[torsoboy]

BBC NEWS | Americas | US abortion doctor is shot dead

On a normal basis the man killed unborn babies that could have potentially survived outside the womb, and his family is calling his murder "an unspeakable tragedy"? It seems to me like his death will actually cause fewer deaths in the long run.

I know that many people feel abortion is fine (a "choice"), but this guy wasn't just some doctor performing normal abortions, he was performing "late-term" abortions. He wasn't just swishing around some non-formed goo in the mother, he was purposefully killing children that could have possibly survived outside of their mothers.

I just can't feel remorse for his death.

[Shaddim]

Many times I've wondered how such a person could live with themselves. I regret that he was killed, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

It seems his life and death are a tragedy.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Many times I've wondered how such a person could live with themselves. I regret that he was killed, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

It seems his life and death are a tragedy.

I'm retweeting your post. Makes sense to me.

[Chuckit]

The idea that the purpose of life is just to promote life is very nihilistic. Death is not the problem. The goal should not be just to prevent death, because life by itself is just a chemical reaction. The question is, do you think murdering this man and forcing all his friends and family to go through hell is an appropriate price for forcing women go to a different doctor to get their abortions?

I disagree with what the man did, but this wasn't an appropriate response.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I disagree with what the man did, but this wasn't an appropriate response.

To someone with a twisted mind, it obviously was.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The idea that the purpose of life is just to promote life is very nihilistic. Death is not the problem. The goal should not be just to prevent death, because life by itself is just a chemical reaction. The question is, do you think murdering this man and forcing all his friends and family to go through hell is an appropriate price for forcing women go to a different doctor to get their abortions?

I thought that the "talking points" where that extremely late term abortions where rare and not many doctors did them? How are women going to go to a different doctor, to get a procedure that is seldom done by very few doctors? I'm figuring the chances are that the women will end up doing the right thing and having their children or we aren't talking about very many woman.

That is unless the "pro choice" industry has been lying all this time, which would be no surprise given that the entire "right to chose" is based on several "big lies".

I agree with the dual tragedy thing though.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I thought that the "talking points" where that extremely late term abortions where rare and not many doctors did them? How are women going to go to a different doctor, to get a procedure that is seldom done by very few doctors? I'm figuring the chances are that the women will end up doing the right thing and having their children or we aren't talking about very many woman.

It is pretty rare AFAIK, so no, we probably aren't talking about very many women. But when I say "rare," I don't mean "this guy was the only one." So of course they could go see another. There were few, now there's one fewer.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I disagree with what the man did, but this wasn't an appropriate response.

Worse, it facilitates the notion that those who oppose abortion are a threat to society. A pro-life movement working against what it calls murder can never resort to it as a means of activism. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Advances in technology have given us a closer glimpse at the development of the fetus and more and more people in society are choosing life. It is the evidence for life that is causing a shift in thinking, not the militant opposition of abortion.

I was glad to see an official from Operation Rescue immediately denounce this action as cowardly.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is the evidence for life that is causing a shift in thinking, not the militant opposition of abortion.

THIS THIS THIS.

I'm tired of people from the anti-abortion side getting all emotional and talking about religious convictions or other subjective mindsets. It seems that if we stick with logic, science, and objective evidence, we're a lot more likely to convince women to choose life for their unborn baby.

I think that this guy's choice to perform late-term abortions is similar to someone choosing to join the military or be a firefighter or police officer. It's sad when they die as a result of their chosen profession, but they knowingly took on that risk when they chose that path in life.

[Wiskedjak]

I certainly don't agree with late-term abortions, but the person who murdered this doctor is a terrorist.

[ironknee]

"pro-life" dummy

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I certainly don't agree with late-term abortions, but the person who murdered this doctor is a terrorist.

A large component of terrorism is targeting the innocent (or at least delivering punishments wildly disproportionate to the alleged crimes of the individual victims, as a threat to their colleagues). In this case the perpetrator no doubt saw the only victim as a mass-murderer, which would make this vigilante justice, not terrorism. IMO.

[ort888]

So if I'm mad at GW Bush for starting a war that is killing our young people it would be okay for me to murder him? Is that how this works now?

[Dakar V]

No, God is okay with wars.

[andi*pandi]

Hypocrites. The person who did this is not pro-life.

