Home grown non-Muslim related terrorist attacks

[On Guard for Thee]

On page one, we were all in agreeance that the abortion dude was inflicting terrorism, but that wasn't good enough, was it? You just want to pick a fight.

Yeah I'd say it was terrorism.

[Guest]

Muslim stealing gum would be terrorism though.

If a Muslim spit walking by a church it would be terrorism.

Only if the goal was a Worldwide Islamic Caliphate.

[On Guard for Thee]

Only if the goal was a Worldwide Islamic Caliphate.

Apparently some set the bar a hell of a lot lower than that.

[Guest]

Apparently some set the bar a hell of a lot lower than that.

An Islamic Caliphate just in Spuzzum?

[kimmy]

Here's an idea. Why don't we wait to see what the motive was? So far it has not been established to the satisfaction of the police whether the abortion clinic was even his primary target. He was in there for five hours and didn't kill anyone trapped inside. The three he killed were in the parking lot.

If it can be established he targeted the abortion clinic, however, out of his opposition to abortion, then yes, I would call this terrorism.

Well, Fox and Breitbart were earlier trying to sell the idea that this was actually a bank robbery gone wrong, although they seem to have backed off that brain fart since both Chase Bank and the law enforcement on the scene have categorically rejected it.

I offer a new theory: perhaps it was a tailgate party gone wrong! Since the shooting started in the parking lot and since be brought propane tanks with him, likely to fuel a barbecue, it seems plausible that perhaps he just wanted to have a tailgate party. His reference to "no more baby parts", which on the surface seems like an obvious reference to those fake Planned Parenthood videos that Operation Rescue made, probably actually refers to those baby back ribs that Carolina residents love to barbecue. It seems likely that he became upset when he discovered the grocery store was out of baby back ribs.

-k

[msj]

Is the attack on the mosque in Peterborough terrorism?

Maybe: if the intent is to intimidate. But no one has claimed credit for it, I presume?

If it was some random a$$hole getting all emotional that he set fire to it then, no.

I think terrorism requires a certain amount of "thought" whereas this may be a thoughtless (emotional - "revenge") type thing.

So likely a hate crime rather than terrorism.

[Argus]

And then so what would you call it?

Vandalism.

[Argus]

That's kinda random. What in the world posses you people to post these things?

Progressives share with the most regressive fundamentalists, this tendency to mark off the world into good and evil. It is a nasty phenomenon - Rex Murphy

[Argus]

So it appears his goal was to 'stop baby parts' from being sold, so we can say this is terrorism.

Or we can instead adopt the mentality of the 'progressive' and say this has nothing to do with anything other than mental illness, given this was some loser who lived in a shack in the woods. In which case, nothing to see here. Move along to the discussion of mental health treatment.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/29/colorado-governor-urges-toned-down-abortion-debate-after-clinic-rampage?select_sec_photo=6

The attack at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic that killed a police officer and two other people suggests that both sides of the abortion debate in the United States need to "tone down the rhetoric," the state's governor said on Sunday.

The governor, John Hickenlooper, spoke the morning after unnamed law enforcement authorities told NBC News and other media that the suspected gunman had muttered "no more baby parts" when he was arrested after an hours-long standoff at the Colorado Springs clinic.

Is it reasonable for the governor to call for civil discourse in the light of this violence, or is it reasonable for pro-life activists to rationalize such attacks as being lives taken to save other lives ?

To my mind, Republicans are in a spiral of trying to out-conservative each other and that amplifies the defiance, and brings a harsher tone to what is supposed to be 'politics'.

[Argus]

To my mind, Republicans are in a spiral of trying to out-conservative each other and that amplifies the defiance, and brings a harsher tone to what is supposed to be 'politics'.

Only about 20% of Americans oppose abortion in all circumstances, but it seems like the Republican contenders are falling all over themselves to appeal to that 20%, and to hell with the rest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/26/on-abortion-the-gop-presidential-candidates-are-even-more-extreme-than-their-constituents/

[bush_cheney2004]

Only about 20% of Americans oppose abortion in all circumstances, but it seems like the Republican contenders are falling all over themselves to appeal to that 20%, and to hell with the rest.

And it's not just Republicans....many religious groups in the U.S. oppose abortions regardless of political leanings. Repeating the "Republican" narrative so often is just easier and lazier.

[jacee]

Maybe: if the intent is to intimidate. But no one has claimed credit for it, I presume?

That is irrelevant.

If it was some random a$$hole getting all emotional that he set fire to it then, no.

I think terrorism requires a certain amount of "thought" whereas this may be a thoughtless (emotional - "revenge") type thing.

So likely a hate crime rather than terrorism.

Criminal Code:

Terrorist activity:

an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

( in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security,

Setting fire to a mosque is not some random arson.

It is a political/religious attack.

