Some on the left support radical reductions in the world population. For example here is a quote from Paul Ehrlich:
How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. . . .But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.
The El Paso shooter said something similar:
“If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable,” the terrorist writes.
The New Zealand shooter likewise considered himself an “eco-fascist”, and the Dayton shooter was a supporter of Antifa.
Is a bullet to the head a step to “humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage”?
Are some recent mass shootings really examples of eco-terrorism?
Being a white supremist and an eco-terrorist are not mutually exclusive.
For example, here is a webpage from an environmentalist group that says that immigration is driving up US population and damaging the environment. It even quotes Paul Ehrlich about the need to control population in rich countries.
Well, yeah. But your thread is asking if the recent mass shootings are examples of eco-terrorism.
They weren’t.
No more than Osama Bin Laden was an eco-terrorist.
(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.
Pursuing this angle in the war on terror would have been a waste of time, just like it is now.
The US signed the Kyoto agreement in 1998; Bin Laden should have never attacked in 2001.
My observation is that people’s preconceptions drive how they interpret information. The media is looking for a white supremist, and they are going to ignore any information that does not neatly fit into their preconceptions.
During the Beltway sniper shootings, the police repeatedly let the shooters pass through checkpoints around the shootings. The authorities were sure the snipers had to be a couple of white guys, probably white supremists.
The actual shooters were a pair African-Americans. The older man followed the Nation of Islam and drove the car; the actual shooter was a 17-year-old immigrant from Jamaica.
Because the El Paso shooter wrote who he hated in his manifesto and went to go kill a bunch of them. The guy who shot up the synagogue let us all know why he was killing a specific group of innocent people. The NZ shooter told us, and acted on it.
There’s no investigative value in speculating on any motives beyond the ones directly linked to the corpses.
The shooter knew he would either die during the attack or face the death penalty if he survived. Driving 600 miles to find his preferred target was a trivial consideration.
And I hope he gets the death penalty…and oddly enough I’ve change my stance on death penalty years ago once I’ve learn that DNA cleared lots of people of their crimes.
I hate to think how many innocent people we might have executed over the years.
I wouldn’t call shooting a lot of people randomly to be humanely. Actually, I don’t think there is a possible way to humanely and rapidly get rid of several billion people. Is this Paul Ehrlich volunteering to go, himself?
I don’t see the point of the OP unless it is to prove that this Paul Ehrlich is a potentially dangerous nut.