“On Fox News this afternoon,” reports the Washington Examiner’s Sean Higgins, “Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told host Megyn Kelly that he believed the shooting yesterday that injured a guard at the group’s DC headquarters fit the definition of domestic terrorism:”
I spent about five years working with the State Department on anti-terrorism back in the 90s and training foreign police officers in anti-terrorism, so I’m somewhat familiar with what terrorism is. Terrorism is designed to intimidate and to drive people back and make them fearful. That, I believe, would describe what they tried to do yesterday here at the Family Research Council and by extension to traditional values supporters,(and) Christians across the nation.
No, the shooting yesterday was not an action designed to intimidate, but instead the actions of a disturbed young man acting alone, just as were the shootings in Arizona and Colorado.
And although gay organizations may have adopted rather harsh rhetoric toward social conservatives, like those who work at the FRC, they do not advocate — or even encourage — violence against such organizations.
Well, it’s definitely something other than a crime, if not exactly “organized terrorism” a la ETA, the IRA or Al Qaeda.
If the guard had been shot by his girlfriend for cheating on her, say … then it’s a private-motivated crime with no broader implication.
But there can be NO doubt that this was politically motivated. And you really have to be incredulous to think that the years-long pattern calling FRC a hate group and the entire intellectual edifice of “hatred” and “bigotry” wasn’t a contributing factor in justifying this action in the perp’s mind.
I don’t understand why you would try to make a distinction between an act by a crazy person and terrorism, as if they belong in different categories. Crazy people can commit terrorist acts. The stated motive for this attack was political. That is different from a Jared Loughner figure who’s just batty and doesn’t make any political statements.
It’s important to recognize that crazy people can commit acts of terrorism. We see it often enough when a Muslim man flips out and decides to make jihad, whether it means shooting at people in an airport or running them down with an SUV. Just because he’s a batsh-t crazy goof doesn’t mean his actions are not terrorism. If they weren’t steeped in hateful pro-terrorist rhetoric at their mosques, they would probably have flipped out differently (like jumping off a bridge, or shooting themself in the face, instead of trying to commit acts of mass murder).
I think it was a hate crime.
As to terrorism, it has a specific meaning. In conducting a war, combatants who don’t wear uniforms to distinguish them from civilians, and also who target or specifically involve civilians, are terrorists.
Hate crime … yes, clearly. Absolutely.
From the Blaze: “David Mariner is executive director of The DC Center for the LGBT Community. He says [the shooter] had been volunteering at the center for about the past 6 months. Mariner describes [the shooter] as “kind, gentle and unassuming.””
He showed up at the doorstep of the FRC with guns and a bag of Chick-Fil-A, precisely what someone as described above would do if he was playing with a full deck of cards. Not.
But, hey, if you want to liken the matter to an anti-abortionist sniper taking out medial doctors in their home derived from a specified list of names, please feel free.
*Everyone* who walks into a place and starts shooting, is in some sense “not playing with a full deck.” It seems that, according to the speaker’s politics, some are to be spun as true crazies who acted almost randomly, while others are to be spun as true threats to the Republic. Even though there is no real difference between them.
Funny, the Tucson, Aurora, and Milwaukee shooters were represented by you and your “voice of reason” Levi as completely stable people who were operating under the instructions given to them by Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, and the Republican Party.
Choking on the medicine, are we, Cinesnatch/walker? Having a little trouble playing by the rules on which you insisted?
ND30, Being on this site for nearly two years, I have learned some valuable lessons and have been more careful about how I express myself and what words I choose. It has been about a year since I retracted what I said about the Giffords shooting and ate crow. Sorry, if your reading comprehension skills and/or memory fail you. But, for the record, AGAIN, I will go on record as saying I misspoke and gave in to my emotions, rather than allowing a cooler head to prevail at the time. But, if you want to hang onto that like you ignore questions you don’t like to answer, because it would mean admitting you were wrong, go ahead.
As with all of the recent shootings, the gunmen all have two things in common: 1) They’re male, and 2) They’re tragically mentally-deranged.