[kobi]

terrorism |ˈterəˌrizəm|
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Since abortion is a political issue, I have to disagree with Uncle Skeleton's assessment that the murder was purely about vigilante justice. Since Dr. Tiller wasn't breaking any laws, it comes down to political beliefs, thus it's a terrorist act.

This is what happens when people distort the Bible, they use their interpretation to justifying killing in the name of God............exactly like the Taliban and Muslim extremists do.

It's amazing that these right wing anti-abortion nutjobs have turned into the same kind of religious terrorist, that they hate.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So if I'm mad at GW Bush for starting a war that is killing our young people it would be okay for me to murder him? Is that how this works now?

Only if you think vigilante justice is okay. Most don't.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So if I'm mad at GW Bush for starting a war that is killing our young people it would be okay for me to murder him? Is that how this works now?

Not at all. You need to save the fetuses so they can grow up to die in our resource wars. That's what the sanctity of life is all about!

Originally Posted by George Carlin

And you might have noticed something else. The sanctity of life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You rarely see a bumper sticker that says 'Save the tumors.'. Or 'I brake for advanced melanoma.'. No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, E. Coli bacteria, the crabs. Nothing sacred about those things. So at best the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole ****ing thing up!

Not that I support late-term abortions, far from it, it's just hilariously tragic when someone murders in the name of life.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Since abortion is a political issue, I have to disagree with Uncle Skeleton's assessment that the murder was purely about vigilante justice. Since Dr. Tiller wasn't breaking any laws, it comes down to political beliefs, thus it's a terrorist act.

Pro-lifers took him to court twice, but they didn't manage to convict. Suppose someone killed a person in your community, maybe your co-worker, and you just know they did it, but they were careful and didn't leave any proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and they were acquitted of the crime. Then you get mad and decide to take matters into your own hands, and kill the killer. That's not terrorism, it's vigilante justice. Now suppose that the killer was involved in a political issue, like illegal immigration, since he was a border guard and your co-worker he killed was an illegal immigrant. Does that make it terrorism when you avenged your buddy?

I realize it's a grey area, but it's still my opinion that it's a lot further away from the terrorism side of that area.

[OreoCookie]

@Uncle
The question of whether or not it is terrorism is not linked to the deed at all. Assassinations are a standard method in terrorist warfare. The difference is whether the perp acted with the support of a group. If the answer is `yes' (and I haven't heard that this has been conclusively answered either way), then it's an act of terrorism. If the answer is `no' and the suspected murder acted on his own, then it's not.

As I said, I don't know if the murder of Dr. Tiller qualifies under my own definition, but I disagree that this is necessarily the act of a vigilante. Plus, I don't like the use of the word here, because it may carry a positive connotation. Someone so concerned with the sanctity of life should not be so arrogant and take one himself. That's not acting bravely, that's acting selfishly.

[spacefreak]

Meanwhile, 7 different people were slaughtered in Chicago within a 24-hour period.

Not a single suspect in custody.

At least the late-term abortionist's killer has been apprehended and is in custody. The less murderers on the streets, the better.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Pro-lifers took him to court twice, but they didn't manage to convict. Suppose someone killed a person in your community, maybe your co-worker, and you just know they did it, but they were careful and didn't leave any proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and they were acquitted of the crime. Then you get mad and decide to take matters into your own hands, and kill the killer. That's not terrorism, it's vigilante justice. Now suppose that the killer was involved in a political issue, like illegal immigration, since he was a border guard and your co-worker he killed was an illegal immigrant. Does that make it terrorism when you avenged your buddy?

I realize it's a grey area, but it's still my opinion that it's a lot further away from the terrorism side of that area.

Sorry, but I have more faith in the legal system and self control than to go and kill someone who wasn't convicted in a court of law.

I agree with OreoCookie, if this assassin is part of a Pro-Life group then his actions, were one of a terrorist; as he was acting as a vigilante to make a political point.

Hopefully the Justice Dept will go after these Pro-Life groups, and dismantle them. Charge them with a RICO violation and be done with it. These groups are breeding hate, and using religion as a cover; the American Taliban if you will.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Uncle
The question of whether or not it is terrorism is not linked to the deed at all. Assassinations are a standard method in terrorist warfare. The difference is whether the perp acted with the support of a group. If the answer is `yes' (and I haven't heard that this has been conclusively answered either way), then it's an act of terrorism. If the answer is `no' and the suspected murder acted on his own, then it's not.

