Even if correct it is a moot point. There have been left wing terrorists for a long time now, and most of them get adequate police response, and sometimes even condemnation from other left wing groups. But even if it didn’t that still doesn’t make the leeway right wing terrorists get justified.

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.

She was pardoned by Clinton even though some of the incidents she was involved in resulted in deaths.

Not sure how she has paid for her crimes, and why her case of known crimes and casualties should not be pointed?

It is still a moot point. You can point out the specifics all you want, it still wont make this good faith argument.

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...

I have no clue who that is but from reading other comments, I learned

> 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.