Please compare the Arizona shooting to the Wisconsin massacre less than two weeks ago. A man shot up a Sikh Temple (read: not Muslim). Did you see the media and Democrats getting on their high-horse, confusing the issue, and claiming it was because of the anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. with the same adamance they they threw darts as Palin’s rifle scope targets? No. I think the left learned a harsh lesson to not put their foot in their mouth so easily. You even saw a tempering with the Colorado shooting. If I recall, ABC was the only network to “go there” with making insinuations against the Tea Party. And, if you recall, I called for the correspondent to be fired.
Use what you would from your LOL (Library of Links), but, use them more responsibly in the future.
FYI, Walker has been commenting on the other thread, genius. But, perhaps, your interest is to summon him here.
Perkins may be an idiot, but here he’s simply following the playbook of the “Hate-Crime Laws Now!” crowd. A typical justification for such laws is that Hate Crimes do not affect only the victim, but purportedly “strike fear into the entire community of vulnerable minorities,” etc.
(Which, admittedly, might be true if you’re talking about a tiny little town with only six openly-gay people — but it’s a stretch to claim that the beating of a gay man in West Hollywood somehow “paralyzes” the entire LGBT Community of Los Angeles. Mainly, the only thing paralyzed will be vehicular traffic during the inevitable protest march.)
Lie. Just read the comments.
Total lie.
The left is not learning any lesson. They continue to be disgusting, irresponsible, hypocritical bigots.
What Daryl said, and also CourageMan.
I would add that, given the civilian nature of FRC, this shooting perhaps more easily qualifies as Terrorism™ than, for instance, the “Islamikaze” boat attack on the U.S.S. Cole. (Which has often been characterized as “terrorism” simply because of the Al Qaeda link, even though “irregular paramilitary attack” might be more applicable.)
Ultimately, a lot depends on what the shooter believed his goal to be. If his goal was to kill the 3-headed shapeshifter from Tau Ceti who had taken the form of a human security guard, then he’s not a terrorist — he’s just floridly psychotic. But if his goal was to strike a political blow against the KKKhristianist Fourth Reich that oppresses gay people, then he’s a terrorist.
Throbert, as “excessive” of a reaction your example correctly illustrates (yes, I ENTIRELY agree with you when you say, “it’s a stretch to claim that the beating of a gay man in West Hollywood somehow “paralyzes” the entire LGBT Community of Los Angeles.”), such a protest, when publicized, would serve as an example to smaller communities watching in the U.S., as well as in less developed countries.
It is the seemingly “excessive” demonstrations, as well as Western media and entertainment, that helped plant the seeds of gay rights in countries like Uganda. When one of those “tiny little towns” or countries see this outwardly show of protest or PRIDE, it creates and inspires those who live in communities who have much further to go.
Just an observation.
http://cinesnatch.blogspot.com/2012/07/theatre-review-missionary-position.html
http://cinesnatch.blogspot.com/2012/06/la-film-festival-review-call-me-kuchu.html
Agree. I think of it as one of those 2×2 matrices:
– Wear a uniform, target people wearing uniforms: you’re an honorable combatant.
– Wear a uniform, target civilians: you may be a war criminal.
– Don’t wear a uniform, target people wearing uniforms: you’re an irregular/paramilitary, often called “terrorist” by mistake, or for propaganda.
– Don’t wear a uniform, target civilians: you’re an f-ing dirty terrorist.
(continued) The above referring to combatants. The FRC shooter is more of a plain criminal and, as politically-socially motivated, a hate criminal.
ND30 >> If you believe the mainstream media reached the LEVEL of “outrage” against the right with the Wisconsin shooting, as they did with the Arizona shooting 18 months previous, then, please, by all means, continue to believe so. If I’m not going to convince you otherwise, maybe one of your allies will step in. But, then, monkeys would fly out of my butt if that happened.
Again, I have gone on record that the long-time ABC correspondent (and whomever shared the information with him) who floated the Tea Party insinuation with the Colorado shooter should be fired or, a the very least, reprimanded. Although, firing him would send a clearer message.
