Why is the killer at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic called a "shooter" and not a "terrorist"? Is it because he is a white Christian?

In saying he is a terrorist, you have accused, sentenced, and labeled the shooter without allowing for innocence until proven guilty. Saying the person is a shooter doesn’t make those pretenses.

I believe terrorists are defined by their motive.

We don’t know what this guy’s motive was yet. He started shooting at random cars from the parking lot, and holed up in a Planned Parenthood, which may have been by design or it may have been the closest building at the time. Who knows?

Probably, if he were Muslim, it would have been called terrorism right away.

@kritiper I don’t see what innocent until proven guilty has to do with it at all. We don’t wait to prove someone is guilty to label an act terrorism.

The big question is, was this an act of terrorism? If it is, then I have no problem saying whoever did it is a terrorist. Even if we argue the guy in custody might be innocent, it doesn’t change whoever did it is a terrorist, if it rises to an act of terrorism.

It’s difficult not to include planned parenthood as a political statement, since the politicians won’t shut up about it.

Plus, how is it not terrorizing to women and medical professionals who work in Planned Parenthoods?

@Seek I have a hard imaging it was a random building. I’m sure you think the same, but your point about motive and intent is well taken.

Of course it’s hard to imagine. Point is that nothing the guy has said has been published yet, so it’s all speculation at this point.

White Christian: Source?

No one has identified the shooter.

He was described as wearing a hunting hat, and being white, with a white beard.

That, and the fact that it was Colorado Springs, puts smart money on Christian Conservative, but there is no source.

I agree with the other posters; it may simply be because it’s too early to say. It seems like he probably is a domestic terrorist, considering where the shooting occurred, but they haven’t pinpointed his motive yet, according to the latest sources. If he did specifically target Planned Parenthood, then I would say it was an act of domestic terrorism rather than simply a spree killing. But good luck trying to define the difference.

Obviously I know what you’re getting at—the whole ‘we only call Muslims “terrorists”’ thing. That’s nothing new. The term “terrorist” is incredibly loaded, controversial, and means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

I just read a CNN article where a Planned Parenthood rep called it domestic terrorism.

“Terrorist” implies organization and group direction as well as participation. If it is discovered that the shooter is part of a right to life cabal that condones killing people, he gets to wear the tag.

I have been calling him a terrorist all day on Twitter.

Media won’t because of pro-Christian bias.

@stanleybmanly Not true. A terrorist doesn’t have to be part of a group. The guy who blew up the building in Oklahoma City wasn’t part of an organized group, but he was labelled a terrorist.

Labeled by whom? And doesn’t the goal of a terrorist have to be to inflict terror?

I checked the definition and apparently the only thing required to qualify one as a terrorist is that the motive be political. Interesting how tough it is to come up with a concrete definition for so many things critical to our lives these days.

It was not a terrorist attack, that is why.

@Hypocrisy_Central It was a terrorist attack, an attack to terrorize people of a different faith for no reason other than to punish people of a different belief system and to impose religious law on others.

@stanleybmanly Oklahoma City was against the government, I think it definitely qualifies.

Definitions of terrorism usually include violence in the name of political views, or more broadly also including religious views and other ideologies. I agree there isn’t a concrete definition, except that I assume there is some sort of legal definition?

It was most likely a politically motivated attack so yeah, terrorism. Planned parenthood is a popular target for these things so terrorism. So popular this clinic had a ‘safe room’.

The thread on freerepublic was golden.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3365536/posts?q=1&;page=1#1

They totally found the dude and he was a liberal and it was a “false flag” operation by liberals. Except the guy they figured was the shooter posted on facebook 30 minutes after the arrest totally oblivious to the fact the internet had labeled him as the shooter. Good stuff. Probably deleted by now since it makes them all look stupid.

@stanleybmanly Labeled by whom? And doesn’t the goal of a terrorist have to be to inflict terror?

I assume you’re responding to @JLeslie‘s post about the OKC bombings

Wikipedia says: According to the United States Government, it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11 attacks, and remains the most significant act of domestic terrorism in United States history.

Brown guy = obviously a Muslim terrorist.

Black guy = obviously a thug gangbanger.

White guy = hey now, let’s not jump to conclusions yet.

