[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-u...
Susan Rosenberg has paid for her crimes and no longer uses terrorism to further the cause. Pointing to her case is a sever form of whataboutism, and is never done in good faith.
Not sure how she has paid for her crimes, and why her case of known crimes and casualties should not be pointed?
If a cause was void because terrorists advocate for it, there would be no cause worth celebrating. And there is no evidence that left wing terrorism is given more leeway then right wing terrorism. Quite the contrary. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-us...
> She was pardoned by Clinton
Her sentence was commuted. She wasn't pardoned.
> Not sure how she has paid for her crimes
She served 16 years of a 58-year sentence. You can consider that at least partial payment.
I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried out on account of law enforcement intervention.
It is somewhat dispiriting to see this comment at the top of HN and implies a false moral equivalence. Since you probably prefer right-wing news sources, see this editorial in the WSJ: "No Excuses for Trump and the Capitol Riot Yes, the left does bad things too. Conservatives are supposed to believe in objective moral truth." [1]
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-ca...