Relativism and Anarchy

Polimom

I appreciate the commonality you wish to show between extremists from both ends of the spectrum, but at least at TMV, have you actually seen evidence that left-end extremists have been justified by anyone? I mean, if there was even one poster who defended the Muslim who just shot the two soldiers (jwest's personal example), I could understand your point. But as it is here, aren't you presenting a kind of false equivalency?

In the past few days, there's been variations of "I'm sorry he's dead, but he was a murderer" meme posted in most every feedback section for articles published here about Tiller. Which article post at TMV elicited similar responses from the left leaning posters? Who on the left made allowance for murder?

I'm really asking.

HemmD

You might be missing my point.

I don’t know of anyone here (or anywhere that I’ve seen) justifying the killing of Tiller. Yes, there are people who aren’t really upset about it, but there seems to be unanimity that it was wrong.

As to the soldiers being shot, I was making the point that there have been a dozen articles about this partial birth abortionist being killed by a lone nut case, but very little about two soldiers being killed by a lone Muslim nut case.

The balance was considerably off to the point that it seemed like the left leaning community at TMV didn’t care about victims from the military (unless, of course, they were hurt where George Bush could be blamed).

Hope this clears up my stand.

Violent Lefty extremism ended with racial riots, Vietnam and Kent State. Since 1990 most violence is from fringe Right wing groups. About the worst from the Left is from the radical eco crowd, and none of their violence is directed attacks at their enemies list. Booby trapping a tree or arson to stop urban sprawl has resuled in death, but where is the assassinations or large scale bombings from the Left?

HemmD, what makes you think I was specifically trying to call out TMV?

In the past few days, there's been variations of "I'm sorry he's dead, but he was a murderer" meme posted in most every feedback section for articles published here about Tiller.

I haven't been here much -- but I've seen a lot of that all over the place. What I'm saying is that such comments are essentially the same as attempting to justify or mitigate the actions of a radical leftist. And vice-versa. And I'm willing to bet that somebody saying "I'm sorry he's dead, but..." does NOT see him/herself as having anything in common with an eco-terrorism sympathizer. (And again -- vice-versa.)

And jwest -- FWIW -- although I understand that you're objecting to what you describe as a lack of balance, I don't personally see the Little Rock murder as fitting neatly into the US domestic policy / violence / anarchist spectrum.

Rudi helps me make my point.

About the worst from the Left is from the radical eco crowd, and none of their violence is directed attacks at their enemies list. Booby trapping a tree or arson to stop urban sprawl has resuled in death, but where is the assassinations or large scale bombings from the Left?

One type of intimidation and violence is apparently excusable, or better, than another? I disagree.

PM
"what makes you think I was specifically trying to call out TMV? "

Then I ask with all respect, Why post this?

"Leaving aside the obvious immediate answer (the Tiller story was a current event and the extremist left was not), there’s a valid question here."

The point remains. The equivalency is valid only if both positions are represented. I know of none here who as given ELF, ALF, or BARF any credence whatsoever. If you want to talk about anywhere else, consider using the rhetoric of extremist Muslims who also believe their insight into God's thoughts allows them to kill in his name. That equivalency parallels most accurately.

HemmD -- I see. So you're saying that I can only post here if I'm interested in an internal naval-gaze?

PoliMom, a thought-provoking article and I agree with you for the most part. When reading it I thought of post-9/11 debates where the point was raised "Yes what the terrorists did was wrong, but in order for us to prevent further attacks we have to understand why they did it'. Many people, including some politicians, felt that the US had not done enough to make friends with the Middle East and that 9/11 was at least partially a result of that.

My response usually is no matter what the US did 9/11 was a hugely disproportionate response. Still there is some truth to the argument that if someone hates us it's not a bad idea to figure out why so maybe things can change.

I am pro-choice, but Tiller was working in a gray area. The reason there are not a lot of doctors doing third-trimester abortions isn't just because they're afraid of being attacked, it's because for most doctors ethically it's very borderline. If people don't understand that they will not completely understand why Tiller was attacked, not just by his killer but by so many others. There is a fine line between mitigating someone's acts and understanding why they were done.

Personally I hope they string up Tiller's murderer. He doesn't deserve to live. But Tiller was what he was and his death doesn't change that.

Polimom, yes, your thread is getting conflated with some others that have preceded you........as well as the fact that there is also some conflating of topics.

jwest called out Pete Abel for "re-publishing" (my new word for TMV authors who simply cut and paste from someone else's blog) yet another minor point about right leaning blogs hazing Obama for his bad math in declaring the US a leading Muslim population country..........while TMV authors generally avoid "republishing" anything about the Arkansas murder of servicemen.

HemmD's protests caused me to go looking for lefty comments in poor taste about the Arkansas murders, which provided the following revelation...........the Arkansas murders have not appeared in the lefty blogs.

I don't wish to hijack your thread, so I will just leave you with this question for pondering.....why do you suspect it was not reported there?

Could it be that there is no outrage about extremists from the left because the clever lefty blog owners quash the reporting of situations that would give rise to it?

Not at all. And I think you know that. I would even say that not many would be interested in the internals of your naval.

I merely pointed out a parallel I believe was more apt to the comparison you were writing about. I do find it remarkable, however, that a lack of introspection by some posters seems very pertinent to this subject.

To be very clear, I officially give you license to write whatever you want.