@Darth_Algar Yeah, I think generally that’s what the greater public thinks; except, when it’s a place like Planned Parenthood or a federal building, then I personally am pretty quick to jump to terrorist, and I assume a lot of other people do also. I’d even say black church, Muslim mosque, or Jewish synagogue we should go ahead and call it terrorism probably.

Have you ever seen Timothy McVeigh referred to as a terrorist? If the Oklahoma City bombing was not terrorism then I don’t know what is. The press refuses to label white terrorists for what they are. Maybe they think that whites can’t be terrorists because they are in the majority. Not to worry. Whites are expected to lose their majority status in the next few decades.

@LostInParadise Yes, Timothy McVeigh is almost always referred to as a terrorist. Are you saying he isn’t or is? That’s what we were writing about above.

To people who say Timothy McVeigh is not referred to as a terrorist, I invite you to Google it. There’s all kinds of stuff calling him a terrorist.

Actually, what difference does it make whether or not the label of terrorism is slapped on each and every mass shooting, (suicide or other) bombing or random cyber attack. The perception of rapid growth in the occurrence of such stuff only means we will grow more accustomed to them and the word “terrorist” will cheapen in effectiveness. I’m more interested in whether the increase is merely the result of the fact such acts work in drawing desperately sought attention combined with the growing ease with which to acquire the means to mass destruction and death; or is the percentage of deranged folks among us also on the rise?

In order for things like the Patriot Act, never ending war on terror, and NSA to remain in existence, it is imperative for white people, or Americans, to believe they can never be labeled a terrorist.
Once white people start being called terrorists, it opens the door for these laws to be used against all Americans openly.

In addition what I wrote above, about googling Tim McVeigh to see that he is considered a white terrorist, I just googled “KKK Terrorist) and see that they’re considered terrorists, too. They’re white, in case anybody is wondering.

I did a Web search on McVeigh. I stand corrected.

The word is useful in drawing attention to newscasts, increasing revenues from the elevated numbers of consumers exposed to toothpaste commercials. It’s a sort of “terrorism of advertising”.

I think possibly terrorists are tried in federal court, while other murderers are tried in local courts. I’m not sure about that though.

That isn’t right. Jurisdiction depends on whether or not the act is a federal crime. In the case of OKC, a federal building was bombed, and the criminals transported the materials for the device across state lines. The truth is that an excuse can usually be found to hand jurisdiction to the Feds with their bottomless pit of money for investigating and building cases, but local prosecutors want the political juice that comes with prosecuting a sensational crime.

Yes, “terrorism” is a word that’s thrown around a bit too freely. Nevertheless, when I see a spade I’m going to call it a spade.

It sure sounds like yesterday was terrorism to me, trying to get PP shut down:

From the FBI page on Terrorism:

“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.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

@JLeslie And that is exactly my point. Assumption of innocence is something we should do first instead of assuming guilt. So thankful the courts don’t do that!! You know the person in question is a shooter but you don’t know if he is a terrorist or just some fruitcake with a gun. So why label him as a terrorist when you don’t really know for fact that he is indeed a terrorist?? I guess only truly civilized people do and think the correct way. No one should be labeled as a terrorist (or anything else) until it has been proven in a court of law.

The part that concerns me is the witch hunt posed by this question. Before the shooter was fully identified.. before investigations into the case really even began.. Fluther (by virtue of worldwide internet search results) was labeling the shooter as a white, Christian, terrorist.

Are you that desperate to slander Christianity? Or white people? I just don’t understand the agenda here. Clearly there was one.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One – please, tell me you are kidding with your reply.

Planned Parenthood has been a target for a dozen years or more because (among other things) it provides abortion and family planning services. That particular one in Colorado Springs has been picketed by various right-wing religions groups for years as well, to the extent that they had to move to a ‘safer’ location.

It’s not the left or the progressives that are demonstrating at PP around the country, it is the right wing, primarily but not exclusively conservative protestants (although plenty of Catholics are thrown in) that have issues with women’s right to choose their own health care.

Add that to the location – Colorado Springs – which is headquarters to a number of conservative and right wing organizations (focus on the family being only one) and you have a lethal combination of white christian men who have been smoking the hatred against women’s choice cigar for decades.

If I’m wrong, and this wasn’t done by a white christian, I’ll apologize.

