How much violence will the ultraright have to commit?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't have American citizenship, I do possess Canadian citizenship as well as being a Status (North American) Indian (Dene Nation).



Your given statement shows that either

A) You have piss-poor verbal comprehension skills, which is pretty ironic as people with Asperger's generally tend to score higher on that subtest.

or

B) You've deliberately mischaracterized my stating of facts (that Bill Ayers terrorism was nowhere near as bad as the dozens of far-right lone wolf/militia terrorist plots). If so, you are intellectually dishonest and morally depraved.

So which one is it, ikorack?

Bad is relative. its neither. I personally don't separate terrorism by severity. There is no reason for you to claim your radicals are in some way better than right wing radicals. My morals are in a fine state, yours however seem to be effected by your political views. In my eyes any terrorist should be snuffed out regardless of their views its just uncivil to go around acting so violent towards a nations citizenship.

Ikorack, if you do have a serious reading comprehension disorder, please tell me now. Because, if not, I'm going to assume you're a vice filled intellectually dishonest individual.

I think this is just stupid. Warning people in advance that you're going to bomb Washrooms is a lot less severe then going into a Church without warning with the intent to murder children. In the same way that people who throw eggs at houses would get a lesser sentence than those who actually murder people - indicating that it is a greater legal crime-, so too should murderous terrorism be considered a worse moral crime.

I will admit that some of the later instances of leftwing terrorism from the seventies did surpass the depravity of current rightwing terrorism, though.



My main claim is that the Weathermen Underground and Bill Ayers in particular were less harmful or violent than present day rightwing extremists based on the nature of the violence. If that doesn't count as a sufficient rationale for why the Weathermen Underground are less evil than McVeigh or David Adkisson, then I don't know what would.

Please try and read the actual material I write, by the way. I think it'd help you a lot when debating.



Either you're horribly ignorant of what I actually wrote (indicating intellectual laziness) or you're a boldface liar. I made no reference to politics as justifying the views, only that given the severity of Ayers property-damaging terrorism compared to the would-be preschooler killing terrorism of people like Adkisson, the Adkissons of the American right come out worse.

No the goal of the actions is elimination of political opposition through fear(using violence) such actions are unacceptable. Sure it could be suggested that some acts are more depraved than others but this is largely irrelevant as the behavior itself shouldn't be tolerated regardless of degree. In my eyes claiming that one terrorists actions are somehow kinder(I wanted to say better but that doesn't really fit) because of the method than another's just leaves room for sympathy for less extreme terrorists who lean more towards someones own political views.



Nothing would terrorism isn't war you don't need to kill your opposition to win you just need to instill enough fear for them to not want to fight. The nature of the violence is irrelevant the fact that violence is being used to further political views is enough for condemnation regardless of degree or nature. Men who attempt to conquer non combatants through fear should be deplored by all.



And you have misunderstood my statement. There is no worse all terrorists are of a level below civil society. I do not understand why you feel the need to argue that one group of terrorists are worse than the other all of them are trash and should be treated as such. The fact that anyone is even defending terrorists in this thread should cause concern.

The probably, ikorack, namely speaking, is that I completely disagree with your absolutistic views (as I am a more of a Eudaimonistic rule-utilitarian than a deontologist). I would analyze terrorism in two ways. Namely, the (amoral) analysis of how much it achieves its goals of disrupting civil society and the (ethically focused) analysis of how harmful the terrorism was.

1) How well it disrupted civil society: Only wilful idiots (which most of the Weathermen Underground were) would honestly think that blowing up a few bathrooms could instil fear inside the military-industrial complex. Clearly, from an amoral, pragmatic perspective the Weathermen Underground weren't successful terrorists. Adkisson, on the other hand, did instil quite a bit of fear in progressives after shooting up a Unitarian Church, though he didn't hault the movement. While not really successful as a terrorist, he had a greater effect than the moronic members of the Weathermen Underground.

2) Harmfulness: The Weathermen Underground blow up some bathrooms and caused some psychological harm to a some employees through such intimidating acts. Adkisson caused a lot of emotional harm, psychiatrical harm, physical harm, and death through his shootings then Ayers.

Clearly, David Adkisson was much worse than the Pentagon bombings conducted, in part, by Ayers. There was much more harmful consequences and long-term human misery brought about the world by Adkisson than Ayers. Some of the later terrorists acts by leftwing organizations in the 1970s, I will admit, were worse (more evil) though.

that's frankly just frickin' stupid. What you're saying is that, to you, the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11 were the same as the animal rights activists that let minks loose on fur farms. That's ludicrous.

You have missed my point, the notion that the severity of these actions are relevant is what I'm arguing against terrorists attempt to control the population through terror using violent acts. whether or not they are successful or effective should have absolutely no bearing in their condemnation.



