In the video below, Maher does the classic Michael Moore style of intellectual sleight of hand, where one moves to a wholly irrelevant level of abstraction to make a comparison in order to negate the valuable and relevant aspect of the first example given.
It seems intuitively correct that the most important thing about an attack is that people die in it. But of course that isn’t the main point. It is why they died that matters. In the example above, and exactly as Michael Moore does in his films, he attempts to negate the relevant aspect of the Boston jihadi attack by comparing the consequences to car accidents. Yes, people die in accidents all the time everywhere. But this is an accepted risk people take when they decide to use, for example, a car or go where cars are moving. There is no political motive to it.
When people commit violent acts of terrorism they are doing damage and killing people for a purpose for which the victims did not sign on for, did not expect and would not endorse if they did.
Bill Maher really should know better than to resort to this sort of sophistry. Agree with him or no, typically his reasoning is better than this and when it isn’t its at least entertaining.
This kind of thought however is very important in understanding why the enemy makes such huge gains in terms of the degradation and subjugation of Western civilization. Have a look at muslim rape gangs, for example, in the UK and all over the Western world. Yes, there are domestic rapists and we find them, try them and jail them when guilty. But these are people who for personal reasons committed a crime. There was no intention of changing our system in it, nor was it for a political purpose. When it is, its terrorism. The various Islamic rape gangs around the Western world are acting in concert with a philosophy and as part of a general jihad against the civilized world to deconstruct it and replace it with an islamic one. This is not criminal. The distinction isn’t just important. It is everything.
After showing this to Gavin Boby, he offered the following:
Intent is crucial to the definition and severity of the crime. A car accident has no ‘mens rea’, and so isn’t a crime. A murder is usually not part of a wider strategy, and so is not a continuing danger to the whole of society. E.g. most people would say that Hitler was history’s worst criminal, even though others like Mao may have been responsible for more deaths. Becuase Hitler intended those deaths as an end in itself: murder was the objective, as part of a wider scheme of hatred.