As I Was Saying…
Here is Mike Hendricks at the Kansas City Star:
By mid-afternoon, authorities reportedly had someone in custody in connection with the murder of Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller at his church on Sunday morning.
So far, we know very little about the suspect, other than that he’s a man in his 50s and was driving a blue Ford when they stopped him outside Gardner.
However, the motive for the crime we can all surmise in light of the vitriolic campaign that has been waged against Tiller for more than two decades by anti-abortion groups.
And if we’re right about that, then we already know the identities of his accomplices.
They include every one who has ever called Tiller’s late term abortion clinic a murder mill.
Who ever called Tiller “Tiller the Killer.”
According to Hendricks, that would be this organization.
28 Responses to “As I Was Saying…”
BS, everyone who was against late term abortions were accomplices? Anyone who thought that aborting a baby who could be born alive was murder was an accomplice? Condemning hate filled rhetoric with hate filled rhetoric. Wow.
So was everyone who was rabidly against the Iraq War accomplices to the shooting of the soldier today in Little Rock?
DaGoat,
I doubt if any of the regulator posters at Themoderatevoice even know about the shooting in Little Rock since I doubt that Moveon.org or the Dailykos has told them about it. Besides, the Little Rock shooting cannot be made to reinforce any of the progressive Democratic talking points.
Uh folks, I don't recall anybody advocating for killing our soldiers.
People opposed to abortion made many public statements saying that killing Tiller was justifiable.
You don't see the difference?
Blind, deaf or stupid; plead your case.
Police arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, along a crosstown interstate moments after the shootings at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock.
Uh folks, I don't recall anybody advocating for killing our soldiers………….joeaudio, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with radical Islam.
SD: “I doubt if any of the regulator posters at Themoderatevoice even know about the shooting… [b]esides, the Little Rock shooting cannot be made to reinforce any of the progressive Democratic talking points.”
I didn't realize that murder was partisan. Nor did I realize that progressive Democrats were somehow against the military officials who help keep our country safe from enemies and would turn a blind eye to their murder.
Both murders (Tiller and the private in the military) show the importance that the rule of law plays in a civilized society. When we have a government that tortures, disregards the US Constitution and turns one citizen against the other for the purpose of political points, then the citizens of the country will follow their leaders down that dark and lost path.
Both killers thought their actions were justified. And that's EXACTLY why we need to have a government that that upholds the rule of law. Otherwise we'd have people killing each other every time someone thought they had a good reason. If someone commits a murder then the law should handle it. In the case of the abortion doctor, I understand he was under investigation from the authorities for his own actions. If he was doing something illegal and/or against the medical profession then he would have been punished, and perhaps even jailed, accordingly.
So I don't understand why you believe that Democrats would not care about the military shooting.
Perhaps I should have been more specific:
I was speaking of people with teevee shows (like O'Reilly) and organized anti abortion groups (Operation Rescue) that crave media attention and make hateful statements that are to responded to by idiots with guns.
How many radical Islamists have their own teevee show?
Do you really hear a lot of radical Islamist propaganda where you live?
I kind of doubt it, but please tell me if you live in the middle of a radical Islamist terror network and are unable to escape from their constant anti-American nattering.
The point is: you're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to elephants.
If you can't see the difference, I believe you have a perceptual problem.
O'Rielly and his ilk no more called for Tiller to be killed than Code Pink, Sheehan, MoveOn.org, DU, Bill Maher, etc., called for those soldiers to be killed.
As I said, people are responsible for their own actions.
Austin,
I did not see the post where you said:
“As I said, people are responsible for their own actions.”
The contrast here that I'm trying (and apparently failing) to point out is that no American on “The Left” (and I hate these artificially divisive labels: left, right, liberal, conservative) has called for our soldiers to be killed.
This was a lesson learned from the Vietnam era when many people unfortunately blamed the soldiers for the atrocities in that war. I think “The Left” has learned that the soldiers are not the perpetrators of bad policy, but rather, the victims.
In the abortion wars, “The Right” is responsible for the inflammatory rhetoric that causes unhinged people to take their guns and kill people. People need to back off from the violent rhetoric and find common ground in finding ways to deal with the abortion issue.
I guess everyone of the left has already John Allen Muhammad. The idea of black Muslim converts resorting to violence has already been established in the U. S. And there is a well organized Muslim network and goes on television or goes to the media to defened everything does in the name of Islam. Look what happened during the Dannish cartoon controversy.
However, as I said, the left cannot be bothered will the killing of Pvt. William A. Long because it cannot be used to justify the regulation of political speech, assembly, or organizing.
I find the idea of linking a radicalized Muslim fundamentalist (converted, no less) to the American Left, to be pretty funny. They could not be more different in terms of politics or religious values.
But joeaudio — while I'll agree that shouting “Bush is a murderer!” “War Criminals!”, etc. is not the same thing as saying “Kill Soldiers!”, I think there is a commonality between these two crimes / criminals.
What the inflammatory, vivid, angry rhetoric from both sides does is give someone (like Roeder or Muhammad) a sense of support for his radicalized emotions. Rather than feeling marginalized, they know they are part of something 'bigger' than themselves.
joeaudio -
I said this in another of the threads on this topic:
There is no excusing the actions of the man who took Tiller's life.
There is also no excuse for trying to lay the actions at the feet of a vocal opponent of abortion. However much you disagree with O'Reilly, and for the record, I do as well, people are responsible for their own actions.