90% chance I won’t have to,

@elbanditoroso You’re wrong to make the assumption. Even if it does wind up being true. Even if it’s yet another misguided moron running around miss-using the label “Christian” who did it. Making that assumption and broadcasting it as fact is wrong. That’s the part I take issue with. Nothing else.

Uh uh. You don’t get to claim No True Scotsman if this person turns out to be Christian.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One We act under the same thought process as those who worry about the President importing 10,000 terrorists from Syria. Their has been longstanding right wing terrorism in the United States going back 15 years. The shooter had been identified as a white male early on, and as the target was Planned Parenthood, it is an easy surmise to realize it was another act of Evangelical Christian Terrorism.

There have been many instances of Christian “pastors” that make the Iranian Imans look downright peaceful. Just two weeks ago, three Republican candidates for President spoke on the same stage as Kevin Swanson, who called for gay people to be executed. Others have applauded violence against Planned Parenthood, yesterday an Illinois congressman said the Colorado Springs shooter was justified in killing people. This post is an open discussion about white Christian terrorism and how the media is scared to call it what it is.

@kritiper I am saying someone who attacks Planned Parenthood patients, staff, and property, for reasons of trying to kill and shut down PP, because it provides abortions, is a terrorist in my book. The particular individual arrested should absolutely be innocent until proven guilty, and deserves his day in court if he claims he is not guilty. If the man apprehended is the wrong man, and he is innocent, I certainly hope the system works, and he is set free. If he is innocent by reasons of insanity, I hope he received appropriate punishment. If he is a homocidal maniac, just killing randomly, I hope they send him up the river. If he isn’t being random at all, but targeting PP, as I said, he is a terrorist.

Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One Is that like misusing Islam and Muslim? No one is saying all Evangelical Christians want to blow up Planned Parenthood. Of course most would never do such a thing. We are only saying the person who does it is likely to be a Christian.

@JLeslie I just herd a report on the man and his ravings after being taken into custody by the police. He is clearly a fruitcake with a gun, not a terrorist.

@kritiper What did he say?

He apparently said “no more baby parts” in reference to his motives behind the shooting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/no-more-baby-parts-suspect-in-attack-at-colo-planned-parenthood-clinic-told-official/2015/11/28/e842b2cc-961e-11e5-8aa0-5d0946560a97_story.html

So yes, Planned Parenthood had something to do with it.

So, the plan was to attack planned parenthood (my sister has never had a abortion but goes there all the time for things like pap smears and other exams since it is affordable). My sister can’t even get pregnant anymore (w00t hysterectomy last year).

My sister could have been in there.

I watched the last few Republican debates and this happening is not surprising. The blood is on your hands Carly.

@DominicY Thanks for the link. I think that guy is a terrorist. If he could he would blow up
multiple locations probably. This certainly wasn’t some random act.

@kritiper I just saw a report on the killer and they showed where he was living. A mobile home with a big Christian cross on it. I’m not saying he represents Christians, only that he seemed to identify as one. Unless that cross was left over from a former owner of the mobile home.

@JLeslie Figures, doesn’t it? A RELIGIOUS fruitcake with a gun!

Sucks when the stereotype winds up being the case. Poor guy probably really was freaked out for the babies. He probably was worked up into a tizzy, add some mental illness or brainwashing, and he felt he was doing the right thing.

It sounded like none of the people killed were actually there for an abortion, not that it matters. I’m not sure about that though. I saw two men were killed, a mom of two children who was there with a friend I think? Absolutely horrible.

That whole thing with selling baby parts, I once asked a Q here and on Facebook if you are against embryonic cell research would you use a cure from that research, for yourself or a loved one, if the cure was discovered or made from embryonic cells. Everyone answered yes from what I remember and couldn’t understand why I had a problem with their answers. They couldn’t see the hypocrisy. I think they leave it to the scientists to be damned to hell, and speak out to be in God’s good graces, and then they get the benefit of all the heathens who find the cures.

I’ve been to PP more than once for myself or with a friend and it never has been for an abortion, but I do know people who have had abortions there.

From what I read of him, he was no active Christian, many people even cohabitators that boink like bunnies and have a litter of out of wedlock kids wear crosses and even tattoo them on their bodies, it is just a cross to them. Only because his rhetoric had a Christian slant maybe, and it was a sacred cow abortion clinic, people have a deep seated need to vilify a criminal act more by saying “terrorist!”, wow man…..oh wow…..

