I don't see any relevance. Sure, he hit bystanders as well as his target. That does not change that it was targeted. It was also not premeditated. It was a crime of passion. And again, it was one part in a series of events that day.
I do not understand your desire to mislabel it. It does not make it any less horrible to call it a murder. But pretending that it was unavoidable will have consequences.
"It was also not premeditated. It was a crime of passion." - this is an assumption
"And again, it was one part in a series of events that day." - And again i dont see it like that and you can read my reasons in previous replies
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on why the church was selected. A random attack on a specific church would be a hate crime, not terrorism. But if a church attack was planned because it was a convenient target, not because of the religion, then it terrorism.
I dont follow your reasoning in above cases, i had trouble following you in your previous reply to. You accuse me of mislabeling while it seems you have your own desire to "mislabel this". I don't see the difference if an attack was targeting "the public" or a specific group.
Driver attends a right-wing hate protest, gets in car, targets a group of counter protestors, ploughs into them and bystanders, then violently and remorselessly backs up. hatecrime - yes: terrorist attack - yes
But i dont think we will get closer on this point.
And in that context, there was nothing wrong with the statues. They were seen as significant historical figures, not symbols of slavery.
Check previous reply for extensive explanation about why the uniform represents "bad values" (even in historical context), cannot be seen without them and the statues where placed without historical context.
When you see a Nazi uniform do you think "It's nice they built the Autobahn"? No, you think, holocaust, Bombing Rotterdam, invading neutral countries etc etc.
Robert E. Lee himself hated Slavery and saw how bad it was. He just couldn't bare to fight against his beloved Virginia. It seems he also didnt want monuments commemorating the war or statues of himself (I'm a little uncertain about this as it only popped up in US media this week)
But you don't see the contradiction in defending your offensive statues, while vilifying the Americans for doing the same?
I take it you mean: "offensive statues"
It's not the same as I offered extensive context, historical context and nuance in my reasoning. You choose to ignore those, take a shortcut, call me a hypocrite and offer me apples and oranges here......
Like I said twice before; I draw the line right after Statues glorifying men in Confederate uniforms. The moment they start fucking around with Jefferson or Washington you will find me protesting their removal.
Actually, Rommel did get monuments. This is not the only one.
Mind you those are not statues glorifying him, they are not placed in the middle of towns and there are most likely none where he is actually depicted wearing a German wehrmacht uniform.
That article you linked starts out by declaring that their opinion is knowingly based on misinformation, then goes on to explain how the facts don't matter though because 'feelings'. So it has failed to convince me.
Did we read the same article?
context and nuance
You seem to think they are not important in the classification of terrorism, or southern culture. Those issues are black and white? But you do want me to apply it when considering your history. I don't intend to offened, but that is hypocritical.
I don't think we're being productive anymore, though.
You seem to think they are not important in the classification of terrorism, or southern culture. Those issues are black and white? But you do want me to apply it when considering your history. I don't intend to offened, but that is hypocritical.
I rebuke you accusation of hypocrasy (dont worry i'm not easily offended and see this thread in the context of a debate) As i've been offering my viewpoints and reasoning of both the car attack, the statue removal and Southern culture in nuance and context all trough our exchange.
I expect you to apply context and nuance when you start making comparrisons to prove a point. The comparrison you made was as crooked as comparing Washington with Lee and not workable in your case.
Washington: United a nation, Won a war, lived in a time when slavery was custom
Lee: Divided a nation, Lost a war, Lived in a time when slavery was heavily critised and fought to preserve it.
Admiral De Ruyter, United a nation, Won multiple wars, Lived in a time when slavery was custom.
I don't think we're being productive anymore, though.
I agree. It was enjoyable though and i tip my hat in respect and friendship.
I don't see any relevance. Sure, he hit bystanders as well as his target. That does not change that it was targeted.
It was also not premeditated. It was a crime of passion.
And again, it was one part in a series of events that day.
I do not understand your desire to mislabel it. It does not make it any less horrible to call it a murder.
But pretending that it was unavoidable will have consequences.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on why the church was selected.
A random attack on a specific church would be a hate crime, not terrorism. But if a church attack was planned because it was a convenient target, not because of the religion, then it terrorism.
And in that context, there was nothing wrong with the statues. They were seen as significant historical figures, not symbols of slavery.
Actually, Rommel did get monuments. This is not the only one.
But you don't see the contradiction in defending your offensive statues, while vilifying the Americans for doing the same?
That article you linked starts out by declaring that their opinion is knowingly based on misinformation, then goes on to explain how the facts don't matter though because 'feelings'.
So it has failed to convince me.