It is intended to create fear for their security in Canada among Muslims.

.

Edited November 29, 2015 by jacee

[kimmy]

And it's not just Republicans....many religious groups in the U.S. oppose abortions regardless of political leanings. Repeating the "Republican" narrative so often is just easier and lazier.

Yeah, but religious groups aren't campaigning to be President.

Only about 20% of Americans oppose abortion in all circumstances, but it seems like the Republican contenders are falling all over themselves to appeal to that 20%, and to hell with the rest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/26/on-abortion-the-gop-presidential-candidates-are-even-more-extreme-than-their-constituents/

There's a paradox that we saw in 2012... to win the Republican primaries, you apparently have to appeal to the most right wing and evangelical elements in the party... and yet to do that you end up saying a bunch of stuff that will make you unelectable in the general election.

Much of the stuff they're saying right now will be "walked back" between the time the nomination is won and the Presidential election.

The Romnoid Campaign of 2012 developed a strategy where Mitt would go out with some red meat to rile up "the base" one day, and then campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom would go on the news shows the next day and issue "clarifications".

"Yesterday Mitt Romney said he was going to defund Planned Parenthood. Does he have any plan to provide healthcare for all the women who rely on Planned Parenthood?"

"Look, we're not going to eliminate Planned Parenthood. What he means is that we're looking for ways to find economies to deliver these services on a smaller budget."

And that sort of thing.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

"Yesterday Mitt Romney said he was going to defund Planned Parenthood. Does he have any plan to provide healthcare for all the women who rely on Planned Parenthood?"

No worries...Canadians will still be able to cross the border to get abortions in the United States just as they have for decades.

Just another form of cross border shopping....not home grown.

Edited November 30, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

It seems likely that he became upset when he discovered the grocery store was out of baby back ribs.

-k

And figured the abortion clinic was the place to look?

Your theory does have a certain albeit disturbing rational logic to it.

[bush_cheney2004]

And figured the abortion clinic was the place to look?

Well, getting back to the OP, many would consider abortions to be terrorism at several levels.

[msj]

That is irrelevant.

Criminal Code:

Terrorist activity:

an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

( in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security,

.

The section is 83.01 (1) (b ) (ii) (d) with respect to property damage being terrorism so, yes, it is terrorism according to the Criminal code.

Would be nice to catch the jerk and see him go to trial. Would be a good learning experience for all.

Edited November 30, 2015 by msj

[msj]

Well, getting back to the OP, many would consider abortions to be terrorism at several levels.

Not according to section 83 of our criminal code but who knows about the US?

[Rue]

To directly answer your question Bush no. I believe the decision as to how to handle one's body is a private matter between patient and physician and the state and you should have no say. I would like to think a young woman can get access to judgement free counseling in private to give her the full range of options including giving her child up for adoption but that is a private matter between her, her loved ones and her physician. Not me.

I think the government is far too involved in certain decisions best left private between an individual and their physician(s).

I have counseled families in crisis with this issue. I stayed totally neutral. I had no right to express my personal opinions in the role of counselor.

If someone has health issues that could be compromised, its a tough call. If someone has been impregnated through rape its a tough call. Incest, rape, people with specific life threatening illnesses, those are just some of the complex issues one faces.

Sorry but I am a true conservative-libertarian on this issue-I do not believe it is a state issue.

[Rue]

Having an abortion is not terrorism. Going into an abortion clinic to shoot it up is homicide and it is border-line terrorism. If its part of an organized campaign to warn other clinics to shut down, its terrorism. If its accompanied by a flurry of political statements, probably. If it is used to advance a personal opinion as to abortion, yes its terrorism. Its a type of terrorism. Violence used as a vehicle to express political opinion is terrorism.

[msj]

I think Bush is making reference to the stupid "the personal is political " phrase that came out of student protests from the '60's.

But really, do we need more discussion on the stupidity of that era?

[Argus]

Well, getting back to the OP, many would consider abortions to be terrorism at several levels.

No one sane, though.

[bush_cheney2004]

No one sane, though.

Hardly, as it is quite straightforward to develop the "abortion is terrorism" concept using the exact same language and narrative(s) of those who assail other practices and policies. The Vatican went after abortion as terrorism exactly this way in 2007, and it had nothing to do with the pope's "sanity".

Abortion is illegal in many parts of the world for religious and non-religious reasons also having nothing to do with "sanity".

[On Guard for Thee]

Hardly, as it is quite straightforward to develop the "abortion is terrorism" concept using the exact same language and narrative(s) of those who assail other practices and policies. The Vatican went after abortion as terrorism exactly this way in 2007, and it had nothing to do with the pope's "sanity".

Abortion is illegal in many parts of the world for religious and non-religious reasons also having nothing to do with "sanity".

Apparently the vatican did't think sexually assaulting choirboys was terrorism though. Go figure.