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Or in video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I

Yes, @Hypocrisy_Central, we know – you’re the only real Christian on the planet. We got the message loud and clear quite some time ago.

@Hypocrisy_Central I guess he isn’t a Christian like Muslim terrorists aren’t Muslim.

No one is saying the shooter at PP represents Christians, you don’t need to be defensive. I hate when Jews do horrible things, I get it, but I also know I don’t do horrible things and that one idiot doesn’t represent Jews like me.

I agree with @JLeslie -

It would be nice if there were a little intellectual honesty among the religious groups from which the terrorists came. Rather than say, “He can’t be christian” (which is essentially what @Hypocrisy_Central wrote), it would be more fitting if he had said “Yes, this guy sees himself as one of ours, but he clearly went bad somewhere”.

Same with muslims who deny that the Paris shooters are muslim—essentially they say “they can’t be true muslims if they kill people like this, because a true muslim would never do that” – but that’s again, not owning up to the fact that perpetrators see themselves as muslims (or in Colorado Springs, Christians).

Denying the obvious may make a religious believer feel good in some way, but a fact is still a fact.

If we can guess with fairly good accuracy that the shooter is likely Christian, or likely Muslim, or likely white, that’s gotta mean something. The guess might be wrong sometimes, but we can’t ignore if there are statistical likelihood.

Why is the person most likely to identify as Christian? Because the Republicans cater to them and especially those that have droning on about PP, and the media gives it lots of air time.

How can we guess the shooter at the black church likely was white? Because, it seemed to be a black hate crime on the surface.

Why do we guess the people blowing up the twin towers are Arab Muslims? Because history shows that that is who it is likely to be.

Why do we assume the guy who shot people at a Jewish nursing home is Christian and some sort of neoNazj? Because it is the most logical assumption.

I know Fluther usually hates generalizations, but we can’t ignore statistical facts. If we do, how do we ever address the problems. We need to know the audience and what is making them tick.

@Darth_Algar .[…we know – you’re the only real Christian on the planet.
Nope, there are millions of us, but like posers who was never in the military; they can fool those who never served. The jargon they used just doesn’t cut it, and wuill expose them as frauds that they are.

@JLeslie I guess he isn’t a Christian like Muslim terrorists aren’t Muslim.
I did not say he wasn’t Christian, I said he was most likely not an active one. A Muslim terrorist usually takes claim to what he/she does in the name of Alla. However, the context that he does a criminal act and is a Christian is no different than if a Muslim with no affiliations decides because of whatever, to go shoot up a hair saloin, Amish school house, federal building, etc. makes Him a terrorist simply because he is Middle Eastern.

[… you don’t need to be defensive._
I think yu best direct that to the Fluther LGBT contingent, they seem to be way more militant and defensive that I could ever hope, if I could raise an army of Believers with as much ferver and conviction what a world this could be.

I know Fluther usually hates generalizations, but we can’t ignore statistical facts.
Good thing I was not drinking milk, it might have shot out my nose. ~~ Fluther has made its bones with genralizations and omition of facts. If the facts are not there, manufacture them or manipulate the data. If the fact are there just goes against ther masses, deam them archaic, irrelevant or just plain wrong, in absence of all that, just ignore it.

@elbanditoroso “He can’t be christian” (which is essentially what @Hypocrisy_Centralwrote), it would be more fitting if he had said “Yes, this guy sees himself as one of ours, but he clearly went bad somewhere”.
I neve r said he could not be Christian, that was an interpretation you gleaned from it but was never said or indicated, but this is Fluther.

Denying the obvious may make a religious believer feel good in some way, but a fact is still a fact.
Denying the obvious may make a religious believer secular person feel good in some way, but a fact is still a fact.
Yes, that fits better on the non-religious side of the fence by far. :-D

@Hypocrisy_Central I don’t know what difference it makes if he is an “active” Christian or not? Does that mean he attend church? Is affiliated with a church? If someone tells you they accept Christ as their savior and identify as Christians, do you not accept them as Christians if they don’t go to church?

I’m pretty sure a Christian shot up the Amish schoolhouse.

