Assasination of Dr Tiller

[Zarathustra]

If you guys actually think there is some kind of link between the ideology of conservatisim, and the actions of this lone nut, why aren't you as quick to point out the same link between liberalism and Ayers? Or Islam and 9/11?

With the war on terror, we have an actual belief system that encourages and promises eternal rewards for killing non-Muslims. But the Left will bend over backwards to deny a link between this religion and terrorism, even though there are 10s of 1000s of Muslim terrorists trying to fulfill their wacky beliefs right now by killing us. Yet, a lone nut takes out a man who performs controversial human killings as his chosen career, and suddenly this guilt by association is perfectly valid?

Obviously, there is a different standard being applied here.

Unless the rhetoric specifically says: "you must kill people who think x," there is no link. Period.

[Lord Mhoram]

Ayers would be the first to deny that he's a liberal. He's certainly a leftist; there's a difference. The Weather Underground was highly ideological and highly political. Same thing with 9/11 -- where we disagree is what the ideology is. I've discussed this at length on these boards.

[Seven Words]

If you guys actually think there is some kind of link between the ideology of conservatisim, and the actions of this lone nut, why aren't you as quick to point out the same link between liberalism and Ayers? Or Islam and 9/11?

With the war on terror, we have an actual belief system that encourages and promises eternal rewards for killing non-Muslims. But the Left will bend over backwards to deny a link between this religion and terrorism, even though there are 10s of 1000s of Muslim terrorists trying to fulfill their wacky beliefs right now by killing us. Yet, a lone nut takes out a man who performs controversial human killings as his chosen career, and suddenly this guilt by association is perfectly valid?

Obviously, there is a different standard being applied here.

Unless the rhetoric specifically says: "you must kill people who think x," there is no link. Period.

I'm assuming this is meant at me...I apologize again, I seem to be persisting in being unclear (and that's not sarcasm). Not all conservatives are like him (the vast majority are NOT LIKE HIM)....and not all Muslims are jihadists. On an aside, the % of jihadists is considerably higher, I think, than % of doctor-killers. Islam needs to clean out the jihadists, Conservatism needs to clean up their membership, and Liberalism needs to do some serious housekeeping too.

Let me try putting it another way....This particular individual took his conservative beliefs TOO FAR. The public perception of conservatives needs to not be so similar to this guy's ideology (the abovementioned housecleaning), just as public perception of Islam needs to not be equated to jihad.

[wayfriend]

I've posted in many threads, many times, that some conservative opinions have come too close to advocating vigilanteism for my taste.

I cannot recall one single liberal who has claimed there is no link between Islamist extremist terrorism and the Muslim religion. But many who have advocated not blaming all for the actions of some. (Once again, this requires an ability to discern distinctions.)

If we should be blaming all Muslims for the actions of some, then we should be blaming all conservatives for the actions of some. (Just to be consistent.) Edit: demonstrating a point taken too far.

[Zarathustra]

Sorry you read into it an accusation that wasn't there. In no way, shape or form, did I say that Tillman's killer listens to you, Malik, and then went out and did your bidding. I can't even give you the benefit of the doubt here -- nothing I said came even close to that. Your anger mocks itself.

That's an example of the kind of rhetoric that only really stupid people make. I mean REALLY profoundly dumb people.

But hey, I didn't just now, in no way shape or form, just call you stupid. If my statement makes you angry, it's your fault. Sorry if you read an insult into that which wasn't there. Nothing I said even came close to calling you stupid. In fact, I'm actually making a parody of your point in order to prove a point.

But, you know, who cares. You got "Malik's rhetoric causes death" out there for the board. That's what counts. Right?

For the record, I never said, nor ever would, that any single person's statements incites this kind of violence. No, it's the effect of being bombarded with a message from many dirrections, all unified into a single purpose.

The only purpose of prolife rhetoric is to stop abortions. That's the single purpose. Lone nut interpretations of that purpose are the sole responsibility of lone nuts.