LOL.
That is like insisting that weaker Japanese resistance on islands that were bombed first was due to those islands being manned by cowards.
The media never got the chance because conservatives learned the game. Conservatives stopped assuming that leftists and the media were decent people who truly believed in “innocent until proven guilty” and evidence, and started recognizing that Obama and his Obama Party were desperate, hateful, amoral liars who would say and do anything to destroy conservatives.
In short, Cinesnatch, you and your fellow leftists didn’t change your views that conservatives were responsible. You just recognized the utter hell you would bring down upon yourself if you aired them.
ND30, I repeat, the ABC news correspondent who insinuated Tea Party affiliation with the Colorado shooter should be fired or reprimanded. If you disagree with this, then, please respond.
On a similar note, I have sat in dozens of churches, heard hundreds, maybe thousands, of sermons in eight states, four countries, and three continents. And I have never once in any church heard any Christian minister, priest, pastor, or bishop advocate violence against gays or non-believers.
Not even the WBC advocates that gay people be killed or beaten.
VTK, If you have attended mass in Uganda, I imagine your experience would have been very different.
Nothing expresses the advocacy for life and someone’s safety more than the hope for them to burn in Hell.
And yet, Cinesnatch and his Barack Obama Party wish for Republicans to be killed and for their children to die, and for them to kill themselves, and nothing.
So once again, this is not an argument on principle; it is an attempt to shut conservatives up.
And since it’s an attempt to shut people up, Cinesnatch is nothing more than a wannabe fascist, an abuser, an exploiter, and a liar.
ND30, I repeat, the ABC news correspondent who insinuated Tea Party affiliation with the Colorado shooter should be fired or reprimanded. If you disagree with this, then, please respond.
Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 6:12 pm – August 16, 2012
You’re lying, Cinesnatch.
Because, as we see on this very blog, you can’t even bring yourself to reprimand Levi for doing the same thing and worse.
Just like you were all about protesting and picketing when you had an excuse not to, and then turned all cowardly when it was pointed out that you had your very own Nation of Islam to picket in LA.
Your words mean nothing, Cinesnatch. You’ve already proven to numerous people here that you will say and do anything to get what you want.
Really? So you’re saying that the Catholic Church in Uganda is advocating violence against gays during the Mass? Please substantiate this. The Church may be involving itself in politics too much, especially in countries like Uganda, and no doubt it could be said that its actions and inactions have helped generate a bad climate for gays in places like Uganda, which is worthy of condemnation, but never have I heard of the Church outright advocating violence against gays or anyone else. Well, at least not for a few centuries.
JohnAGJ >> Please contact Ntare Guma Mbaho Mwine and he can educate you further. http://www.facebook.com/ntare.mwine.
And/or contact Katherine Fairfax Wright @ http://www.facebook.com/katy.f.wright
and/or Malika Zouhali-Worrall @ http://www.facebook.com/malika.zouhaliworrall,
filmmakers of Call Me Kuchu.
They know infinitely more on the subject than I do and can answer all your questions and address all of your doubts.
And, please feel free to get back in touch with me with you experience:
cinesnatch.blogspot.com
Thank You. You sound like you’re very interested in the subject matter and I’m anxious to hear what you learn.
Regards,
Cinesnatch
Western religious influence in Uganda is less than 150 years old. Before missionaries arrived, homosexuality was accepted in the culture. Today, it is very much a different picture. Ask David Kato. Whoops. You can’t. The first openly gay person and civil rights activist in Uganda (who came out in 1998) was murdered last year.
Also, feel free to visit the links in Post #14.
Regards,
Cinesnatch
“No, the shooting yesterday was not an action designed to intimidate, but instead the actions of a disturbed young man acting alone, just as were the shootings in Arizona and Colorado.”
This what is deemed as classic denial of an individual manifesting histrionic and passive-aggressive personality disorders. It was always inevitable that borderline confrontational behavior by those that manifest BPD within the homosexual/bisexual community would behave as the shooter. Absent the instances of early diagnosis of familial schizophrenia,
we can count on more instances of BPD from the homosexual/bisexual community as we approach November.
