“No ties to terrorism.”
Except that he is, actually, a terrorist. This wasn’t some domestic dispute where random targets were caught in the crossfire - he targeted politicians for political reasons. That’s terrorism.
I think it means he was not associated with any group or organization encouraging, promoting, planning or assisting in any way with his decision to shoot at the Republicans at ball practice. I do not believe they are saying it wasn’t a terroristic act but that there was no one else involved.
And that he doesn’t represent some larger threat. He’s not part of some domestic group plotting a larger rampage of violence against Republicans – despite the rightwing hysteria over “violent leftists”.
Well, yes, that is what they are saying, but there is a persistent idea that “terrorism” only means the kind promoted by ISIS.
By this definition (the size of conspiracy) Eric Rudolf was not a terrorist - and I’m sorry, but he was, and the media and the FBI were not squeamish about describing him as such.
COVERUP!!! WHITEWASH!!! CONSPIRACY!!!
DEEP STATE!!
DEEP STATE!!
ROWR!! FLEEN!!
[/hannity]
the size of conspiracy
The “con” in “conspiracy” comes from the latin – meaning “with, together, combined”. There can’t be a conspiracy of one, except perhaps as a joke. I agree he was a domestic terrorist. I don’t see anyone disputing that point. But the FBI is saying he acted alone, which means he wasn’t part of a conspiracy.
I’m thinking in this case it means ties to a larger more formal group of fellow terrorist. This terrorism as all his own internal thinking and doing.
Almost totally agree. Terrorists can act alone. This guy acted alone, I don’t have any dispute with the FBI saying that. It’s the “no ties to terrorism” that I have a problem with - and that’s what the FBI said, so it sounds to me like they are disputing that he’s a domestic terrorist.
By the way, the lone wolf stabbing of an airport police officer in Flint is being investigated by the FBI as, in their own words, an act of terrorism. But then, his name is Ftouhi.
the lone wolf stabbing of an airport police officer in Flint is being investigated by the FBI as, in their own words, an act of terrorism
Why do you think the FBI took over the investigation of James Hodgkinson? It was because they were investigating it as an act of terrorism. If it were ordinary murder or manslaughter, FBI wouldn’t be involved – there’s no federal law against murder.
“No ties” means acted alone, not part of a conspiracy, not radicalized by some underground movement. FBI may be trying to calm the rightwing hysteria over this which has been growing increasingly unhinged with their talk of “war” against the “violent left”. That would fit with their “disruption” strategy of preventing problems where possible.
It may turn out that Ftouhi acted independently as well, though probably not. He’ll probably turn out to have been radicalized by someone or some group. I’m actually quite suspicious of these lone men going into well guarded places wielding a weapon and shouting allu akbar, then claiming they were radicalized by ISIS. I suspect at least some of these episodes are done to benefit rightwing nativist politicians – the one at the Louvre being the most blatant. IMO, we should be more hesitant about calling these lone allu akbar shouting weapon wielders terrorists. They may be sham terrorists.
Seems that part of your definition of “terrorist” is being part of a conspiracy. But there doesn’t have to be coordination; individuals can commit acts of terror, with the intent to terrorize. They are rightly referred to as terrorists.
Seems that part of your definition of “terrorist” is being part of a conspiracy
Read again. That’s not what I wrote. You’re completely misrepresenting my reply.
You’re right - I’m sorry, it does sound like we’re on the same page.
My original post wasn’t about whether the FBI thinks he acted alone, it was about the FBI wrongly (IMO) saying that acting alone == “no ties to terrorism” (their words) == not a terrorist.
Not sure if it would have to be an underground movement to radicalize susceptible folks these days, btw; there is plenty of alarming propaganda on regular TV. Maybe you’re right that the FBI is trying to calm the rightwing waters by saying he’s not a terrorist, that he isn’t tied to the violent left (never mind that he appears to actually be the violent left), but honestly, it seems to be just buying into the rightwing proposition that terrorism by definition has to come from the Middle East.
Maybe you’re right that the FBI is trying to calm the rightwing waters by saying he’s not a terrorist
I wasn’t actually going that far. The FBI didn’t say he’s not a terrorist, just that he’s not part of some bigger movement to assassinate (which rightwing has been hyperventilating about).
Glad we’re on the same page
“No ties to terrorism” are the FBI’s own words, though. I checked multiple sources. Any plain reading of that means they don’t consider him a terrorist.
I disagree with that. You can only have ties to other people. FBI’s saying there are no other people, no SDS-like group represented by this lone gunman. He’s not part of a brewing civil war or a rising leftwing militia movement. This is the distinction we’ve been trying to point out to you all along. If I’m a saboteur, but have no ties to any group of saboteurs, that doesn’t mean I myself am not a saboteur; it only means I have no ties to other saboteurs. If I’m a murderer and have no ties to other murderers, that doesn’t make me not a murderer; it just means I acted on my own. If I’m wearing a green t-shirt but I’m not part of a green t-shirt club, I’m still wearing a green t-shirt. I don’t somehow become someone who’s not wearing a green t-shirt by the fact that I chose that t-shirt on my own.
It’s a distinction without a difference, IMO. Yes, what the FBI said may be technically true, but that’s not at all how it comes across, and certainly not how it is interpreted by most people.
And that is essentially my point: it gives credence to the mistaken belief that it isn’t terrorism unless it’s part of a Muslim plot. Or in this case, I suppose, a vast left-wing violent conspiracy plot. The FBI could easily have said that there were apparently no ties to a larger conspiracy, and that would have avoided the whole “what is a terrorist?” issue.
that’s not at all how it comes across, and certainly not how it is interpreted by most people.
Odd thing to say given that’s not what the FBI said, and you’re the only one here who thinks their statement should be (mis)read in that way.
Tim Slater, the special agent in charge of the Washington FBI office, also said during a news conference Wednesday that James T. Hodgkinson did not have any ties to terrorism.