When people make a concerted effort to inspire hatred, they are in part to blame for the hatred inspired.

Trying to stop abortion isn't spreading hatred. And it's certainly not a concerted effort to inspire hatred. It's a concerted effort to save lives.

Tiller was a baby killer. That's how he made his money.

The truth is you have boiled down Tiller's actions to a damning sound bite, removed all context from it, especially and including the fact that what he did was legal in this country.

Every single statement I can make leaves out context. What I said is true. Just because enough liberals have banded together to make it legal doesn't change the fact.

You took a human who has an opinion you disagreed with and who broke no laws, and turned him into a personified crime. You did everything up to, but not including, claiming he deserved to die for what he did. That's demonization at work.

And the people who were slave owners would have been first in line to say exactly this point. [Another parody of your style, in case you didn't pick up on that.]

How exactly should the prolife movement express its beliefs differently?

Don't demonize people who disagree with you, for one thing.

I'm not. That's what YOU are doing, by saying that my rhetoric is the kind of rhetoric that got Tillman killed. That's literally what you said, and it's demonizing.

I have said all of those things incite terrorism. I did not say that they *are* terrorism. This line of refute relies on people not understanding the distinction and it is therefore without any merit except as incendiary comments.

You really think there's very much difference between inciting terrorism and carrying out terrorism? Osama bin Ladin did not fly the planes, himself. He incited others to do it for him. Does that mean it's purely an "incendiary comment" to point out OBL is just as guilty?

The danger of your logic is on display ("dangerous" to free speech of conservatives, since you are EXPLICITLY trying to guilt them into changing their actions and rhetoric). You are providing a perfect example of the dangers of blaming conservatives and conservatism for having a causal factor in inciting this man's terrorist act. You have explicitly called for conservatives to change their rhetoric and actions, without providing any evidence that conservatism itself and conservatives in general have incited his actions. You have constructed a flimsy link purely of your own imagination between a point of view held by millions and the actions of one man, and then called for those millions to change their behavior. You are using his actions to attack millions of innocent people.

This is despicable.

[wayfriend]

Sorry you read into it an accusation that wasn't there. In no way, shape or form, did I say that Tillman's killer listens to you, Malik, and then went out and did your bidding. I can't even give you the benefit of the doubt here -- nothing I said came even close to that. Your anger mocks itself.

That's an example of the kind of rhetoric that only really stupid people make. I mean REALLY profoundly dumb people.

You do see how your example is different than mine, I really really hope. (If this is just another parody, then never mind.)

For the record, I never said, nor ever would, that any single person's statements incites this kind of violence. No, it's the effect of being bombarded with a message from many dirrections, all unified into a single purpose.

The only purpose of prolife rhetoric is to stop abortions. That's the single purpose.

If that was true, then no one would say things like "Boy, he's gonna pay when judgement day comes." or "If I ever get my hands on this guy... ".

Or "He did it for money" for that matter. How does saying Tillman got paid for performing abortions lead to stopping abortions? That was your line - can you tell me?

It's rediculous to claim those kinds of comments are about stopping abortions. They are examples of comments designed to inspire hatred of people who perform abortions.

Those are the kinds of comments I object to. I have no objection to people making comments which explain why abortion is wrong. I've participated in enough discussions to demonstrate that.

You have explicitly called for conservatives to change their rhetoric and actions, without providing any evidence that conservatism itself and conservatives in general have incited his actions.

I have several times. Including in this reply.

[Cail]

There's no stronger political statement than a violent one. Look at 9/11. I imagine it's plausible that this lunatic thought he was actually "saving lives" (how noble of him). That doesn't change the fact that his attack on this prominent abortion doctor was also an attack on that doctor's legal right to have done so and was a consequence of the murderer's radical political beliefs. A reasoned analysis would conclude that this was an ideological action.

Really? I think that Gandhi and MLK Jr. might have something to say about that.