I agree that LGBT and just about everyone on Fluther can sometimes get defensive, all
I’m saying is you don’t have to feel like you need to defend all Christians, nor do you have to feel like jellies assuming the shooter at PP was a Christian means we think all Christians are suspect. I’m trying to reassure you we don’t think that. Most Christians I know worry about the lunatic Christians.

@Hypocrisy_Central

Sure, there are millions of Christians, but in your postings here over time you’ve made it quite clear that you are the only true Christian left in this world.

Anyway, I’ve already given you more of my attention here than you warrant…

@JLeslie @Hypocrisy_Central I don’t know what difference it makes if he is an “active” Christian or not?
Yes, it makes a very huge difference.

If someone tells you they accept Christ as their savior and identify as Christians, do you not accept them as Christians if they don’t go to church?
If they say they accepted Christ, then they are the Church, the sanctuary is just where they worship. I take them at face value but I then see what fruit they are producing, if they fruit is rotten then I have to question if they even commited in sincerity. A tree is identified by its fruit. If you had problems with the the pipes and you call someone, when they pull up the the curb with a van saying John Q’s Rapid Plumbing and get out in work clothes with a tool belt, you assume he is a plumber? What if when he opens his mouth he doesn’t know a P-trap from a hole in the wall, and can’t even find the clear out. Would you think he was a real plumber? A Christian may be a Christian but if they are not following the instructions of Christ, then hey are very poor or ignorant Christians.

I’m trying to reassure you we don’t think that.
I guess that doesn’t count those who try to toss in a backhanded insult passed the mods, like on another thread, but I figured they were talking about G.W. Bush and not me, surely he is one of the bigges brainwashed bigots I ever seen.

@Darth_Algar Sure, there are millions of Christians, but in your postings here over time you’ve made it quite clear that you are the only true Christian left in this world.
We have free will to entertain whatever fantasy we choose too. Sometimes perceptions are off as far as east is to west.

Anyway, I’ve already given you more of my attention here than you warrant…
Good, see you later, but hopefully you keep that self-advice if you see my post anywhere else. ;-)

I’m offensive and I find this transphobic! The shooter is a transgendered person. This t-person is registered as an independent female. How dare you call her a guy! Why aren’t the in-house social justice warriors speaking up?

Anyway, the reason this transgendered person is called a shooter and not a terrorist is because part of the definition of terrorism is terrorising to achieve political goals. The media does not have enough information to make the claim that the shooting was politically motivated. An alleged muttering of “baby parts” doesn’t qualify especially when there are reports implying/suggesting she is mentally ill.

Someone being so illiterate that cannot check the appropriate box on a voters registration form does not imply they were living as a woman.

That is a really good answer. Can I borrow it? I want to use it against other guys who legally identify as women. “You’re not a woman! You’re just illiterate!”

I’m guessing her political affiliation is also due to illiteracy? Or is illiteracy, in this case, limited to gender? What she really meant to check was democrat or republican, yes?

You’re either a troll or an idiot, but I repeat myself.

Is that nice? Your micro-aggression is violating my safe-space.

@Jackiavelli Planned Parenthood is all over politics, it is a political issue. It is political that abortion is legal, that federal funds go to PP, that red states don’t want to be told by the fed that killing babies is legal in their state. That’s how those people see it. They see PP as an extension of the federal government. Terrorism is also used, the definition, to further religious causes and causes to change society. The guy is a terrorist.

Your reply has nothing to do with my answer or the Colorado shooter. I’ll try clarifying this once more.

Here is the official definition of terrorism “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal”

Just because Planned Parenthood is a political issues, and the shooting took place at a local PP center, does not mean that the Colorado shooter committed acts of violence to achieve a specific political goal. Walmart’s minimum wage is a political issue. There were and still are acts of violence at local Walmarts. Does that mean the perpetrators are terrorists? No. Their motive wasn’t to terrorize Walmart into increasing pay nor was it to stop the protesters/strikes that demanded increased pay. That is why the media doesn’t call them terrorists.

You mention red states, but you cannot make the red state argument against someone who isn’t affiliated with republicans. I pointed out in my first answer that her voter registration says UAF. UAF means that she is either an independent or unaffiliated.

You mention religion, but there is no evidence that her acts of violence were motivated by her affiliated religion for the purpose of terrorising Planned Parenthood to the point of changing policy or halting activity. Again, muttering something obscure such as “baby parts” is not sufficient evidence of motive.

