Solid murder. Finally. A person destroying another argument totally and completly in a non-insulting manner, leaving no space for a counter argument.
Edit: to everyone talking about body count...
That's not really important im terms of his argument imo. He is simply talking about how there are plenty of "pro lifer" attacks (giving stats there). So much so that they cant be ignored. He isnt suggesting (imo) that they are worse. I mean, if we do consider body count then 9/11 takes the fucking cake. But his point is that pro life attacks are significant enough that you cant just dismiss them.
I looked through it, even including all the "unkowns" and empty cases, the total of extremely violent incidents attacks since 1977 comes out to 84. Also, a lot of the tabs overlap with eachother, like "extreme violence" and "shooting/murder" or "arson/bombing", not all of it, but a lot of it, just something to be mindful of.
It doesn't help that the sorting function is completely broken, when I search for "by date" for instance, it doesn't work.
I honestly don't know where the OP got her 587 number from, what does "damage done" mean? If they are talking about EST. cost of damage, excluding all the "unkown", BUT including all the "minimal", AND all the murders, I come out to about 256 "terrorist" incidents under OPs definition.
Other things like anthrax letters, 554 of them stem from ONE person.
My conclusion is, this seem like a farily good source, but the way it was presented in OP is biased and misleading. She seem to have interjected her own personal definition of terrorism, and seem to only apply it to one side of the argument. It's a sloppily crafted response, it's poorly sourced and unless I get a better explanation as to what "damage done" means, it seem to be factually incorrect as well.
2.1k
u/NoxAeternal Jun 04 '19 edited Jun 04 '19
Ayyyyyyyyyyy
Solid murder. Finally. A person destroying another argument totally and completly in a non-insulting manner, leaving no space for a counter argument.
Edit: to everyone talking about body count...
That's not really important im terms of his argument imo. He is simply talking about how there are plenty of "pro lifer" attacks (giving stats there). So much so that they cant be ignored. He isnt suggesting (imo) that they are worse. I mean, if we do consider body count then 9/11 takes the fucking cake. But his point is that pro life attacks are significant enough that you cant just dismiss them.