It isn't my claim. It is what happened. At least what the guilty parties told their lawyer when they didn't think the government was illegally recording them. If you wanna say they killed him in cold blood, if you believe them, that wouldn't be accurate, now would it?
What I want to say is that they murdered him. Because when you're using threats of violence, and people stop obeying you and you use actual violence, and they end up dead, that's what it is. Yes, people engage in self-rationalization, but that doesn't change the facts.
If you said, yes, when the mugger shot the guy for his wallet, and the guy ended up dead, that that was accidental, then okay. If you had amended it to make the victim fight the mugger who wasn't planning to use violence, then okay. There is a definition, not generally used in this context, where this could be called an accident. When you use it here and refuse to use it on other dealers in violence, you're equivocating.
Indeed, they are not. Right wing extremists have been a problem for far longer and have committed far more acts of terrorism. They also have been far more deadly than Islamists since 9/11. Considering 9/11 a fluke or a stroke of luck for Islamists, right wing radicals are a far greater problem for the US as they actually have local support to a certain extent.
You can live your life assuming the successes of certain people were just flukes or strokes of luck, but 9/11 was an operation that took more than a dozen people and more than a year of planning that successfully hijacked not one, not two, not three, but four airplanes, only one of which was stopped from reaching its target.
To establish that it was 9/11's mediatic impact and political manipulation, not the dangerousity of Islamist radicals, that is reponsable for the response to 9/11 and the lack of trillions spend on the war on radical right wing groups.
No. I'm saying there isn't a lot of coherrence when it comes to action and threat.
I'm not sure what you mean by coherrence here. But if you looking to see if the action was in response to the threat, you don't get to judge the threat. The question is how did the person taking the action judge the threat. They're the ones who get to judge whether or not 9/11 was a fluke or something that is going to be repeated or not. They're ones who get to choose whether the murder of Americans on an American plane scheduled to land in the US in a few hours counts. If they reacted to their analysis of the threat, then they reacted to the threat.
Secondly, yes, there's confounding factors. It's a lot easier to go after a clearly defined enemy abroad supported by foreign nations then it is to go after an ill-defined group of Americans. You get all civil-libertarian about the LFN, but don't seem to care about the civil rights of the radical right-wing. Yes, the Bundy's should have been arrested, but stuff like that had not turned out well in the past. 86 people died in the Waco siege. Since 9/11, 48 people have been killed by right-wing extremists. Repeating the first in an attempt to reduce the second seems morally questionable.
Thirdly... 0.1% of American deaths in 2001 were due to 9/11. One in a thousand. In the years since, one in a million, maybe one in a hundred thousand some years, died due to right-wing extremists. An average of 4 deaths a year, that's as many as arthropod-borne viral encephalitis killed in 2013, and less then the 10 killed by malaria or the 40 killed by salmonella or 11 killed by falling with murderous causes. (All numbers from the CDC.) Any response beyond the normal FBI response might arguably be excessive. If 9/11 was irrelevant, maybe we ought to be putting up signs "Watch out for people who might throw you off a balcony" instead of "Watch out for unattended bags."
Wow, ok, your moving the goal post from the US and to the world. Amusing. I wonder why there wasn't a war on Sikh terror...
I'm moving the goal posts to include acts done against Americans, one of which was done at least in part on American soil (the bomb in the Kenya explosion may or may not have been on US soil, but the embassy it was directed against was, and the other bomb was on US soil). Yes, an Indian airplane flying from Canada to India that was blown up in an attack on Indians doesn't factor much in American calculations, whereas an American airplane flying from the UK to the US that was blown up in an attack on Americans probably does.