How is freeing minks terrorism?

EDIT: The definition of terrorism does not hinge on success, @LKL google definition

I'll admit I was a bit inarticulate by displaying the non-moral ways I analyze terrorism next to the moral methods I use to analyze it. But the point still remains that, if carried to fruition, Adkisson's plan would have resulted in more death, harm, and mayhem to civil society than Ayers. Killing preschoolers is always worst then blowing up uninhabited property.

Which is irrelevant as both where acts of terrorism attempting to push the views through violent methods intending to scare the opposition into complying. I really dislike using analogies but since you seem to like them I guess i can try. Is a dictator who rules primarily by killing his political opponents any better than a dictator primarily who employs intern camps? Of course this relies on the view that dictatorship is always wrong, but no more than my original argument relies on the view that terrorism is always bad. That is to say terrorism should always be condemned fully regardless of degree. Making any comparisons between two acts of terrorism unable to view one as better than the other. Of course this would hinder someone when deciding which type of terrorism would be preferred but really I don't see how anything fruitful could come of that.

I don't see where success or failure comes into the discussion. Animal rights activists committing property damage are considered terrorists according to U.S. law; perhaps a better example for you would be ELFs burning SUVs or high-end housing developments (more akin to what the Weathermen did) vs. 9/11.

Terrorism is widely defined as violence with a political motive, but there's a big difference between the motives 'get people's attention' and 'make people anguished and afraid.' Most of the modern leftist 'terrorists' (by the U.S. definition of terrorism) have the prior motive, but specifically avoid the latter one.

There is no widely excepted legal definition. But your minks doesn't count as a good example the goal of an animal rights activist freeing minks is strictly to free minks.(illegal yes but terrorism no, different discussion all together) The ones you supplied in this post however do seem to fit the violence factor but not the intent to cultivate fear. I hardly see how getting someones attention through a violent fit is any better than terrorism but as you have stated they don't qualify under any widely excepted non-legal definition as terrorists. Or if you don't like that for some inane reason I would say more simply that a violent sissy fit doesn't fit my definition of terrorism, and seeing how you just agreed that such actions don't usually fit my definition(see the part in bold) you agree. But I don't see why either group should be tolerated.

About the edit part only the part directed to you was meant for you. Your use of a widely contentious legal definition rather than a more academic/traditional/casual definition confuses me a little.

Animal rights activists do not 'just free minks,' they wreck mink farms in the process, film the entire escapade, and circulate the doccumentation as widely as possible. In additon, they target specific mink farms (or GMO laboratories, or animal research facilities, or whatever) for political reasons.

It qualifies as politically coercive property damage and therefore fits the FBI definition of terrorism:
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatister ... rism_6.htm
It does not fit the DOD definition:
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatister ... rism_4.htm
but the general U.S. Government definition
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatister ... rism_5.htm
can be stretched to cover it.

The legal definitions are the ones that matter for the people committing the acts and the people who want justice for the acts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Ent ... rorism_Act

Too bad this isn't a discussion about justice . Also we've been over this there is no widely accepted legal definition. As for the part in bold they are not trying to coerce people using terror they are using force.(see civil disobedience)

I don't see McVeigh as a "right-wing" extremist per say. He was just a highly motivated angry guy. The scary thing though is when I read McVeigh's words he seemed a lot more sane than some of the survivalist conspiracy nuts I've encountered on the internet. He was upset about real events.

As did Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

ruveyn

i think mp uses "ultra" as a superlative for "conservative" because the commonly used descriptor is insufficient and implies that the pro-violence attitude is more widely held than he intends to imply.

it does seem a bit silly, though. i mean, it's basically saying "right wing extremists are extreme." you might as well say 'left wing extremists are extreme."

i remember when ELF torched a hummer dealership in west covina, ca, a few years ago. if i remember correctly, no one was immediately harmed but the green movement took a hit, locally. jackasses probably caused more pollution with the fire than all those hummers would have ever put out and made environmentalists look stupid and dangerous.

i want to agree that "ultraconservatives" are more likely to engage in individual violence but the problem is that "ultra" is more applicable than "conservative" in this case. yes, it was a conservative who stepped on that moveon instigator's head..... but stepping on the heads of people who don't agree with you isn't, in any way, a "conservative" value. it's an "a**hole" value.

it's a bit like the demonstrations and protests that turn into riots. a lot of the people in the streets want to demonstrate that they're pissed about what they're protesting. some of them start smashing storefronts and cars. smashing things isn't a "liberal" value. it's certainly not an "ultraliberal" value. it's a "douche" value.



....and if the only categories anyone fits into are "douche" or "a**hole," people should identify themselves as one or the other before sorting everyone else.

which isn't to say mp doesn't have a good point. just that it's more complicated than that and oversimplification is almost as corrosive to discourse as derogation.