Reply #87: Behind every direct action nut are dozens more encouraging them

[MajorChode]

Not every militia member bombed a federal building and not every anti-abortion activist shoots doctors and not every KKK member lynches people either. However, they do form a support network for those who do.

As far as condemning arguments go, arson is a violent act whether you realize it or not. Torching a home when you don't know (or care) who is in it or where the fire is going to end, is an act of extreme violence. A university professor's home was torched and the people who did it knew him and his family were in it. They had to escape through a window to get out of the house. When you use violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political goal, that's terrorism.

Typically the people who do these acts get frustrated when handing out leaflets isn't as effective as they thought and their actions will continue to escalate. Eventually people are hurt and killed. This is already happening in Europe where direct action groups have been around longer. So yes, it is just the same basic thing as the anti-abortionists, it's just not as advanced yet.

And you are exactly right that these people don't represent the views of all those on the side of AR, but that's exactly why more of people need to stand up and condemn the direct action lunatic fringe. Instead of doing that, Ingrid Newkirk pays their legal bills. So what kind of message do you think that sends?