You know, I seem to remember someone posting here a few years ago that he was concerned about letting people know his age, for fear that people would judge him by that rather than by the quality of his posts. I respected his concerns, though I believed them to be unfounded. It would be nice if you could let Roeder's words speak for him rather than assuming what his intentions were, or judging him based on a superficial (at this point) biography.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

I think that Gandhi and MLK Jr. might have something to say about that.

Touche, but the British attempts at silencing Gandhi and the assassination of MLK show that violence can speak just as loudly but perhaps not as eloquently as nonviolence.

What I'm saying about Tiller's assassin is not guesswork in a vacuum. It's based on documentation of the assassin's political affiliation, knowledge of similar radical anti-abortionists, knowledge of Tiller himself and the controversy he generated, and the atmosphere of the US abortion debate. I think it's a reasonable claim that the murder of a controversial abortionist by a pro-life activist is a political act inspired by a radically anti-abortion ideology. What we all agree on is that Tiller was killed because of his actions pertaining to abortion; given that, it's reasonable to assign a critical political aspect to the violence.

[Cail]

Violence speaks pretty loudly, but I'm concerned with the point that Malik (and Jwaneeta too) are making. That this ugliness is being used to paint the right and the entire pro-life movement (which, according to polls, is the majority of the country now) as a bunch of fanatics.

That's no more the case than trying to paint liberals as hating America by protesting the war in Iraq.

My point is that we don't know what really motivated Roeder. It may well be that he sees himself as a martyr and he's trying to make a statement. It may be that he just wanted Tiller to stop killing babies. Hell, maybe his dog told him to do it.

I'm just really uncomfortable with the rush to judge not only Roeder, but anyone who shares his belief that abortion is murder.

[Orlion]

Good post, Cail, you've hit at the point. Many people seem to want to lay the blame for this action in other places then where it should lie: At the killer's feet. Just talking to some other students, they were almost blaming Bill O'reilly of causing the murder! Such accusations are unfounded and (pardon my russian) stupid. No one else pulled the trigger, the fact that one person with pro-life beliefs killed someone should not overshadow the fact that millions of pro-lifers have not killed anyone.

[rdhopeca]

Good post, Cail, you've hit at the point. Many people seem to want to lay the blame for this action in other places then where it should lie: At the killer's feet. Just talking to some other students, they were almost blaming Bill O'reilly of causing the murder! Such accusations are unfounded and (pardon my russian) stupid. No one else pulled the trigger, the fact that one person with pro-life beliefs killed someone should not overshadow the fact that millions of pro-lifers have not killed anyone.

The same can be said for Muslims regarding 9/11. There are whole nations of Muslim people who don't hate America and did not support that event.

[wayfriend]

I don't know anyone who is trying to paint the right and the entire pro-life movement as a bunch of fanatics. I'm not, despite anything Malik or anyone else says.

I have made a case that pro-life rhetoric is often excessive, even by people who are not considered extremists. And who probably feel it isn't excessive, or don't notice that it's excessive. They cross the line on which one side is "abortion is bad", and go into the "these people deserve hate" territory. Even someone in this thread did that, probably not even thinking about it. O'Reilly did it famously.

I'm hoping that something like Roeder's crime wakes people up to that fact.

Hate abortion. But stop hating people who don't hate abortion. And stop telling others to hate them, too.

Hate talk becomes hate action. Don't act surprised by it.

I don't believe that everyone siding on pro-life is a fanatic. Anyone who claims that I do hasn't read all my responses in the abortion thread.

In my opinion all of this claiming someone is painting all pro-lifers as a fanatic is just a way of deflecting the conversation from where it belongs. It's pretending to be a victim.

The real conversation should be: Can vast numbers of people, including the well-known and the well-listened-to, go around saying "abortionists are murderers" and worse, and then claim that they aren't part of a problem that leads to a vigilante who is only doing what everyone he respects says should be done?

I say no. They are part of the problem.