I disagree with that for two reasons. One, the difference between "terrorism" and "justice" can't be determined by "support of a group," because all of justice would fit that condition. The group called "everyone" stands in support behind the justice system in general. Even vigilante justice is only thought of as such when it is supported by a group. Second, the nature of the deed does contribute to whether it's terrorism; if the punishment is proportionate to the alleged crime (or less than), it wouldn't inspire terror would it? For example, if you look at terrorists in Israel or Ireland, they are fighting against occupation of land. If their actions were proportionate, like kidnapping people of the other side and just dropping them off unharmed outside the territory, that wouldn't be terrifying and it wouldn't be thought of as terrorism, it would be more like non-violent protest. The reason it's terrorism is because the reaction is disproportionate for the individual victims.

Plus, I don't like the use of the word vigilante here, because it may carry a positive connotation.

In other words, it escapes your prejudices. That's entirely the point. I think we should all try to see things from the other side's point of view (as in all issues), and try to make a fair determination of who is guilty of what and how much, not simply try to score as many points as possible for whichever side of the fight we were on before it happened.

[Chongo]

Sounds like a false flag operation to me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Sorry, but I have more faith in the legal system and self control than to go and kill someone who wasn't convicted in a court of law.

So you don't approve of terrorism or vigilanteism. That doesn't conflict with anything I've said.

he was acting as a vigilante to make a political point.

Thank you

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sounds like a false flag operation to me.

Yes, this is exactly one of the reasons for making a fair assessment of the man's crime and not being overly reactionary.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I disagree with that for two reasons. One, the difference between "terrorism" and "justice" can't be determined by "support of a group," because all of justice would fit that condition. The group called "everyone" stands in support behind the justice system in general.

No. Why would you mix the system of justice with terrorist groups even as a theoretical argument? Terrorists act outside of the law. Just because terrorists (usually) believe they are acting for justice doesn't make it so.

I also don't agree with your use of the word `justice' in this context. Vigilantes may also think they're doing whatever they're doing for (their sense of) justice. But it doesn't make it so. I certainly don't want to mix vigilantes, terrorists or other criminals with the accepted system of justice of a modern democratic state.

Terrorism is a strategy employed by a group with certain political goals, they want to raise awareness and sympathy for their cause as well as intimidate others into submission. It doesn't matter what specific method they employ (kidnappings, assassinations, murder, explosions, destruction of property) the key difference to someone taking laws into his own hands is that it is not an isolated crime, but part of a grander strategy.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Second, the nature of the deed does contribute to whether it's terrorism; if the punishment is proportionate to the alleged crime (or less than), it wouldn't inspire terror would it? For example, if you look at terrorists in Israel or Ireland, they are fighting against occupation of land.

I don't understand `punishment proportionate to the alleged crime,' are you writing this from the perspective of the terrorist? If so, then all of your deductions are non-sensical. What does determine proportionality of punishment and crime (one is convicted of) are laws. Laws don't have to be moral or just (if you don't think they are, work to change them!). You can even criticize the application of laws (court rulings). But what is a proportionate punishment to a crime one has been convicted of is not decided by terrorists or vigilantes.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If their actions were proportionate, like kidnapping people of the other side and just dropping them off unharmed outside the territory, that wouldn't be terrifying and it wouldn't be thought of as terrorism, it would be more like non-violent protest. The reason it's terrorism is because the reaction is disproportionate to the action (for the individual victims).

Of course that might be an act of terror -- if it is intended to scare people. Besides, we're talking of murder here.

Terrorism is used as a tactic by groups who are typically either minorities (in opinion or number) or weak. In this particular instance, there is simply no majority to change the current legal stance on abortion.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In other words, it escapes your prejudices. That's entirely the point. I think we should all try to see things from the other side's point of view (as in all issues), and try to make a fair determination of who is guilty of what and how much, not simply try to score as many points as possible for whichever side of the fight we were on before it happened.

No, we shouldn't. Vigilantism is universally bad thing, the rule of law lies with the judiciary. I have some understanding for people who have exhausted all legal options and perceive themselves to be in any immediate danger (a rapist who is set free or whatnot). But even if I have sympathy for people who take law into their own hands, I don't condone it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, this is exactly one of the reasons for making a fair assessment of the man's crime and not being overly reactionary.

I think you're a bit too quick here: I have specifically said that it's not clear whether this assassination was a terrorist attack or not, this is still to be determined.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was glad to see an official from Operation Rescue immediately denounce this action as cowardly.

