Do gunmen get a pass on being labeled terrorists?

One versus many? One lone nut job shooting up a building versus a group that trained and prepared like the Paris terrorists? Fort Hood was judged to be workplace violence partially because the shooter acted alone. San Bernardino was judged to be terrorism because it was at least two shooters.

Would the DC sniper pair be called terrorists? There seems to be no hard and fast rules.

I believe he could be labeled an evangelical christian terrorist, as he was part of the network of evangelical christians calling for violence against not only abortion providers but even those health agencies perceived to provide abortions. Since some are so quick to label the San Bernadino couple radical islamic terrorists as they performed their heinous acts in the name of Islam, then you must also label those who perpetrate violence in the name of Christ and/or the Lord as Christian terrorists.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I believe he could be labeled an evangelical christian terrorist, as he was part of the network of evangelical christians calling for violence against not only abortion providers but even those health agencies perceived to provide abortions. Since some are so quick to label the San Bernadino couple radical islamic terrorists as they performed their heinous acts in the name of Islam, then you must also label those who perpetrate violence in the name of Christ and/or the Lord as Christian terrorists.

Makes sense.

So, for you, is he an evangelical christian terrorist?

Since the PP location was closed down for a while and they couldn't provide abortion services, did the shooter actually save more humans than he killed on that one day?

From the FWIW Department, I vote 'yes' on him being labeled a terrorist, as the word simply means someone who terrorizes. There are no political or religious boundaries affiliated with that act itself. Anyone who infringes on the life, liberty, and rights of another therefore qualifies.

The FBI gives three 'official' categories of terrorism. Interestingly enough, none mention religious slants:
www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Without me meandering off into a diatribe on the societal blight known as abortion, perhaps we can all agree that anyone can do anything while invoking a particular name. "It's his fault", "the devil made me do it", "you brought this on yourself", or "allahu akbar" while lopping off someone's head. One could scream "Hickenlooper!!!!!" while taking a chainsaw to one's neighbor, but in that obviously ridiculous example, the governor called for no such act.

So any psychotic d'bag can set himself or herself up as a terrorist, based on a message revealed in their SpaghettiOs or whatever delusional (mis)interpretation they think justifies their act of terror. Doesn't make them a true believer, merely a true asshole.

I have no problem with calling a Christian who kills in the name of Christianity to be called a Christian extremist terrorist and I'm sure the left as a whole would not have a problem with that label either. But our cowardly hypocrite of a president won't use the term Islamic extremist (nor will most prominent Democrats).

It's not about offending a particular religion, or race, or gender.... it's about ACCURATELY describing a perpetrator(s) who decides to kill innocent people. This really is a stupid argument brought on by a devolving PC society of wimps.

Side note: the nut job "terrorist" called Planned Parenthood to get directions because he was lost. No good deed goes unpunished? If they wouldn't have answered the call, they might have prevented the tragedy.

ScienceChic wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Since the PP location was closed down for a while and they couldn't provide abortion services, did the shooter actually save more humans than he killed on that one day?

Well, if you're going to look at it that way, probably not. I'm sure whomever wanted an abortion would go elsewhere as that's kind of time-sensitive. Do remember that Planned Parenthood provides far more services than that, and the people he killed weren't there to get an abortion (from what I remember reading in the news stories anyway), they were innocent bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time, and a cop just trying to do his job.

Regardless of which, the big difference is abortion is legal; murder is not. You don't like the laws on the books? Work the system to get them changed and abide by what the majority of the citizens in this country want. Don't want an abortion, don't have one - you don't go killing people because you don't like what they're doing. He is a terrorist in my book.

This sums it up pretty well. There are laws for a reason. Laws can be changed if you don't like them, but until they are changed, you must accept them. This is part of living in a civilized society.