They didn't pull the trigger. There are other degrees of culpability.

[Zarathustra]

I have made a case that pro-life rhetoric is often excessive, even by people who are not considered extremists. And who probably feel it isn't excessive, or don't notice that it's excessive. They cross the line on which one side is "abortion is bad", and go into the "these people deserve hate" territory. Even someone in this thread did that, probably not even thinking about it. O'Reilly did it famously.

Again, you're talking about your own inventions, without producing any evidence. I haven't heard anyone say the pro-choicers deserve hate. And even if some people have said this, I think everyone would agree that they are extremists. So unless pro-lifers are saying specifically that someone should be hated or someone should be killed, then nothing else they can say is excessive. That's the full extent of pro-life "extremism." Everything else is fair game. Saying people are wrong, unethical, or simply getting angry with them is not extremist.

So if you have evidence of pro-life rhetoric being excessive by people who are not considered extremists, then post it. Name some names. Otherwise, you're dealing in supposition.

Yes, there are extremists out there. This shooter is one of them. The pro-life movement doesn't need to change its rhetoric based on the extremists. Condemning them is sufficient, and it's also the cut-off point for this "degrees of culpability" idea you've proposed. [Are the people who kill babies for a living anywhere in your "degree of culpability?"]

In my opinion all of this claiming someone is painting all pro-lifers as a fanatic is just a way of deflecting the conversation from where it belongs. It's pretending to be a victim.

Wayfriend, do you think I'm an extremist? Do you think I've advocated hatred? If so, have the balls to say it. If not, then the fact that you said my rhetoric is an example of what got Tillman killed cannot be reconciled with your most recent statements about pretending to be a victim. Forget "all pro-lifers." Let's talk about the ones you've specifically named in this thread, and who's words you used as an example of what you're talking about. Me, for instance. Am I playing the victim, or are you attacking me unfairly? Because if I'm playing the victim, this means you aren't really attacking me, which means you don't think my rhetoric is extremist. Which is strange, because you've said my rhetoric is the kind that leads to murder.

Is my rhetoric an example of hatred, or not? Is my rhetoric the kind that leads to extremism? I don't see how you can avoid calling me an extremist, and yet still maintain that you weren't really accusing me of having culpability in this man's death--since extremism, as you've pointed out, amounts to (a "degree of") culpability. Maybe you'll just ignore this part of my post and avoid committing yourself either way, for fear of admitting this contradiction.

The real conversation should be: Can vast numbers of people, including the well-known and the well-listened-to, go around saying "abortionists are murderers" and worse, and then claim that they aren't part of a problem that leads to a vigilante who is only doing what everyone he respects says should be done?

I say no. They are part of the problem.

They didn't pull the trigger. There are other degrees of culpability.

Right here, you've effectively eliminated the possiblity pro-lifers stating their position at all, without stooping extremism. I can't say, "abortion is murdering babies" without you saying my claim is an example of hate speech. You aren't talking about extremists. You're talking about the mainstream pro-life position on abortion: it's murder. That's what we think. There's no other way to pussyfoot around it. Is there some other pro-life position we could possibly have??

Your arguments against extremists amounts to an argument for pro-lifers not speaking their position at all, even in its most basic form. And since this is the most basic form of all pro-lifers' belief, this proves you think ALL pro-lifers are extremists who contribute to the murder of Tillman, since it's the most general pro-life position which you're calling extremist.

You have just proven every allegation against you in this thread. You're trying to shut up any dissent whatsoever by calling mainstream dissent "hate speech" which leads to murder and terrorism. That's your argument. I haven't put a single word in your mouth.

[sindatur]

I think the thing those who are demonizing Pro-Lifers with this action (That Pro-Lifers are distancing themselves from) are forgetting is that in order to call it a part of the movement, or political, you would have to have a call spcifically for killing this Dr, which I have yet to see produced, and if found, then the whacko who called for that, should be prosecuted for Conspiracy, accessory to murder, or whatever the charge is when you tell someone to kill someone else and they do

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Violence speaks pretty loudly, but I'm concerned with the point that Malik (and Jwaneeta too) are making. That this ugliness is being used to paint the right and the entire pro-life movement (which, according to polls, is the majority of the country now) as a bunch of fanatics.

