Michael Dinowitz wrote: > "When it comes to fears about a terrorist attack, people in the U.S. usually > focus on Osama bin Laden and foreign-based radical groups. Yet researchers > say domestic extremists who commit violence in the name of their cause > abortion or the environment, for example account for most of the damage > from such incidents in this country." >
Oklahoma City. I'd be interested in seeing how this "damage" was measured. Number of incidents? Number of deaths? Dollar value of damage? I also think it's kinda silly to even make this comparison. If someone kills people or plans on killing people, particularly on US soil, it should be stopped. Doesn't matter if it's a terrorist, serial killer, or a drug gang. They should all be pursued with the same level of diligence. > and later on in the article it shows the truly evil nature of environmental > terrorists: > "Environmentalists don't need much. They need a spray can. They need a > match. They don't have to build a bomb," Damphousse said. > http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jX_q2P_bRYU8rHN78LPIqFAnY8MQD8US8KVG1 > Right before I moved to San Diego, an environmental terrorism group burned down a condo development near La Jolla. The fire burned so hot that it melted cars and the patio railings of a nearby apartment complex (that I lived in). It caused massive environmental damage, monetary damage, and put lives at risk. However, their intent was property damage, not killing innocent people, which is a key difference here. They have also destroyed entire stocks of car dealers and caused serious injuries in the logging industry. Environmental terrorists have different motivations, but they are just as nuts as any terrorist because they have no regard for human life and often do massive environmental damage in the name of environmental protection. > Crutcher notes that in the years 1993 and 1994, the worst period > of violence in pro-life history in which five abortionists and clinic > workers were killed, *more farmers* and *twice as many hairdressers* were > murdered on the job. (The total number of murders that have occurred since > Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 is *seven*.)" > Regardless of this guy's root point - this is a totally ridiculous argument. Comparing farmers and hairdressers (of which there are MANY MANY), to doctors who perform abortions (of which there are FAR fewer) by number killed and not by percentage is statistically invalid on it's face. Not to mention that if you considered the number of farmers and hairdressers that were killed by someone who hated farming or hairdressing there would be zero hate crimes. Whereas 100% of the killings of doctors my pro-life extremists were motivated by a hatred for their chosen profession. I'm sorry, but regardless of the feelings for the ideals behind the argument (which may be valid) - it's just a really really terrible argument. -Cameron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:254775 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