Even the police who are investigating the issue, who have the most amount of information, are saying they don’t have a clear motive. So how can you expect the media to label her a terrorist when they have even less information than the police?

They only have historical data of her and witness testimony from those who crossed paths with her prior to the attack. Based on that, it seems implied/suggested that she is mentally ill.

@Jackiavelli He is not transgender. The El Paso County Clerk and Recorder confirmed there had been a clerical error. Your continuing that error is a continuation of demonizing transgender people as violent.

And, your definition of terrorism (which is not official, Merriam-Webster is not official anything) is exactly what he wanted to achieve: a violent act to frighten people to meet his political goal of shutting down Planned Parenthood and denying women access to health care.

The media has been referring to the shooter as a terrorist. It’s not a Fluther thing.

@zenvelo So sorry! I haven’t kept up with the latest developments.

Merriam-Webster is the American standard for definitions. What else, other than the British dictionaries compares to it? Even in the British dictionary, Oxford, for example, defines terrorism as “The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”.

he wanted to achieve: a violent act to frighten people to meet his political goal of shutting down Planned Parenthood and denying women access to health care.

Is that what the police found out in their investigation? Is that what the court found out? Please link me to the credible source if that is true.

@Jackiavelli You’re starting to sound like those Christian right wingers who tried to say the shooting in SC was against Christians, when who the hell jumps to that conclusion when a black church is all shot up? I’ll tell you who, politicians trying to garner Christian votes and the Christians who adore them. That’s not all Christians, I’m only talking about the ones who ignore all of American history and are brainwashed to think Christians in America actually have to fear for their lives on the same level as other minorities, which is statistically completely false. I’m not saying you are one if those Christians, I make no assumption about your politics or religion, I’m only saying it sounds like you are not acknowledging that PP, and other places where abortions are performed, have not been targets of violence in the past? There is a pattern that cannot be ignored.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck. Once in a blue moon it’s a horse, and that’s why the guy will get his day in court.

12/1/15 11: MST: The Colorado Springs prosecutor has charged the alleged shooter with murder and has not said anything about terrorism as yet; Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, does not see this as an act of terror; Colorado Springs Mayor John Suther thinks it is, as does Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper.

Personally, I think the event might fall under the umbrella of vigilantism. The alleged shooter (who, by the way, is a life-long man), during a police interview, reportedly said something about “baby parts” and his opposition to abortion.

We could have a completely different conversation about the relationship between vigilantism and terrorism.

@JLeslie You’re starting to sound like those Christian right wingers

I’m an atheist.

who tried to say the shooting in SC was against Christians,

Dylan Roof, himself, confessed that he committed the shooting in hopes of igniting a race war. This incident had nothing to do with Christians.

I’m only saying it sounds like you are not acknowledging that PP, and other places where abortions are performed, have not been targets of violence in the past?

I’m aware there were historic instances of violence towards abortion clinics, but until there is an establishment of a clear political motive for this recent attack, I don’t see how he can be called a terrorist. The person who asked the question is talking about the media and the labelings. You’re discussing probabilities. The media doesn’t report based on probabilities. At least it shouldn’t. The media reports as information comes in. Since there is no clear motive, it wouldn’t be just-worthy to call him a terrorist.

@Jackiavelli Merriam Webster is in no way “the standard” for American dictionaries. They define imply as something indicated by inference. Infer and Imply are as different as affect and effect. to conflate the two shows how poor a dictionary is Merriam-Webster.

I have now looked up the definition of terrorism from seven different dictionaries. Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, etc. All of them are defining terrorism as the use of violence against civilians to achieve political goals. So even if we disagree on Webster’s standards, there are a myriad of other dictionaries that define it exactly as Webster’s. Therefore, he is not a terrorist according to the definition of terrorism.

Now, since you didn’t link me to a credible source to backup your claim that the Colorado shooter wanted to commit acts of violence for the purpose of shutting down Planned Parenthood, and denying women access to healthcare, I can safely conclude that you’re a liar.

^^Like I said, I’m not assuming or saying you are a Christian nor am I assuming anything about your political affiliations. I’m saying you sound like them. The same way a preaching atheist sounds like a holy roller.

