Yes, it’s a tragedy.
No, it’s not terrorism.
I keep seeing people bring up the admittedly cogent point that if Jason Holmes was Mohammad Rezadeh the media would be crying terrorism faster than you can say “double standard”, but the problem isn’t that this is terrorism not being called such because it’s a white dude, but that it would have been called terrorism incorrectly.
What we have is a lunatic going on a killing spree. No political motivation, no grand vision for which instilling fear in the populace was necessary. Just a man with a broken mind who wanted to hurt a lot of people. Not terrorism.
I’m at a loss for words.
When people like me talk about the dangers of the religious right, this is what I mean. The worst you can say about “militant atheists” is that they act like douchebags and put up obnoxious billboards.
And once again (because it bears repeating) this is violence enacted with political aims intended to cause fear: terrorism.
Er, wait. I meant the other way around.
But one shocking detail in that story seemed to be overlooked in the AP’s lead: A criminal complaint against the group, obtained by Raw Story on Thursday, shows that Green’s sister believes he killed Ramirez “because Ramirez did not believe in God.”
All the details still aren’t in, but that’s close enough to at least get me concerned that it could be the case.
I just have no words. No fucking words.
Aden, a veteran of the war in Iraq, said in a statement, “To kill a child’s pet is just unconscionable. As a former combat soldier, I’ve seen the best of humanity and the worst of humanity. Whoever did this is definitely part of the worst of humanity.”
Aden made clear that he did not believe Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) or anyone involved with his campaign were involved in the incident, and Beau Walker, Womack’s campaign manager, strongly condemned it.
I give it a day before some right-wing group claims liberals did this just to foment anger against conservatives. Because, clearly, the tree-hugging tofu-eating peaceniks would kill a cat just to make a point.
I’m at a loss. As a person who’s always had animals in the house, it hurts me deeply. And, frankly, it’s textbook terrorism. Violence enacted to instill fear aiming toward political goals. This is terrorism.
Can someone explain to me why the gubmint insists on adding new laws and legislation vis a vis national security? Last I checked, whatever measures we’ve had for the past ten years are working fine. And hell, had some people not completely dropped the ball back in ’01, they would have worked just dandy then as well.
It’s starting to look like most lawmaking in relation to defense and security is just posturing to impress people and say “look at how tough on terrorism we are!”
I have to be 100% honest here. If there’s nothing the people can do, then why tell us?
Still, it’s good to know that the Obama administration is on top of terrorism. However, that’s kind of a catch 22: prevent all the attacks way early on and you don’t have the big glorious fight a la Bush. Just as Clinton about that.