Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism? Abortion Doctor Murdered

Remove all ads!

Today Scott Roeder, the man who shot Dr. Tiller, was eventually found guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder.

I hope she succeeds.

 

I'm glad to see that he was convicted, and would be quite happy to see that he gets the mandatory 50 yr min sentence. All that said, he's not a "terrorist". Terrorists attack random innocent people. This b*****d attacked ... assassinated ... a very specific person. This would be similar a "terrorist" (note the quotes) assassinating a politician that strongly advocates against his cause rather than killing random people.

This ... person ... is a murderer or an assassin. But he is not really a terrorist. If he were a terrorist, he would have attacked random people to try to influence the abortion doctor to stop doing abortions, rather than killing the doctor himself. Calling him a "terrorist" is a) an abuse of the word, and b) seems to be an intentional attempt to equate christian wackos with islamic terrorists as an attack on christianity by anti-religious lefties.

Anyways... I'm glad to see that he was convicted, and hope that he gets the maximum sentence.

 

crucis,
your definition of terrorism doesn't match the FBI definition of terrorism:

A strong case can be made that Roeder's deed meets these criteria. Ending abortion for instance is a social objective that Roeder wanted to see accomplished. Murder is unlawful use of force he used in pursuit of that goal.

It is not a natural law that terrorists do only attack random people. They don't and have a wide spectrum of tactics. Our far left terrorists here in Germany have generally specifically targeted key individuals, chosen for their symbolic value, when they assassinated politicians, military people and business people. In light of that I don't find your arguments persuasive in the slightest.

Dr. Tiller was a symbol for the anti-abortion movement. Arguably, that's why Roeder killed him.

Don't let your impulse to defend Christians make you overlook that Roeder is what he is for what he did. Look at it soberly. Christians are perfectly capable of being terrorists.

 

Whether he did it to incite fear or simply to remove a head of his percieved opposition only determines whether he's a terrorist or an assassin. Either way, it's cases like this that make me want the death penalty.

 

My definition fits perfectly with the FBI definition. However, even if it didn't, I don't care. I don't worship at the feet of an elitist government as if it's the all-knowing, all-wise font of all goodness and knowledge.



And "ending abortion" by killing abortionists isn't terrorism. It's little different than guerrilla warfare (in a certain sense), except against doctors rather than a government. But the target is the same ... attacks against the source of the "evil" that one is combating, rather than against random targets merely to create fear. ((Note that this isn't to justify the killing of abortion doctors, because it isn't. People who murder abortion doctors to stop abortion should be treated as what they are ... murderers.))

Bullpucky. Tiller was assassinated to stop Tiller specifically ... from doing abortions. That is an assassination, an act of murder, not an act of terrorism.

 

Who says it can't be both? Seriously, dude, Tiller's murder does, in fact, fit our contemporary definition of terrorism. There really isn't any wiggle room on this one.

That said, I take issue with your arguement that terrorists only attack random people. The WTC and the pentagon were both very specific targets, after all. Roeder has also been sending anti-abortion pamphlets that laud Paul Hill, convicted of murdering an abortion provider in 1994, as an 'American hero' that also include examples of Hill's writings about how the killing of abortion providers is justifiable. Taking that into account, it appears unlikely that Roeder was "just" looking to put a stop to Tillman. Put in context, it appears that Roeder desires to be seen as a martyr for a cause.

 

DUDE ... bullfeathers.

When Obummer and his Bolshevik cronies cannot even bring themselves to call terrorists "terrorists", I don't give a rat's a$$ what the government calls "terrorism" as they have lost all credibility on the issue.

The WTC and the Pentagon were/are not people. However, the people within them were extremely random.

Having said that, I wouldn't call the attack on the Pentagon an act of terrorism. IMHO, it was an act of war.

Also, the attack on the WTC was more than an act of terrorism... IMHO, it was an attack on the US economy... and again, an act of war.

And also remember that (IIRC) the third hijacked jet's target was the White House, a military target ... again, an act of war.