They're probably out having drinks and celebrating. Wasn't the first time they tried to murder him (or other doctors.)

The bomb was supposed to blow up the building, not the people inside it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

No, God is okay with wars.

...and infanticide.

[Chuckit]

Linguistic nit-pick: Timothy McVeigh is usually labeled a terrorist, but he worked alone.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

They're probably out having drinks and celebrating. Wasn't the first time they tried to murder him (or other doctors.)

Could you please post the evidence that "Operation Rescue" tried to kill Tiller or any other doctor?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was glad to see an official from Operation Rescue immediately denounce this action as cowardly.

Considering that the suspect Scott Roeder in Dr. Tillers death is a member of Operation Rescue, I'd say it's more distancing than denouncing the act.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Considering that the suspect Scott Roeder in Dr. Tillers death is a member of Operation Rescue, I'd say it's more distancing than denouncing the act.

So do you think that the local PTA that Roeder is a member of will need to come forth with some distancing too?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No. Why would you mix the system of justice with terrorist groups even as a theoretical argument? Terrorists act outside of the law. Just because terrorists (usually) believe they are acting for justice doesn't make it so.

Do you believe that acting outside the law is never just? In other words, the laws are all perfect? If so, then what need is there for a legislature? If not, then you have to be willing to ask yourself whether any particular person who breaks the law was doing so justly or unjustly.

I also don't agree with your use of the word `justice' in this context. Vigilantes may also think they're doing whatever they're doing for (their sense of) justice. But it doesn't make it so. I certainly don't want to mix vigilantes, terrorists or other criminals with the accepted system of justice of a modern democratic state.

Then you should use criteria that actually differentiate between them.

Terrorism is a strategy employed by a group with certain political goals, they want to raise awareness and sympathy for their cause as well as intimidate others into submission. It doesn't matter what specific method they employ (kidnappings, assassinations, murder, explosions, destruction of property) the key difference to someone taking laws into his own hands is that it is not an isolated crime, but part of a grander strategy.

No, civil disobedience also meets the criteria of "taking the laws into his own hands" (IOW breaking a law they disagree with) and "not an isolated crime, but part of a grander strategy." But this is by no means terrorism, specifically because of which specific methods it employs.

I don't understand `punishment proportionate to the alleged crime,' are you writing this from the perspective of the terrorist? If so, then all of your deductions are non-sensical. What does determine proportionality of punishment and crime (one is convicted of) are laws. Laws don't have to be moral or just (if you don't think they are, work to change them!). You can even criticize the application of laws (court rulings). But what is a proportionate punishment to a crime one has been convicted of is not decided by terrorists or vigilantes.

The proportionality is decided by the person carrying it out in general, whether they are judge or vigilante. If the punishment is within the bounds of the law, it's a judge, if it's outside the law, it's a vigilante. If it's outside and it's disproportionate (to instill terror), then it's terrorism.

Proportionality is up for some debate, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that "eye for an eye" is significantly disproportionate. So:

Of course that might be an act of terror -- if it is intended to scare people. Besides, we're talking of murder here.

Yes, we're talking of murder here. Many believe that the doctor was committing murder. If the doctor was committing only property crime (theft/vandalism/etc) but was targeted for death, that would be clearly disproportionate and therefore terrorism. Since the accusation against the doctor is murder, mass-murder at that, then murdering him in retaliation is clearly proportionate.

Terrorism is used as a tactic by groups who are typically either minorities (in opinion or number) or weak. In this particular instance, there is simply no majority to change the current legal stance on abortion.

Simply being a minority cause does not make something terrorism. If that were true, you would never have cause to distinguish "vigilante" from "terrorist," since vigilantes are almost exclusively minority causes too for the same reason: if they had the majority they could simply change the laws to support them.

No, we shouldn't. Vigilantism is universally bad thing

That's exactly the opposite of what you said the last time I quoted you. I agree that vigilanteism is no excuse for what he did, all I'm saying is that just because vigilanteism and terrorism are both bad, that does not mean that vigilanteism is terrorism.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Could you please post the evidence that "Operation Rescue" tried to kill Tiller or any other doctor?

The murderer was a member of Operation Rescue. The organization focused their resources and money on demonizing Dr. Tiller and other abortion doctors. They don't outright say it, but the organization exists to push someone over the edge and do what they can't publicly say they want done.

