McVeigh was in the Michigan Militia, which all but disbanded shortly after the bombing. If it turns out that Loughner belonged to such a group, sure, that's a mitigating factor.
McVeigh killed over a hundred people. Loughner killed six (at this point).
McVeigh was not apparently targeting anyone specific. Loughner was. Palin and her compatriots told him who the Evil Democrats were, and he tried to kill the closest one.
If other information comes to light that Loughner was tied to an organization whose purpose it is to use threats of violence to get their way, I'll change my opinion. Right now, though, in my opinion the evidence that Loughner qualifies as a terrorist is inconclusive.
Thinking about this more, I think another important distinction is that this was a specific assassination attempt. Since I'm not aware of any such attempts by Muslim extremists, it's hard to say how such an event would be depicted in the Fox News circuit. Joseph Stack's flying his plane into an IRS building last year is a clearer analogy, and I did think that was terrorism (a word the media did generally try to avoid in that case).
I don't know whether Loughner is part of a group or not; I said it's currently plausible (by the information generally available) that he isn't. It's also plausible that he is.
However, even on a loner basis, I still think there's a difference. A Muslim extremist working in isolation but using violence in the name of Allah is tapping in to an existing widespread (albeit unfair) anxiety about Muslims. It's less clear to me that Loughner (if he really was working alone) was relying on anxieties about the group he belonged to as Abdulmutallab was. I suppose some people will be more concerned about young white conservative males as a result of Loughner's act, but I would be surprised if it creates nearly as much increased anxiety against that group as Abdulmutallab's act did towards Muslim men.
Of course, part of this is a typical in-group/out-group double standard, but even so, I do think that Abdulmutallab deliberately leveraged that out-group anxiety, which contributes to characterizing his act as terrorism.
I agree with much of what you say; I consider myself a liberal. However, I do think it's comparing apples to oranges to state that someone is a hypocrite for calling the events of 9/11/01 terrorism and this not. The difference is, there is a significant, identifiable group (albeit the minority) of Muslim leaders specifically calling for acts of extreme violence against non-believers; the worst that Palin, Beck, and their ilk can be accused of is creating an atmosphere that is conducive to this sort of violence. When Palin published her now-notorious crosshairs image, for instance, I don't think any reasonable (read: sane and not utterly obtuse) person would conclude that she was literally recommending those politicians be shot. Was Loughner's act terrorism? I'm undecided. It's certainly not in the same bucket as a Muslim cleric telling some young Muslims to go blow some people up, and providing them with the bombs with which to do it.
Yes, we all need to stop the violent rhetoric. Yes, Palin, Beck, and so on share a small portion of the responsibility for this event inasmuch as they contributed to a climate in which Loughner and his sort thought this was a righteous thing to do. But I'm concerned that going too far in comparing acts of extreme violence by sizable, organized groups to what appears at this point as plausibly an isolated incident will be counterproductive.
I took the point to be that Juan was pre-emptively responding to those on the Right who would say that, because Loughner was a pot-smoker, he was therefore a liberal. Smoking pot is only weakly correlated to political orientation, as opposed to the other indicators presented (gun control support, position on amending the Fourteenth, and so on).
Self-correction: Wikipedia says that the Feds later cleared the Michigan Militia of direct involvement with McVeigh. The other points, though, stand.
Differences:
McVeigh was in the Michigan Militia, which all but disbanded shortly after the bombing. If it turns out that Loughner belonged to such a group, sure, that's a mitigating factor.
McVeigh killed over a hundred people. Loughner killed six (at this point).
McVeigh was not apparently targeting anyone specific. Loughner was. Palin and her compatriots told him who the Evil Democrats were, and he tried to kill the closest one.
If other information comes to light that Loughner was tied to an organization whose purpose it is to use threats of violence to get their way, I'll change my opinion. Right now, though, in my opinion the evidence that Loughner qualifies as a terrorist is inconclusive.
Thinking about this more, I think another important distinction is that this was a specific assassination attempt. Since I'm not aware of any such attempts by Muslim extremists, it's hard to say how such an event would be depicted in the Fox News circuit. Joseph Stack's flying his plane into an IRS building last year is a clearer analogy, and I did think that was terrorism (a word the media did generally try to avoid in that case).
I don't know whether Loughner is part of a group or not; I said it's currently plausible (by the information generally available) that he isn't. It's also plausible that he is.
However, even on a loner basis, I still think there's a difference. A Muslim extremist working in isolation but using violence in the name of Allah is tapping in to an existing widespread (albeit unfair) anxiety about Muslims. It's less clear to me that Loughner (if he really was working alone) was relying on anxieties about the group he belonged to as Abdulmutallab was. I suppose some people will be more concerned about young white conservative males as a result of Loughner's act, but I would be surprised if it creates nearly as much increased anxiety against that group as Abdulmutallab's act did towards Muslim men.
Of course, part of this is a typical in-group/out-group double standard, but even so, I do think that Abdulmutallab deliberately leveraged that out-group anxiety, which contributes to characterizing his act as terrorism.
I agree with much of what you say; I consider myself a liberal. However, I do think it's comparing apples to oranges to state that someone is a hypocrite for calling the events of 9/11/01 terrorism and this not. The difference is, there is a significant, identifiable group (albeit the minority) of Muslim leaders specifically calling for acts of extreme violence against non-believers; the worst that Palin, Beck, and their ilk can be accused of is creating an atmosphere that is conducive to this sort of violence. When Palin published her now-notorious crosshairs image, for instance, I don't think any reasonable (read: sane and not utterly obtuse) person would conclude that she was literally recommending those politicians be shot. Was Loughner's act terrorism? I'm undecided. It's certainly not in the same bucket as a Muslim cleric telling some young Muslims to go blow some people up, and providing them with the bombs with which to do it.
Yes, we all need to stop the violent rhetoric. Yes, Palin, Beck, and so on share a small portion of the responsibility for this event inasmuch as they contributed to a climate in which Loughner and his sort thought this was a righteous thing to do. But I'm concerned that going too far in comparing acts of extreme violence by sizable, organized groups to what appears at this point as plausibly an isolated incident will be counterproductive.
I took the point to be that Juan was pre-emptively responding to those on the Right who would say that, because Loughner was a pot-smoker, he was therefore a liberal. Smoking pot is only weakly correlated to political orientation, as opposed to the other indicators presented (gun control support, position on amending the Fourteenth, and so on).