dippin

First, note that I did not at any point actually say that mr. Stack was indeed a terrorist.

I just said that it was interesting to compare the parallels between how his actions were portrayed and how those of Mr. Hasan were portrayed. In the latter case there were a few witnesses that he had a certain set of views regarding American policy, the non prosecution of possible war criminals, and certain possible terrorists. In the former, there was a very clear message regarding why he was targeting the IRS. Both cases were treated in the media and by the government very differently, even though there was the same sort of speculation that the cause of the actions was a lashing out against certain particular institutions of the US government, in reaction to certain particular policies.

And those are the reasons why there are parallels between the two: known overt acts or statements against the policies of the particular branch of government they targeted.


In this attempt to create some sort of equivalence between "right" and "left," you came up with these sorts of ridiculous caricatures of academics that, true or not, are irrelevant. I posted that there was an interesting parallel between Hasan and Stack because there is somewhat credible evidence that their acts were motivated by certain policies.

You claimed that Amy Bishop's case was a more interesting parallel. But other than the fact that they killed or tried to kill a number of people, you've yet to establish why. All you have is an anonymous source that claims she was a leftist, and a stereotype of academics. There is absolutely no evidence that her attack was motivated by politics, by a reaction to a policy, or aimed at a particular branch of government. So, other than the fact that someone she knew felt it relevant to mention that she was a leftist, politics has played no notable role in her decisions. This isn't to minimize what she did, but to point out that the reason people reacted differently to her actions is because there isn't really a parallel.

And none of this is to claim that right wing terrorism is any more or less likely than leftwing terrorism, or to embark in any of the sort of fallacious attempts to achieve some sort of moral equivalency/superiority between some abstract right or left. That mr. Stack's political leanings put him more to the right than to the left is irrelevant. Heck, he even seems pretty positive regarding communism at the very end there, at least in relation to capitalism.

The point I was getting at is the moral relativism of the definition of terrorism, one that is tied up more in the identity of the attacker than the act itself. Muslim/foreign, against American and/or Israeli interests or citizens, etc.

And this goes beyond semantics. It goes to current policy and debate regarding how to try and treat "terrorists," as opposed to criminals.