I add my voice to the chorus of those declaring themselves to not in any way be making such a statement. I don't think that the pro-life position entails violence, or that one is the natural consequence of the other. Simply in this case, the violent act by the assassin is inherently connected to (1) George Tiller's actions and beliefs, and (2) the beliefs of the killer.

[Zarathustra]

"According to modern political thought, violence is the ultima ratio of politics. The basic subject of modern politics, in the sense of the foundational understanding of what politics is ultimately all about, is consequently violence"

That’s an argument for politics being violent, not violence being political.

All politics can end in violence. But not all violence is political. This murderer wasn’t trying to affect a debate as much as he was trying to stop abortions. Granted, the goal of the prolife debate is to stop abortions, too. But just because they have the same goal doesn't mean they're both political in their means. When you try to stop abortions in a civilized manner involving our political institutions (voting, campaigning, etc.), you’re in the realm of politics. When you grab a gun and start implimenting your goals with force, you’ve moved beyond political institutions and the tools we use to navigate them.

Tiller's actions were the logical conclusion of the pro-choice position.

I don't understand. I was talking about the guy who killed him, not the abortion doctor himself. Did you mean that the vigilate murderer's actions were the logical conclusion of the pro-life movement? If so, I don’t think it’s a logical conclusion at all. I know murder happens all the time in the world, but I don’t go out on a vigilante quest to stop it. The fact that I don’t do so doesn’t violate my belief that unpunished murder happens all around us. You abstain from vigilantism, too (I assume) and yet I'm sure you share this belief that murder happens. Our abstaining from vigilantism isn’t illogical. And if it’s not illogical to abstain from taking the law into your own hands, then there is no logical imperative stemming from our belief that murder happens.

This is a curious statement. It assumes that the political is an abstract and metaphysical entity. It's not. Politics is action.

Well, if you want to call debate and voting “action,” I suppose so. But debate and voting are two ways to express an opinion. Opinions are definitely more abstract than bullits, wouldn’t you say?

You seem to imply that politics is the end, rather than the means. The end here is stopping abortions. Stopping abortions isn’t itself political, no more than stopping theft. Stopping theft by voting in a strong anti-crime candidate is a political way to achieve this goal. But the goal itself is self-protection, not politics. Means. Ends.

Politics, in my opinion, is the science of power. But not all expressions of power are scientific. Much too often, they are violent and brutal.

[Cail]

Politics, in my opinion, is the science of power. But not all expressions of power are scientific. Much too often, they are violent and brutal.

That's incredibly profound, and an apt description.

[Tjol]

It's also important to note that this doctor was brought up on medical ethics charges as well. He was acquitted, but was still under investigation at the time of his death.

Again, I want to make clear that I in no way condone Roeder's actions; I think they're beyond despicable. But I also think that it's despicable to use a tragedy like this to make ideological hay....

To create a comparable scenario for pro-abortionists, one could consider childhood molestation victims who have attacked the molester later in life...I recall at least one priest killed by someone who said they'd been molested by that priest.

Just because the priest was killed, doesn't mean the priest was a martyr. Likewise, just because this late term abortionist was killed, doesn't mean he's a martyr, although you can only expect the media to portray him that way.

[wayfriend]

I have made a case that pro-life rhetoric is often excessive, even by people who are not considered extremists. And who probably feel it isn't excessive, or don't notice that it's excessive. They cross the line on which one side is "abortion is bad", and go into the "these people deserve hate" territory. Even someone in this thread did that, probably not even thinking about it. O'Reilly did it famously.

Again, you're talking about your own inventions, without producing any evidence. I haven't heard anyone say the pro-choicers deserve hate.

