Who are the domestic terrorists?

How about the people who have threatened the judge and jury in the Rittenhouse case if they don’t reach the verdict they want?

16 thoughts on “Who are the domestic terrorists?”

  1. QUOTE:Who are the domestic terrorists?

    Definition – committing terrorist acts in the perpetrator’s own country against their fellow citizens.

    Given that definition, threats against judges and jurors don’t seem to fit unless they are fulfilled. But, if threats are legitimate then we should include death threats made to state government officials by disgruntled conservative constituents relative to the outcomes of 2020 election.

    That said, it’s more likely these are better examples of true domestic terrorism:

    – Trump supporters at the Jan 6 Capitol Building riots.
    -2020 rioters that committed property damage.
    – Kidnappers of Michigan governor (disgruntled about Covid restrictions).
    – Caesar Sayoc-perpetrator that sent pipe bombs to Democrat Trump critics.
    – Lunatic that shot 5 Republican congressman during baseball practice.
    – Self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi that rammed his car into Charlottesville crowd and murdered a protestor.

    1. “Terrorist acts” — as the phrase is generally used — includes threats of violence, which the people I mentioned have done. The U.N.’s definition begins “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public….” People who threaten violence in the streets, including killing jurors and a judge’s family, are clearly calculated to provoke a state of terror. “Do what we say or your city will burn.” Also, threats to kill or injure are criminal acts.

      Recently you seem to be intentionally avoiding the point being made and turning things into whataboutism.

      That the people threatening judges and juries are domestic terrorists is clearly true. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other domestic terrorists, including most of the ones you mention.

      1. The Carlsonian trick here is that you use the definite article: Who are THE domestic terrorists? This has an exclusive function in ordinary linguistic usage. So when you say that the people who threaten judges and jurors, someone can easily take it to mean that the capitol insurrections, for example, are not engaged in domestic terrorism. My wallet was stolen while X and Y were in the room. X is THE thief, and therefore Y is exonerated.

        1. That seems a little pedantic to me, but in any event, the intent was not to say that they are the only domestic terrorists.

          1. I am only concerned with whether the above stated observation concerning of the usage of the definite article is true. If the truth turns out to be “a little pedantic,” it still remains the truth.

            1. In some situations the definite article might be intended to be exclusive. For example, when Paul says “know therefore that those of faith, these are the sons of Abraham,” he means to define “sons of Abraham” as those of faith.

              However, let’s say I find out that my father had another family and other children, and I brought them to meet my siblings, and my sister said, “Who are these people?,” and I said, “these are the children of our father,” I would not be implying that they are the only children of my father.

              So while the use of the definite article certainly nudges in that direction, it’s not at all clear to me that the definitive article is always meant to be restrictive.

              1. Then it would be a very natural response for your sister to say, “If they are THE children of our father, what what are we? Chopped liver?” She would not be guilty of mere whataboutism for responding in this way. Sophistries are often built out of such nudges here and there rather than blatant non sequiturs. That is very much the style of Tucker Carlson. And no, I’m not say that he is THE sophist. But he is certainly a sophist.

              2. @Robin, it would be natural for her to respond that way if she was trying to find an excuse to not get the point.

              3. @Greg, that could well be the case in such a response, but I suspect that it could also be motivated by other factors, e.g. sheer alarm. The example “these are the children of our father” is actually not a very good one since the occurrence of the word “our” actually kills a restrictive understanding of the definite article.

      2. QUOTE: Recently you seem to be intentionally avoiding the point being made and turning things into whataboutism./b>

        Hmm…interesting you view it as intentionally avoiding the point. I view it as seeing the point and its context.

        That said, the question was asked… “who are the domestic terrorists?”.. It seems you’re intimating the answer is those that are making threats to judges and jurors. I’d say it’s those who are making threats to judges and jurors AND those who are making death threats to government officials concerning election outcomes and host of other like behaviors we see increasing within in our culture. Bad stuff and there’s a reason to be concerned about all of it.

        Lastly, given your response, it makes one wonder if you intentionally avoided that I suggested threats could be considered domestic terrorism.

        1. Did you miss this? “That doesn’t mean there aren’t other domestic terrorists, including most of the ones you mention.”

          1. Nope, sure didn’t. But, it seemed you missed my point about the nature of threats relative to domestic terrorism.

            That said, Republican Rep. Tom Emmer recently stated, “Unfortunately, in the world we’re in right now, we all get death threats, no matter what the issue is”. . Based on his statement, it almost seems we should expect this behavior to become normative, even with judges and jurors.

            You asked a profound question in the title of your initial post… “Who are the domestic terrorists?” Unfortunately, it appears they are more commonplace than expected and come in all stripes….when they don’t get the outcomes they want.

      1. QUOTE: We’ve come to the point that we now expect violence if court cases don’t go a certain way.

        But, isn’t this just one example of the general state of today’s culture? We now see similar behavior in other aspects of our society. For instance, governor’s kidnapped, attempted assignations, death threats against government officials, political riots, etc. if things don’t go a certain way. So, it seems this is a rather broad issue and the solution will have to be just as broad.

        1. Once again, I’m not saying this is the only example of disfunction. Obviously we don’t want FBI informants collecting and organizing a group of people to kidnap a governor, or death threats, or any number of other things.

Comments are closed.