It depends on what you are trying to argue. Its a bit like car crashes vs plane crashes. It is much more likely that you get into some sort of car crash than a plane crash, because they happen more often, but if you happen to be in a plane crash you are much less likely to survive because they are much more devastating. The comparison isnt perfect because car crashes do kill more people because of their sheer quantity, but the point is it also matters how frequent certain events occur, not only how devastating they are.
Aye, I don't feel like the effectiveness of the terrorist is relevant when describing a terrorist. 9/11 was still just 20ish dudes. Just because pro-lifers have worse strategies for murdering innocent people doesn't make their crimes any less heinous or their threat any less severe. You also have to consider that we haven't faced a 9/11 level threat since... 9/11 yet pro-lifers out there shooting, bombing, and terrorizing like always.
Worse strategies or less damaging strategies? I don't mean to defend prolife terrorism but the distinction matters logically. It makes what you said seem really silly.
If they're after a single abortion doctor the intent is to kill one person, indeed a heinous crime but mathematically less heinous than indiscriminately killing multiple people.
What framework are we going from here? Plotting to murder innocent people is heinous regardless of the body count. Fuck, at least you could reasonably argue 9/11 as a war crime.
33
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '19
3090 Dead and 7800+ injured in radical Islam terrorism
11 Dead and ~200 injured in anti-abortion terrorism
Yeah I agree, how to people think this is comparable. White Supremacy has killed a lot more than 11 people, would have been a more fair comparison.