I predict that we can count on no instances of the such.
I find in entertaining that one must reach to Africa to find ‘cases’ of people claiming to be Christians advocating violence, while examples of the left advocating violence can be found here at home. Furthermore, I don’t see any condemnation of Islam, either Calypso Louie or the Sudan, Iran, etc etc.
I am going to disagree, here. The difference between mass murder and terrorism is that the latter is ideologically motivated. Was Corkins’s objective made murder? 45 rounds in his backpack say yes. Was he ideologically motivated? Yes, by his own admission. The domestic terrorism label fits.
But, there I go again applying cold logic to the situation.
The_Livewire
I didn’t find Call Me Kucho, Mwine’s multi-media production, or David Kato’s death entertaining at all. Wish you could have sat right next to me during Kucho and the Mwine production, The_Livewire. Quite a sobering experience about how Christianity can be used as a deathly tool in the 21st-century. And, Africa isn’t any farther from the U.S. than the Middle-East, which conservative commenters on GP often reference when expressing their faux outrage at sanctioned Muslim violence against gays.
TL: What’s more, any Romans or Anglicans advocating violence in Africa are going very much against the doctrine and explicit wishes of their religion’s top leaders. But Muslims who advocate violence against gays? Not so much.
ILC, that is a most important distinction.
Well Cinesnatch, you do know your ‘faux’, I’ll give you lots of credit there.
And the larger point, V, that somehow the Gay Left only ever manages to see the ‘Christian’ threat to the lives of gay people – even where, as in Europe and America, such a threat is in fact imaginary – seems over the head of some.
Christians who disapprove of homosexuality will pray for you. Muslims who disapprove of homosexuality will kill you. Only a complete moral retard would see moral equivalence.
But it IS significantly farther than the religious group pushing ostracism, criminialization, and execution for homosexuality right in your own backyard.
Especially when said group has the endorsement and support of the US government and the Obama Party that you support and endorse.
So frankly, Snatchy, it’s quite obvious that you don’t care about hate speech, or hate rhetoric, or politicians teaming up with hate groups.
What you care about is bashing Christians. That’s it.
You’re a bigot, Cinesnatch. That needs to be proclaimed far and wide: Cinesnatch is a hypocritical anti-Christian bigot.
It may be a little more complicated than that — remember that in global and historical terms, “homosexuality” has often been understood to mean pederasty or abuse of adult male slaves/POWs or other “power imbalance” relationships. In other words, “egalitarian adult homosexuality” has not necessarily been the phenomenon that was “accepted” by indigenous cultures until mean ol’ white Christians came along.
And the Ugandan story is further complicated by the notoriety of Mwanga II, the 19th-century Ugandan king who (definitely) had a lot of male servants put to death after they converted to Christianity, and who (also definitely) was bisexual, and who (allegedly) was motivated in part because these male servants got all uppity and refused to do their Traditional Duty of performing homosexual favors for the king.
(However, Mwanga had a long known history of harrassing Christians for their “subversive” activities, so it’s difficult to be 100% sure why he ordered his male pages burned at the stake.)
Why would I contact 3 complete strangers out-of-the-blue for an answer to a charge you yourself made? The third link, btw, doesn’t work. You made a specific charge that the Catholic Church in Uganda is advocating violence against gays during the Mass. This would be extremely sacriligeous and while I have no doubt that some local Catholic clerics/laypersons are helping to foment the negative climate against gays in that country, either through their actions or deliberate inaction, this charge you’ve made is quite shocking even to a lapsed Catholic such as myself. Hence why I asked you to substantiate it because such a thing would be very scandalous.
The first openly gay person and civil rights activist in Uganda (who came out in 1998) was murdered last year.
And was he murdered because the Catholic Church advocated such during the Mass, or are you throwing in a non-sequitor in order to tar it with this man’s killing?
Freudian slip? Mathematicians know that the only way that one quantity in comparison (ratio) can be “infinitely” greater than another, is when the other is… zero.