 

Sorry Crucis, i'm going to have to side with Drew, NOG, and Ragusa here. Not all terrorism is suicide bombings and large scale attacks. Why can't a lone gunman be a terrorist? He has committed a violent act against a person with the intention of furthering his political/social/religious ideals.

Isn't that pretty much what terrorism is?


Anyway, on the subject of the late Doctor's innocence or guilt.. You could argue that he's improved as many lives as he's taken. If I knew my theoretical wife was going to have a child that would inevitably die, I don't think I could face that prospect, nor could I put the child through a short, and likely painful life with a clear conscience.

Rape victims should ALWAYS be given the choice. ALWAYS. This isn't some drunken one night stand where they couldn't be bothered to use protection. It's not an issue of "convenience". Every time the mother looks into the childs face, who's eyes do you think she'll see staring back at her?

That being said, I would never attempt to influence a woman's decision in this.

Pro-choicer, chipping in my 2 cents.

 

There was a nice little children song I like a lot, from Pippi Longstocking, that roughly goes along the line: ... and I make my world the way I like it ... You don't like the FBI definition, so you make up another one you like better. Awesome.

Nonsense. Targeted killings of single individuals to demonstrate reach can be, and frequently have been, aimed on creating fear. You should really rid yourself of your romantic notions about 'combating' whatever.

Why is it that an assassination, murder, cannot be an act of terrorism? The differentiation you offer is completely arbitrary. We had multiple cases, like this one, in which exactly that was the case. There a stereotypical capitalist was not so much killed for being a manager but merely for being a symbol of the capitalist state. In the very same sense Tiller, as 'Tiller the Baby Killer', was not just another doctor but a symbol for abortion. Assassination or murder and terrorism are not mutually exclusive, to the contrary, especially when the victim is a high key person standing for a specific cause or political view.

 

Absolutely it's terrorism!

Which Bolshevik cronies? What are you babbling about? You mean cronies like Larry Summers, and Bernanke, and Rubins? Fine group of corporate "Bolsheviks."

BTW, we don't use nics like this on this board, supposedly.

You mean like the Revoltionaries used against the British?

 

I thought it was me who got the butt-whuppin' for using a nick for Bush!

In any event, I too agree that it was a terrorist act. It was the elimination of one doctor, sure, but it was meant to send an intimidating message to all other abortion doctors and to those who advocate abortion.

I hope that whatever sentence this guy gets sends a message to others of his ilk. That sort of anarchic crap cannot be tolerated.

 

This is the one I most often disagree with. Remember, the mother never actually has to see the child she's giving birth to. There are hospitals that, if they know the child is going to adoption, will actually take the baby away, clean it up, and take care of it without ever showing it to the mother, if that's what she wants. All too often, adoption is forgotten in these arguements. The mother doesn't have the money to raise a child? Abort or she suffers. The mother doesn't think she'll make a good mother? Abort or she suffers! The mother want's to continue her young-woman-party-life and not be saddled with a child? Abort or she suffers!! Nevermind that she could just give the child to someone else. Nevermind that a newborn child in the US is going to be adopted almost immediately, the arguement is between a forced-nuclear-family and abortion!

Now, I'm not saying that going through 9 months of pregnancy is a small thing, but neither is ending a life.

As for the 'act of war' arguement, I can see it if only the Pentagon had been targeted. It's a real, practical military target. Likewise were the revolutionary's targets, and one of the two atom bombs. WTC, however, was a civilian target, purely.

 

When did we get to talking about this? My point was about pregnancy from rape, not stupidity.

Adoption is obviously another option, and in many ways a better one, but what's to stop the child tracking their real mother down in 15-20 years? That'll be a fun reunion.

I guess that's the difference - I don't see an early abortion as ending a life, because (to me at least), a life hasn't begun. As for when it DOES begin? Well, I don't know. I've actually been staring at this post for about 10 minutes now trying to get an answer. I'll get back to you when I do.

 

Sorry, I was ranting on the current state of the arguement in general.

Usually, legal confidentiality.