I’m not talking about what Dylan Roof said, I’m talking about what politicians who cater to the right wing tried to turn it into because it happened at a Christian church. Immediately I knew there was a 99% chance it was a racist act when I heard it was a black church. I was angry some politicians and Christians tried to twist it into a Christian event. It is disrespectful to the actual persecuted/attacked minority. Did you not see all those politicians and media Christians trying to say it was a Christian event and then talking about Christians being killed in the Middle East?! They are being oppressed, persecuted, and killed in the Middle East and it’s totally valid and should be more in the media, but it’s bullshit talk pertaining to America.

Did we not learn from previous experience not to feed the troll?

@JLeslie If you can’t point out the flaws in the logic of my commentary, then your opinion of what I sound like is irrelevant. Furthermore, If you’re going to compare me to the politicians who twist facts, you have to actually provide details explaining that claim instead of painting broad strokes. You explained what they did, but you failed to explain how anything I commented on similarly relates with what they did.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it is fair game to make assumptions based on a probability. Statistics give us a likelihood. They establish an average. They destroy the anecdotal evidence and the extreme lows and highs, but the topic is about the media and labels. Had this been a different topic, I would agree with you.

“Immediately I knew there was a 99% chance it was a racist act”

Did you read about the burglar who died in the chimney? I immediately knew it was either a black guy or a hispanic. Why? Well, because in the United States, the majority of our criminals, statistically, are black or non-white hispanic, even though they’re a minority of the overall U.S population. It isn’t, then, too much of a stretch to automatically assume it was a black guy or a hispanic. The probability is strong. They’re doing an autopsy on him right now, so we will find out soon enough, but, even if he is found to be white, it doesn’t negate the probability of criminals being predominantly black or hispanic.

I wouldn’t assume a burglar is black. Maybe, maybe if I knew it was in a black neighborhood, maybe I would guess he was black, but it wouldn’t occur to me without that detail.

A black church is completely different than a random burglary.

You might not be Christian, but you must be white.

“Immediately I knew there was a 99% chance it was a racist act”

Why? The majority of the U.S murderers, when broken down by ethnicity, are black, and black-on-black murder rates are much higher than black-on-white. The probability of the church shooter being black is extremely high. We obviously now know it was a white person, but we’re discussing probability, so this anecdotal incident doesn’t negate the stronger probability.

Because it was a black church.

Attacks at black churches

Ah. I didn’t realize that is what you meant earlier in your reply about it being a black church. Got it.

Are you being sarcastic?

No.

What did you think I meant by black church? I don’t get it?

The keyword is church. At the time I was reading your response, it didn’t occur to me to consider the historical violence against black churches. I was focused on the overall statistical violence, ignoring the context (church). You cleared that up.

Are you reading or watching any of the reports in the recent California shooting? None of the major networks were calling this a terrorist act. Why? Same reason as PP – there is no clear political goal.

As a probability argument, I already knew they were muslim terrorists based on the early reports of the behavior of the attacks. Sure enough, later on, the reports were saying they’re middle-easterners. One was ID’d as Syed Farooq. The media, however, still cannot call them terrorists because the political goal isn’t clear. They’re not ruling it out either, but there are reports that it might be workplace-violence. I call bullshit, but we will see.

My point is that arguments have to be made within the context of which questions are asked. Your probability argument has its place, just not in a topic of media and labels.

@Jackiavelli Same reason as PP – there is no clear political motive.

Planned Parenthood has been subject to several recent and not-so-recent political attacks. To claim there is no possible political motive is to ignore years of animosity towards that organization, animosity that is consistent with the alleged shooter’s mumblings about “baby parts.”

The possibility of there being a political goal is not the same as calling someone an outright terrorist. You’re making that leap without the evidence. You’re making that leap on a probability. The media can’t do that. That is why I just used the latest California shooting as an example. Media and officials are commenting that they’re not ruling out terrorism in the California shooting, but they’re not calling them outright terrorists either. I mean, we now know they’re middle-easterners, ISIS recently threatened the U.S several times, the behavior of the attacks resembles previous middle-eastern style attacks, yet they’re not called terrorists. Same argument you’re using for PP. Same answer—no clear political goal. That is subject to change, of course, once definitive information links to a clear political or religious goal.