I'm not going to bother to add more evidence to what I have already posted. You'll continue to overlook it.

I've defined what I call excessive several times now. Based on a concept which you stated and which I share. That discussion whether abortion is right or wrong is okay. But when it crosses the line into demonizing people, it's too much.

You don't have to agree with where I draw that line. But that's where I draw it.

The comments of Dave Leach, which I quoted above, should be over anyone's line.

The O'Reilly comments that have been quoted several times are over my line.

Your comment about where Tiller earns his living was over my line.

I don't consider either you or O'Reilly extremists. I do think that both of you have been encouraged by impunity and the cheering on of others to do what extremists do and believe that it's a fine, day in day out, normal affair.

Do pro-life people say "hate these people", those very words? No. Does that mean that those words don't encourage hate? No. If your defense is they don't say the word "hate", then I'm not game.

Saying people are wrong, unethical, or simply getting angry with them is not extremist.

By now I've made it abundantly clear that I agree with that statement.

Is my rhetoric an example of hatred, or not?

I've asked you, point blank, how stating where Tiller makes his money advances the pro-life opinion without vearing into hatred. I still wait for your explanation. Until then, my opinion, uninformed by your followup, is that it does cross the line into hatred.

Is my rhetoric the kind that leads to extremism?

Yes. It is the kind.

I gave already stated that it is not one person's utterance of that kind of rhetoric that encourages extremists. It is when it comes in quantities, and from people who are respected, and when it comes with impunity, because impunity is often mistaken for righteousness.

I don't see how you can avoid calling me an extremist, and yet still maintain that you weren't really accusing me of having culpability in this man's death--since extremism, as you've pointed out, amounts to (a "degree of") culpability.

For the fifth time, I have just explained how I don't consider you an extremist, and how I am not accusing you of culpability of this mans death. I don't think I'll bother answering if you ask me again. I have done the best I could.

Right here, you've effectively eliminated the possiblity pro-lifers stating their position at all, without stooping extremism.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Is it not possible to say that abortion is wrong without also inciting hatred of doctors?

If it's not possible, then I guess I commited a mistake and am guilty as you charge me.

If it is possible, then you have my answer above.

I can't say, "abortion is murdering babies" without you saying my claim is an example of hate speech.

Well, abortion ISN'T murdering babies. If it was, those doctors would all be arrested. So that's not a good start.

And I'm sure you know the abortionist doesn't consider himself a baby murderer. So you know you've oversimplified, which is a form of misrepresenting the situation. That's not getting better.

Its perjorative language. It doesn't advance any notion that abortion is wrong. It presupposes abortion is wrong and judges doctors based on that supposition. Your convicting doctors of a crime that they didn't commit except in your opinion.

You're going after the doctors. Your villifying them - literally.

No one villifies someone so that we'll like them. They villify them so that we'll hate them. That we'll go after them and serve justice upon them.

So, yes, that's a kind of hate speech. When you combine it with similar speeches from others, so that it becomes a culture of hate, then it really is hate speech.

Even if ... even if .. it wasn't in and of itself. When you read stories like this:

Central Texas abortion providers say violence a daily fear

or

The National Abortion Federation, which supports abortion rights, has documented more than 6,100 acts of violence against abortion providers in the United States and Canada since 1977.

... you have to stop and pause and think maybe, maybe it's going to far. Maybe I should temper my words and make it a little clearer that abortion doctors aren't criminals. So that I don't feed the urge to violence which I know is there.

And I'll add with the final question: if the comment doesn't do the slightest tiny thing to promote the pro-life argument, why are you saying it? Excluding the reason of getting people to hate abortionists, I can't think of a possible other choice. Maybe if you gave me one, I could think about it.

[benzss]

Well, abortion ISN'T murdering babies. If it was, those doctors would all be arrested. So that's not a good start.

I think you've fallen foul (hehe) of the is-ought problem there.