that's true, but I'm not sure that the idea of pushing an ideology isn't actually a good one. Sure, it removes Vinie the Fish and his thugs who shake down the local pawn shop, but it allows for the christians who blow up abortion doctors and I know what I think does more damage to the most people.
It depends. Is your goal to send a message to the remaining members of the KKK that they aren't safe to practice their free speech, deplorable as it is? if so, then you are.
Hold it there a moment. First we have to account for the background violence in society, which is quite high in the USA, far more so than in other countries of comparable living standards. Even insanity is not entirely random; certain themes recur, particularly sexual and archetypal. For instance every few days some guy is shooting his ex, but that doesn't mean we have a war on divorce in America. Rather it means there are a lot of insane men scattered in a population of 300 million people. Attacks on gays and shooting abortionists also largely fall into this category: People don't do it to send a signal to society or to government, but to shut up the voices in their heads.
Above the noise comes the signal. KKK is clearly an organized attempt to achieve social goals (not saying they don't have their bunch of loons, but there is more to it than that). These guys have done things that would definitely qualify as terrorism if it had been done by foreigners or a minority against the majority. While they fall outside most accepted definitions of terrorism, their actions are identical. The current government in the USA does not seem to consider it the same high priority as conventional terrorism... presumably because conventional terrorism threatens their voter base while KKK and Operation Rescue (and its copycats) don't.
Stretching the concept of terror too far is risky. For instance many white men and (not least) women are terrified of black males, but that doesn't make any random violent black a terrorist. Perhaps at some future time they will be considered such, if politics keep gently sliding to the right. But keeping a strict definition of terrorism keeps that day at bay.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 03:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 04:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 04:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 04:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 04:33 am (UTC)And abortion clinic bombers ARE terrorists and refered to as such by most international listings of terrorist acts.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 04:34 am (UTC)In fact, it seems like he just wanted a "moral" excuse to blow osmeone up.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 04:35 am (UTC)A man spits in your face so you punch him. Cause and effect.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 09:59 am (UTC)Above the noise comes the signal. KKK is clearly an organized attempt to achieve social goals (not saying they don't have their bunch of loons, but there is more to it than that). These guys have done things that would definitely qualify as terrorism if it had been done by foreigners or a minority against the majority. While they fall outside most accepted definitions of terrorism, their actions are identical. The current government in the USA does not seem to consider it the same high priority as conventional terrorism... presumably because conventional terrorism threatens their voter base while KKK and Operation Rescue (and its copycats) don't.
Stretching the concept of terror too far is risky. For instance many white men and (not least) women are terrified of black males, but that doesn't make any random violent black a terrorist. Perhaps at some future time they will be considered such, if politics keep gently sliding to the right. But keeping a strict definition of terrorism keeps that day at bay.