It wasn’t always this way. Eric Rudolph got 4 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. Timothy McVeigh got the death penalty. Ted Kaczynski got 8 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Unfortunately after 9/11 we seem to have decided only brown people can be terrorists despite the fact that the FBI’s own data suggests right wing domestic terrorism has always posed a greater threat to us than that of foreign actors.
Edit: Attention apologists, I have zero interest in your attempts to downplay this person’s act of terrorism. You’re just going to be blocked.
Killed two people in multiple bombings, injured many more.
Timothy McVeigh
Killed 168 people. The OKC bombing was the 9/11 before 9/11.
Ted Kaczynski
Killed 3 people, and injured many more across multiple bombings.
The guy in the article threw a couple of fire bombs at an empty church in an attempt to stop something from happening there in the future.
Unfortunately after 9/11 we seem to have decided only brown people can be terrorists despite the fact that the FBI’s own data suggests right wing domestic terrorism has always posed a greater threat to us than that of foreign actors.
Now I’m not saying your conclusion is wrong, but the argument you made, based on the comparison to people who were intentionally trying to kill people (and successfully did so) to someone who apparently was not trying to kill anyone makes, is incredibly weak.
You’re getting downvoted, but you’re absolutely correct. People love to make false equivalence arguments to stir the pot because outrage is what it all about nowadays.
I’m not sure it’s outrage here, it’s more that people have already come to the conclusion that we were once strong against fascism, but now weak and this is an example. . .so pointing out that the evidence offered does not actually support the claim must be buried.
The funny thing, as someone else alluded to elsewhere in this thread, this is actually probably a stronger response than we would have seen 20 or certainly 50 years ago. The guy was nailed with a hate crime, which almost certainly upped the punishment. Additionally, as that other poster said, the KKK used to fire bomb churches and lynch black people and get off scot-free.
I don’t think comparing the punishment of murderers and serial killers to that of an arsonist is a good argument to make. All it is- is a bad faith attempt to outrage people by comparing apples to oranges for the sake of further promoting ignorance via sensationalism.
I mean, you’re comparing serial killers/murderers to an arsonist that killed no one so that you can have an argument that we’re going lax on these people?
It wasn’t always this way. Eric Rudolph got 4 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. Timothy McVeigh got the death penalty. Ted Kaczynski got 8 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Unfortunately after 9/11 we seem to have decided only brown people can be terrorists despite the fact that the FBI’s own data suggests right wing domestic terrorism has always posed a greater threat to us than that of foreign actors.
Edit: Attention apologists, I have zero interest in your attempts to downplay this person’s act of terrorism. You’re just going to be blocked.
Idk. The KKK blew up an awful lot of churches.
And most of the perps got off scott free. :/
He’s dead!! He died last year. I found his manifesto interesting in my teens. Didn’t know he died.
deleted by creator
Killed two people in multiple bombings, injured many more.
Killed 168 people. The OKC bombing was the 9/11 before 9/11.
Killed 3 people, and injured many more across multiple bombings.
The guy in the article threw a couple of fire bombs at an empty church in an attempt to stop something from happening there in the future.
Now I’m not saying your conclusion is wrong, but the argument you made, based on the comparison to people who were intentionally trying to kill people (and successfully did so) to someone who apparently was not trying to kill anyone makes, is incredibly weak.
You’re getting downvoted, but you’re absolutely correct. People love to make false equivalence arguments to stir the pot because outrage is what it all about nowadays.
I’m not sure it’s outrage here, it’s more that people have already come to the conclusion that we were once strong against fascism, but now weak and this is an example. . .so pointing out that the evidence offered does not actually support the claim must be buried.
The funny thing, as someone else alluded to elsewhere in this thread, this is actually probably a stronger response than we would have seen 20 or certainly 50 years ago. The guy was nailed with a hate crime, which almost certainly upped the punishment. Additionally, as that other poster said, the KKK used to fire bomb churches and lynch black people and get off scot-free.
Weak? Really? I’m not sure I agree.
I don’t think comparing the punishment of murderers and serial killers to that of an arsonist is a good argument to make. All it is- is a bad faith attempt to outrage people by comparing apples to oranges for the sake of further promoting ignorance via sensationalism.
I mean, you’re comparing serial killers/murderers to an arsonist that killed no one so that you can have an argument that we’re going lax on these people?
Come on man.
deleted by creator
You’re a coward.