This argument is ridiculous whether you are talking about teenage lovers committing suicide because of Romeo and Juliet, the Manson clan killings after hearing backward encoded messages in the White Album, the Columbine shootings because of kids playing Doom and listening to Marilyn Manson, etc., or this senseless killing.
The 'Right', nor the 'Left', is NOT responsible when unhinged people to take their guns and kill people, regardless of any rhetoric, unless you can show evidence of a direct call to arms and incitement to violence, such as in the cases like Thomas Metzger and WAR.
Neither the 'Right', nor the 'Left', is responsible when unhinged people to take their guns and kill people, regardless of any rhetoric
Bingo. My original comment wasn't blaming the left for the shooting of the soldier. In both shootings the murderer is the one responsible.
Pollimom says it better than I did:
“What the inflammatory, vivid, angry rhetoric from both sides does is give someone (like Roeder or Muhammad) a sense of support for his radicalized emotions. Rather than feeling marginalized, they know they are part of something 'bigger' than themselves.”
Thanks, Pollimom
But I'll repeat my point:
People need to back off from the violent rhetoric and look for common ground in finding ways to deal with the abortion issue.
joe – a generic statement that people should, as a whole, back off of vitriolic verbal attacks and language is one which few if any clear-thinking people would disagree.
But as soon as you try to claim that that kind of language, in the absence of a direct, explicit call for violence, is somehow responsible for the actions of others then I do have to disagree.
Austin,
I won't bother you with a bunch of links, but Google for yourself what motivated Jim Adkisson, the Knoxville church killer. He read a lot of nasty right hate speech from the usual suspects and then took out his anger on a group of Unitarians.
I don't care what he read, as it is not responsible for his actions. He alone is.
You can continue to try and lay blame at the feet of others, as that seems to be your mindset. I will bet your next step is to suggest banning such speach.
I will continue to say people are responsible for the decisions they make, not the people who may have written materials or said things that may have had some influence.
We obviously agree to disagree on this issue.
Nope, not for banning speech, even hate speech.
Just saying that words have consequences.
The logic used here is specious. Calling Tiller a mass murderer is functionally equivalent to yelling “Fire” in a theater.
When Homeland security issued their reports some weeks back warning of Right wing extremists, it specifically pointed to anti-abortion as one area for concern. I remember the howls of protest from the right. It appears that their warning had merit.
joe – Sorry, I still think you have it wrong.
Words have meanings; actions have consequences.
HemmD – so your position therefore is that those who truly believe abortion is murder have no right to that opinion, or at least expressing that opinion and the logical conclusions it leads to? After all, if you truly believe as they do, and it is not an unsupportable position, then it is quite within bounds to think of abortion doctors in those terms.
Now, that does not excuse any actions against them, as what they do is fully 100% legal. A personal position that runs counter to the law does not excuse in any fashion taking matters into your own hands. That is vigilantism and anarchy.
And to be clear, I do NOT believe abortion is murder. It makes me uncomfortable, as it should I believe most people, but I believe in choice. But I understand the emotional and intellectual arguments from the other side, even if I don't agree with them.
Pro-life/anti-abortionists have the Constitutional right to express their disgust in the strongest words possible, and pro-choice have the same right to do the same from that side.
AR
The problem, however, is that their views of the “truth” allow them to praise the shooter. I just wish to point out how many tsk tsk stories about those evil Muslims who believe they speak for God, and kill in his name also.
I read your position that every person is responsible for his own acts, but no one seems to be responsible for spewing evil rhetoric that leads others to kill. Your position then is that Osama bin Laden is not responsible for anything done in his name, right? (of course not)
I am disgusted by the hate speech, the self righteous authority self bestowed, and the unending pattern of violence in the name of God.
This was a political act by domestic terrorists, and these self-righteous zealots are exactly the same as any sheik or mullah who feeds the heads of the ignorant with the message of death in God's name.
HemmD – I did indeed in an earlier post (either on this thread or another) specifically speak to situations like bin Laden, who directly advocate and call out for violence. The example I used, purposely, is from the Right-fringe – Thomas Metzger and WAR.
There is a fundamental difference of those who say 'go kill that person(s)' or even 'that person(s) needs to be killed' and saying 'that person(s) is a mass murder' or 'that person(s) has blood on their hands'.
The first two are examples of inciting to violence; the second two are the expression of opinion on the actions of a third person, with no call to violence against that third person.
We can quibble all day (oh we have) but words can certainly provoke action.
joe – and I never said they couldn't. All I said is that in the absence of a direct incitement to violence, there is no blame on those who say nasty things.
Now, let's also be clear. I am talking strictly from a legal culpability viewpoint. From a moralistic point of view those who use incendiary language that remains behind the line legal culpability must be able to sleep with their conscience, but those who do probably don't have a problem with that.
AR
I believe bin Laden has rarely ever called specifically for death to person or persons; he makes those great metaphorical statements of God's wrath and grief coming to America. Ultimately, I don't care about that slender legal fig leaf people hide behind. Morally, there's very little difference.
These groups have little or no political power and so they call upon the voice they hear in their head as God's authority. I'm not a church going Christian but I've read the Bible enough to know that humans are entitled to bestow God's love; His wrath is not theirs to wield.
If you're against abortion, don't have one.
I will try not to. In fact, if I did, I would probably become very famous, being a true biological male.
AR
Just be careful so you don't need to get one then you won't have to worry….
oh yeah, i forgot, these guys think “being careful” busts God's chops too.