I hate to disappoint you Rudi, but when you talk about groups such as ALF, they have escalated their attacks on any scientists doing animal research, and have now thought it prudent to use firebombs directly on researchers' houses. From the Chronicle of Higher Education (Subscription site), August 2008:

One firebomb exploded before dawn, damaging the home of David A. Feldheim and forcing him, his wife, and their two small children to escape on a ladder from a second-story window. Mr. Feldheim badly bruised his feet in the escape. A car outside the home of another researcher, who has not been identified and who lives on the campus, was destroyed around the same time by another bomb.

The attacks escalate the trend of increasing violence and frequency of actions by people who oppose research involving animals. Scientists around the country now feel more at risk, said Jeffrey H. Kordower, a professor of neurological sciences at Rush University Medical Center and chairman of the Committee on Animals in Research, part of the Society for Neuroscience. (emphasis mine).

There are over 4,800 "similar articles" just in the past three years alone, according to their search engine. I'm not going to make light of it in any case, whether it comes from the left or from the right. I happen to be a research scientist and although I don't do anything with animals, I would certainly be feeling intimidated if I knew my house was up next for a firebombing.

I wasn't aware of the violence as far as numbers go with groups like ALF. This link to the SPLCenter is interesting:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/arti...

Extremists within the environmental and animal rights movements have committed literally thousands of violent criminal acts in recent decades — arguably more than those from any other radical sector, left or right.

Although these extremists have yet to kill anyone in America, they have carried out arsons, firebombings, assaults, and attacks on animal-based businesses and laboratories.

This February, an FBI official testified to Congress that what he characterized as the leading eco-terrorist groups – the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) — had committed more than 600 criminal acts since 1996 that resulted in a minimum of $43 million in damage.

What follows is a selection of 1984-2002 incidents, drawn from ALF/ELF communiqués, media reports, law enforcement officials and publications of the movement.

Let's just hope that the zero deaths record stay intact. Please provide a link to verify - There are over 4,800 "similar articles".

Rudi -- Interestingly enough, I spent a little bit of time browsing SPLC as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that they are making similar arguments to what the Right was making after the release of the DHS report on right-wing extremists. In 2005, they were critical of DHS for focusing too much on groups such as ALF:

But for all the property damage they have wreaked, eco-radicals have killed no one — something that cannot be said of the white supremacists and others who people the American radical right.

While I agree that the groups SPLC mentions should be highlighted, there is no way I can excuse the actions of eco-groups just because they haven't killed anyone yet. What happens when they do? They've been coming pretty close lately as I tried to point out in my link to The Chronicle. I don't mean to draw this out and detract from PM's original post (if I am, I apologize), but this is somewhat of an upfront personal issue with me, as I have quite a few friends and colleagues who have been threatened for the research they do. My point is simply, terrorism is terrorism, regardless of which side of the political aisle it comes from and nobody should have to put up with it.

As far as the 4800 'similar articles', here's the link that I used. I put 'similar articles' in quotes just because they have a link to "find similar" to the one I originally cited. Not every one of these articles documents a separate issue, so I'll apologize if I dramatized it. If I simply search for "attacked animal research" the total number is half.

I'm not trying to get in a tit-for-tat here, but I would simply like to reiterate my point: terrorism is terrorism regardless of which side of the political aisle it comes from, and nobody should have to put up with it

What Jchem said.

For a list of violent actions directed at people, murder, assassination, committed by the left wing/eco groups, see http://www.furcommission.com/resource/perspect9...

Southern Poverty Law Center wrote on some of these, but this article list more. Sobering stuff.

At the far left are the eco-anarchists. Anarchists are usually labeled as far right but there are plenty of them on the left too.

To me this line of reasoning functions (intentionally or not) as a means to attentuate the seriousness of Tiller's murder. The suggestion that outrage in this case is somehow inappropriate because there hasn't been sufficient perceived outrage over a crime coming from what is seen to be an opposing ideology is like some bizarro world version of political correctness. Who exactly is served by that? A crime is a crime. If you think tit for tat outrage is important, then make more noise next time you think the balance is tipping the wrong way. Good grief...

Polimom

I just wanted a minute of your time where I wasn't intruding on Kathy's or anyone else's post. First and foremost, I really hope the misunderstanding between us can be resolved with this note.

My intention in our exchange concerning the left and right extremist article you wrote was never to question to your right to write on any subject you deem fit. For me to assert anything along that line is absurd on the face of it. As I also said, I don't think you really thought that was what I was saying. Maybe you did.

The paralells you drew between left and right extremists and their apologists seemed to me a stretch and I tried to present a comparison I saw as more apt. Clearly, the way I worded that whole thing was inept as it certainly seemed to make you annoyed. And again, for this I apologize.

My comment in this morning's post was based upon the fact that you clearly had a problem with Kathy's comparison between drunk kids and a conservative position held in Israel. Maybe I misunderstood your point this morning. The problem with Kathy's paralell seemed to me at least the mirror image of the structural argument I had made about your post. Her use of drunk kids was a poor example for stating a political position, and my criticism of using ELF was in my mind a poor example of apologists. That comparison between our two criticisms was why I responded today.

I am not writing you to try to convince you about any of this. I merely wanted to explain a little more fully my unintended contribution to any confusion I have caused. My response today was in no way meant to be snarky. I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

You may wish to merely let this drop without responding, but I would welcome any thoughts if you are so inclined.

Thanks for reading.