They claim they abhor violence, yet are constantly the instigators of it.

I don't believe a damn word from their stupid statement. They intended for it to happen, now they're putting up a legal front so they don't get sued.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Do you believe that acting outside the law is never just? In other words, the laws are all perfect?

I've written about that. Neither laws nor their execution is perfect. Yet, I think that the overall benefit of respecting laws (and working to change them via legal means) far outweighs the benefits of vigilantism.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, civil disobedience also meets the criteria of "taking the laws into his own hands" (IOW breaking a law they disagree with) and "not an isolated crime, but part of a grander strategy."

Yes, civil disobedience can be used to oppose laws and government policies. But civil disobedience (to me) implies (i) the protestors are using legal means (protesting), (ii) it's non-violent (duh) and (iii) there is no damage.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The proportionality is decided by the person carrying it out in general, whether they are judge or vigilante. If the punishment is within the bounds of the law, it's a judge, if it's outside the law, it's a vigilante. If it's outside and it's disproportionate (to instill terror), then it's terrorism.

To terrorists, their judgement is just and proportionate, but to the victims it isn't. Your argument doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Proportionality is up for some debate, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that "eye for an eye" is significantly disproportionate. So:

Disproportionate according to what sense of justice? To me it's ancient and disproportionate, to others stoning women isn't.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, we're talking of murder here. Many believe that the doctor was committing murder. If the doctor was committing only property crime (theft/vandalism/etc) but was targeted for death, that would be clearly disproportionate and therefore terrorism. Since the accusation against the doctor is murder, mass-murder at that, then murdering him in retaliation is clearly proportionate.

So you're saying that because by some twisted logic, Tiller is a mass murderer, I should have sympathy for the perp (by the same token, you could justify killing quite a few people, including most recent US presidents -- after all they're responsible as commanders in chief for the deaths of x Iraqis/loyal American soldiers/Vietnamese/Martians)? Thank you, but no thank you.

Basically, I'm reading that because you have some sympathy for the cause (which is fine, each to his own), you're inclined to not label it as terror. After all, people are less inclined to label someone a terrorist if they sympathize with the cause. In the end, Chuckit has a good point: in this case, it's largely semantics (although it is important in determining a punishment in court).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's exactly the opposite of what you said the last time I quoted you.

No, it's not.
I said that the word vigilante may have a positive connotation (for some), but I did criticize this. If I thought otherwise, I would have written `has a positive connotation' rather than `may have.' In other words, I criticized you for using the word vigilante in the first place, because it shows that you sympathize with the murderer on some level. I did not say that I think that the word vigilante has a positive connotation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I've written about that. Neither laws nor their execution is perfect. Yet, I think that the overall benefit of respecting laws (and working to change them via legal means) far outweighs the benefits of vigilantism.

What benefits of vigilantism? The only person in here ever giving any positive spin to vigilantism is you.

Yes, civil disobedience can be used to oppose laws and government policies. But civil disobedience (to me) implies (i) the protestors are using legal means (protesting), (ii) it's non-violent (duh) and (iii) there is no damage.

No, not (i), otherwise it would not be "disobedient." I had actually written "protests" as well, but removed it because that would not be breaking any law.
And regardless of what else civil disobedience is, it disproves your indictment that being lawbreakers in part of a grander strategy constitutes terrorism, no matter the method.

To terrorists, their judgement is just and proportionate, but to the victims it isn't. Your argument doesn't make sense to me.

No, I would argue that in order to be a terrorist, you would have to design your attack to overtly threaten others besides the direct victims. This is most often done by using attacks that are specifically out of proportion, implying that there is enough punishment to go around for more people than those actually struck.

So you're saying that because by some twisted logic, Tiller is a mass murderer, I should have sympathy for the perp

Again, no, unless you already sympathize with vigilantism.

No, it's not.
I said that the word vigilante may have a positive connotation (for some), but I did criticize this. If I thought otherwise, I would have written `has a positive connotation' rather than `may have.' In other words, I criticized you for using the word vigilante in the first place, because it shows that you sympathize with the murderer on some level. I did not say that I think that the word vigilante has a positive connotation.