This is a common debate, and a sticky one. Biologically, there's no point past conception where you can really say 'this is life, but that isn't'. A unique organism is created at conception, with unique DNA distinct from the mother or father. Past that, no single event is significant until the final removal of physical connection (birth).

Beyond that, though, I don't see it as a very good issue. Even if you say 'life' doesn't begin until, say, 18 weeks, there is a 'positive potential' for life beforehand, meaning that, if you do nothing, there will be life. By aborting, you are either ending a life or actively preventing it from starting. I don't see the same issue with contraceptives simply because the contraceptive is a modification of a positive act, meaning that if the man and woman do nothing at that stage, there is no child. The contraceptive is only a matter of how they do something.

 

No, I don't worship the government like you lefties do. I don't accept everything they say as gospel from on high.

Nonsense. Tiller was murdered because he was an abortion doctor that performed late term abortions. The person killed him because he felt that doing so would save lives. Period.

 

Facepalmed so hard I caused an earthquake in China.

I don't think there are that many people in the AoDA that would accept the governments word as "gospel", and I love that you label anyone with common sense as a leftie. However, every so often, blind luck causes them to get something right, as is the case here. Still, if it makes you happier, how about we sod the FBI and go with the good old dictionary.

Bolded the bit that really applies here. If you still have issue with the definition, take it up with the dictionary. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to get your letter.

First sentence: Agreed, that IS why he was murdered. You're undoubtedly right on the second point too, but there's more to it than that. This is going to spread fear among abortion doctors, and spreading terror through violence is, as we learned earlier, terrorism. This is violence to one doctor, serving as a pretty blatant threat to others.

 

The government is not some foreign entity, Crusis, and lefties like me most assuredly do not accept everything "the government" says as gospel. The government, after all, is made up of people. You don't agree or disagree with the government, since the government has no opinion. You agree or disagree with other people about the role of the government.

Remember the part of my previous post that you ignored after arguing the 911 attacks weren't an act of terrorism?

Roeder's actions since his incarceration run in direct contradiction to your assertion that he wasn't trying to make a statement or start a movement. He was quite clearly trying to do both. I will, however, concede that Roeder may indeed have believed that murdering Tillman in cold blood -- in his place of worship, where children were present -- would save lives.

Nevertheless, by the contemporary definition that the rest of us accept, the murder was an act of terrorism. In your own world, using your own definition, Roeder may not be a terrorist. This is not, however, your world. Nor is it mine. We cannot make up our own definitions for things and expect to be understood or taken seriously. Instead, we have to hash out what words mean prior to taking up the debate, and government nomenclature or a dictionary are reasonable starting points when there is disagreement. Put in their proper context and using either the government or dictionary definition, both 911 and the Tillman murder pass the "terrorism" litmus test with flying colors.

Arguing about the meaning of "is" might be fun for ex-presidents and (apparently) birthers, but the reality based community tends to consider such activities a waste of time.

 

Where would we be without all these old, worn-out, meaningless platitudes? Why, it was just a few short years ago, we were "unpatriotic" and "unAmerican" for not "worshipping" the government enough. Where's Cheney when we need him?

 

Wanted posters for Abortion doctors

​

Here we go again: Abortion Docs Decry "Wanted" Posters as Bait - Providers in North Carolina Worry They are Being Marked for Murder by Operation Save America

In heaven?

When the demented Scott Roeder murdered Dr. Tiller in cold blood, anti-abortion activists like 'Operation Rescue' said they were not responsible because they didn't pull the trigger. Absolutely correct. But they built the gun.

They provided name, photo and personal detains for these doctors. They put the case for the murder of these doctors 'on the shelf', ready for every moon howling lunatic out there to take, and execute the verdict implied in the posters - wanted, dead or alive - which, since they are 'wanted by Jesus', is to be understood as God's verdict. That's just what the folks putting out these wanted posters now are doing again. This stuff is dangerous, and can (and likely will) result in violence again.

It has happened that way, repeatedly. Call it a 'leaderless, open source insurgency' that wants to see abortion doctors punished, if the government authorities fail to do so on the spurious excuse that what they do is legal.