I’m sure a lot of people (I hope not here) will be tripping all over themselves trying to argue that this wasn’t terrorism, even though I’m quite sure that it falls directly within the legal definition. Anyone who does so should be ashamed.
I will note that the shooter is not a Syrian refugee.
Agree 100%. This is terrorism at its finest. The terroristic war on women’s health (not to mention lots of other branches that PP works with) has been in full force for a very, very long time… and getting worse.
But, the causalities (the secondary casualties, not necessarily the immediate ones) are generally women and the poor so few care.
When I was without insurance, PP was my ONLY source of health care for a long time. These attacks hit too close to home for me, but they don’t hit close enough to people in charge for any meaningful change.
Traditionally people who theoretically support these actions see the employees and clients as being “guilty”. How is the officer of the law “guilty” in their twisted minds? How do they justify that?
Of course it will be found to have nothing to do with toxic ideology or guns. The perp will be said to have “mental health issues” and isn’t it sad that he didn’t get help.
Without getting too political, I wonder if certain people who’ve insisted that the chances of a Christian committing a terrorist act are essentially zero will have any comment on this, other than the usual circular argument that anyone who does such a thing isn’t a Christian in the first place.
If you wonder whether Christian terrorism against abortion providers is rare, ask yourself why this clinic had a safe room with bulletproof vests in it.
I’ll rephrase it for you to answer that question (though I fully realize you were being rhetorical):
Radical person who looks and believes like the majority does this, calls it justifiable homicide = mental health issues
Radical person who does not look or believe like the majority does this, calls it justified jihad = terrorism
The outsider will always be the terrorist (or whatever term we’re using at that time), no matter who that outsider is.
I’ll give another example. A white, likely Christian student just got expelled from Michigan State University and is facing federal terroism charges for making terrorist threats on a building there. Yes, it’s good that she got charged, but the fact that it’s completely flown under the radar of the media outside of our local area is very telling. If this had been at U of M with a brown, Muslim student you can sure as hell bet it would’ve been picked up.
I am good friends with two abortion providers. They will openly tell you that they fear for their lives because of what they do, and we live in a very liberal city.
Are we sure of the motive? The NYT reports the motive as unknown, and both the police and the head of the center have said the attack was at Planned Parenthood, not on Planned Parenthood.
I think this calls for registration in a federal data base of all white males of a certain religious persuasion.
“Are we sure of the motive? The NYT reports the motive as unknown, and both the police and the head of the center have said the attack was at Planned Parenthood, not on Planned Parenthood.”
Yes, obviously just happened there by coincidence. Could have just as easily been at Chick-fil-a or Hobby Lobby.
romani–agree with your follow-up/analysis of my post 100%. It’s like back in the day, there were pirates and privateers, the difference was privateers worked for you and pirates worked for the enemy.
We don’t know what the motive was, but given all the anti PP rhetoric out there, all the inflamed nonsense, that PP was making money selling fetal tissue, was encouraging women to get abortions so they could sell the fetal tissue and so forth, the controversy when the head of Susan Komen decided to pull funds from PP used for women’s healthcare, claiming those funds “supported abortion”, all the propaganda and grandstanding painting PP as ‘evil’ and so forth, it doesn’t take a leap of faith if someone assumes this guy was out to get PP because of what it is perceived to be. Again, until we have the real motive, we don’t know for sure, but if it does pan out this guy shot up the place because of some sort of twisted idea ‘he was doing good’, those who have enflamed things have a role in it; the full responsibility is the perp, but these kinds of things don’t happen in a vacuum. I am sure if the motive is he is some sort of ‘religious warrior’ or some such, that this will be turned into the act of a deranged madman, and not an act of terrorism. Abortion clinics get bombed, abortion doctors are killed, and we get 'these are the works of mentally ill people", if it was someone who was foreign or muslim, it would be ‘terrorism’. We talk about the websites that ISIS operates and the like, how it exhorts people to violence, and they are terrorism sites; Operation Rescue operates a website that has a list of names and addresses of abortion providers and often the home addresses of doctors who perform the operation, and when a clinic gets bombed or a doctor shot and a line is drawn through the entry on the website, and we get told it is an ‘advocacy website’ that is not advocating violence or terrorism.
Just like the armed anti-Muslim protesters in Irving TX publishing the names of the mosque’s members and their ‘sympathizers.’ Terrorist thuggery at its best.