Also, you cannot compare political attacks vs call-outs for acts of violence. There is a difference between saying Planned Parenthood kills babies so we need to defund them, v.s an ISIS calling for immediate death and destruction. Pro-life rhetoric does not encourage rational people into killing innocent people. A huge percentage of the population are pro-lifers and they’re not going around killing abortion doctors. Where in radical Islam, there are calls out to kill innocent westerners and statistically, large portion have no problem with killing westerners for the cause.

Furthermore, If you read the reports about the PP shooter, his historical behavior indicates that he has psychiatric problems. My very first reply has a link for details. This makes a lot more sense when you consider that the bulk of the recent mass-shootings were from murderers who had a history of mental illness.

@jackiavelli I don’t know how you can say the PP rhetoric doesn’t encourage this type of act. I feel pretty confident if they weren’t talking about killing babies and baby parts all over the media, and if churches weren’t dwelling on abortions, that people wouldn’t be so wound up about abortion.

Even if you don’t want to agree the guy is a terrorist, I would hope you would agree it’s terrorizing. There have been too many attacks on PP and similar to not now it is a target for the extreme pro-lifers. Anywhere from them picketing, calling names out to patrons of the clinics, to bombs and guns.

“I don’t know how you can say the PP rhetoric doesn’t encourage this type of act”

Easy – no evidence.

Show me the evidence of PP rhetoric that calls for immediate violence against Planned Parenthood. I’m not referring to anecdotal evidence, I’m referring to statistically significant evidence.

Show me the evidence that the shooter’s actions are linked to PP rhetoric. This is a violent mentally ill man who didn’t even identify with republicans. I will grant you that a possible motive is his religion (Christianity), however, church rhetoric isn’t calling for immediate acts of violence either other than proclaiming abortionists are going to burn in hell, if that. Picketing and name-callings are non-violent.

I have no problem with agreeing he is a terrorists should such evidence come forward, but when we’re talking about media and labels, I do not agree he is a terrorist. I also agree with you on the probability argument outside the realm of this topic. Like I said, all within context.

I agree that this PP shooting will elevate fears for those who utilize their services.

I also question your line of reasoning here. Are you trying to suggest that we have to limit freedom of speech because some nutjob might interpret it as a call for violence?

Is the author of the book “The Catcher in Rye” responsible for the Death of John Lennon because the book is the reason why Mark David Chapman killed Lennon?

Even if this nutjob killed these people because he heard “baby parts” that doesn’t mean Planned Parenthood is free from criticism.

You have the same faulty line of reasoning as was used in the Charlie Hebdo incident. One of the arguments was that if they would just stop drawing their pictures, it wouldn’t trigger violent reactions.

Hypocrisy is at play here as well. Left-wingers blame this shooting on right-wing PP rhetoric, but when there is a terrorist attack, left-wingers are saying that muslim terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. When a Black Lives Matter movement resists police, left-wingers say that the movement had nothing to do with the cause. When Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, left-wingers blamed conservative anti-JFK rhetoric. When Jared Loughner attacked Gabby Giffords, left-wingers blamed Sarah Palin. When a muslim terrorist shouts “Allahu Akhbar” while shooting people, left-wingers say that is not religious, but if someone prays for the victims, the left-wingers say they’re religious nutjobs.

Are you familiar with what Black Lives Matter chant during their movements? They chant “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon” (pigs is a derogatory term for cops). That rhetoric is a direct call for violence. How can you possibly compare that to PP rhetoric which calls for the defunding of Planned Parenthood because they’re killing babies and selling their parts? How can you compare PP rhetoric to ISIS rhetoric which openly calls for immediate death and destruction for all westerners? How can you compare that to Palestinian pastors who are waving knives while telling their congregants to stab Jews and how to do it?

I am not suggesting we limit free speech.

Are you keeping up with the California story? You see, now, when investigators found out that the motive was terrorism, the media is now calling the perpetrators terrorists. They weren’t calling them terrorists earlier even though it was pretty clear that they were terrorists. You need a clear motive.

I wonder why people are so quick to take a garden variety crime and want to slap a hate crime or terrorist label to it just to try to manufacture more malevolence or disdain against it, knowing people’s knee jerk visceral reactions, that is not too hard.

Because when you kill someone because they’re fucking your wife, it’s “garden variety” murder, and when you kill them because they’re gay or black or autistic, it’s a hate crime. That’s how words work.