeance or retribution for wrongs (real or imagined or wildly exaggerated) committed against the attacker. While that could possibly be the case with Dear, it's seems his grievance was not with this particular PP or certain staff/patrons of such; he appears to be attacking the Institution, the Idea of Planned Parenthood. 

[Kalbear]

Kalbear,

I think the problem with your counter examples of workplace shooting or murdering unfaithful spouses is that those seem to be some kind of vengeance or retribution for wrongs (real or imagined or wildly exaggerated) committed against the attacker. While that could possibly be the case with Dear, it's seems his grievance was not with this particular PP or certain staff/patrons of such; he appears to be attacking the Institution, the Idea of Planned Parenthood. 

That's not really a problem though. It's pretty similar. He likely has a problem with the organization - but much more on an emotional level.

[all swedes are racist]

That's not really a problem though. It's pretty similar. He likely has a problem with the organization - but much more on an emotional level.

Uh, how so? Seriously, I'm not following the news all that closely, but is there some prior connection between Dear and this Palnned Parenthood or any of the people involved?

[Kalbear]

Uh, how so? Seriously, I'm not following the news all that closely, but is there some prior connection between Dear and this Palnned Parenthood or any of the people involved?

Yes, he was strongly anti abortion and had shown violent tendencies before this. So yeah, he went and shot people at PP - but it doesn't sound like it was with the aim of shutting down PP so much as it was to punish the people who work there and go there.

Which makes it a lot closer to shooting up a workplace you hate.

[all swedes are racist]

But, like, shooting up a workplace you hate isn't about the work that company or organization does, but the atmosphere or environment that person worked under, yeah? This guy wasn't a former PP employee? He wasn't lashing out over, say, perceived workplace harassment or discrimination or some such?

and what makes you think he would not, given the means and opportunity, try to "punish" staff and beneficiaries of PPs service throughout the country? Maybe he didnt have the motivation or wherewithal to draft a formal manifesto, but what would make you think this atrocious act was not in anyway inspired by the fact it may instill fear, dread, or even terror in those that work/ volunteer at, or patronize Planned Parrenthoods? 

[Wise Fool]

But, like, shooting up a workplace you hate isn't about the work that company or organization does, but the atmosphere or environment that person worked under, yeah? This guy wasn't a former PP employee? He wasn't lashing out over, say, perceived workplace harassment or discrimination or some such?

and what makes you think he would not, given the means and opportunity, try to "punish" staff and beneficiaries of PPs service throughout the country? Maybe he didnt have the motivation or wherewithal to draft a formal manifesto, but what would make you think this atrocious act was not in anyway inspired by the fact it may instill fear, dread, or even terror in those that work/ volunteer at, or patronize Planned Parrenthoods? 

Exactly. And the way he's being treated by certain people in the anti-abortion faction -- like a hero, like a martyr -- supports this view. It's really fucking disturbing, some of the things people are saying about him and what he did.

[Shryke]

Yes, he was strongly anti abortion and had shown violent tendencies before this. So yeah, he went and shot people at PP - but it doesn't sound like it was with the aim of shutting down PP so much as it was to punish the people who work there and go there.

 

Which makes it a lot closer to shooting up a workplace you hate.

Right, so he's a violent extremist with a political position he is forwarding via violence. You know, a terrorist.