My whole point is that you're calling it terrorism because you want to deny it sympathy, not because it actually is terrorism. If people are going to have sympathy for vigilantes, you can't stop them by hiding vigilantes behind another word. Just think, if people started having sympathy for terrorism, would you then call this same action something else? The only way to maintain a moral authority in judging people for their actions is if you try to accuse them of actions they actually did, not padding the charges with inapplicable descriptors. The only effect that will have is to take away all meaning from the new word. Of course it's just semantics, it always has been, but as you said semantics has its importance too.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What benefits of vigilantism? The only person in here ever giving any positive spin to vigilantism is you.

Please don't twist my words into something they're not.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My whole point is that you're calling it terrorism because you want to deny it sympathy, not because it actually is terrorism.

No, I haven't called it an act of terror nor am I prejudging the suspect.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

As I said, I don't know if the murder of Dr. Tiller qualifies under my own definition, but I disagree that this is necessarily the act of a vigilante. Plus, I don't like the use of the word here, because it may carry a positive connotation. Someone so concerned with the sanctity of life should not be so arrogant and take one himself. That's not acting bravely, that's acting selfishly.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The only way to maintain a moral authority in judging people for their actions is if you try to accuse them of actions they actually did, not padding the charges with inapplicable descriptors.

It's not inapplicable descriptors, what does and doesn't constitute a terrorist attack is written into law. All it takes is to compare and see whether this particular crime qualifies. It's not padding charges, it's an application of the rule of law. Just as a precaution: as I said above, I'm not claiming that the assassination of Tiller qualifies as a terrorist attack nor am I claiming my definition of terrorism coincides with any legal definition.

[Shaddim]

I see both sides are ****-slinging and picking nits, when they both have come to the conclusion that killing the man was wrong?

I think we can all agree that:

- late term abortion is morally reprehensible
- murdering the guy wasn't the answer
- both sides are going to use the previous two facts to their advantage


Carry on.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Could you please post the evidence that "Operation Rescue" tried to kill Tiller or any other doctor?

That would be like getting evidence on the Mob. The solution is to charge all of these Right Wing Pro-Life groups under the RICO statute and take them all down.

Makes that DHS report on right wing terrorists that Bush ordered, a little more important now doesn't it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by kobi 

The solution is to charge all of these Right Wing Pro-Life groups under the RICO statute and take them all down.

Wow, that happened two pages earlier than I thought. Impressive...

[hyteckit]

God killed more babies. Drown millions of them. I guess God is the most prolific late-term abortionist.

[Shaddim]

hyteckit, that's really not necessary. You've been doing well as of late, don't make me put you back on ignore.


thanks

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

hyteckit, that's really not necessary. You've been doing well as of late, don't make me put you back on ignore.


thanks

Can't handle the Bible stories?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

what does and doesn't constitute a terrorist attack is written into law.

... and ...

nor am I claiming my definition of terrorism coincides with any legal definition.

... contradict each other, don't they?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Please don't twist my words into something they're not.

I know you're not trying to argue that vigilantism is good, I'm just trying to show you that you're wrong when you think that I am somehow arguing that vigilantism is good (which I'm not). Here's an(other) analogy. You're accusing someone who committed a robbery, but you're afraid that might sound too sympathetic to others (for whatever reason), so you say "well maybe it's arson" because you're sure that no one will sympathize with arsonists. I'm saying "but it's actually not arson, it's robbery." Neither of us is arguing that robbery is good or even acceptable. You're saying that other people might not think that robbery is bad enough, and I am saying that that's not a good enough reason to call it what it's not. If people want to sympathize with the criminal for what he actually did, there's nothing we can do about it, nor should we.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Can't handle the Bible stories?

Leave Theology to the professionals, you're out of what little depth you have left.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Leave Theology to the professionals, you're out of what little depth you have left.

God from the Bible is a mass murderer. Indiscriminately kills millions, even innocent little babies and fetuses.

[hyteckit]

Come to think of it, the Great Flood was God's biggest and greatest abortion.

He just said "Ah screw it. I gave life to all these people and it was a big mistake. I'm just going to abort them all by drowning them."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by kobi 

That would be like getting evidence on the Mob. The solution is to charge all of these Right Wing Pro-Life groups under the RICO statute and take them all down.

Makes that DHS report on right wing terrorists that Bush ordered, a little more important now doesn't it.

Let me put my Alex Jones tinfoil hat on again and say that this could be a false flag op designed to do just that. It also gives the pro infanticide groups the martyr they have so wanted.

BTW, where's the Eric Holder dismisses slam dunk case thread?