right wing terrorism: The killing of a doctor

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Yesterday in Kansas, a doctor was assassinated in cold blood in church no less.
Dr. George Tiller, a doctor was performed abortions was killed, shot to death by
a right wing terrorist. The killer had a long history of terrorism. as reported by Daily Kos:

Dk: Several news sources are now reporting the name of the suspect in the murder of Dr. George Tiller. According to KWCH-TV:

Deputy Chief Tom Stolz w/ Wichita Police Dept. says Dr. Tiller died of a single gunshot wound. The Associated Press says the man detained in the Kansas City area is 51-year-old Scott Roeder of Merriam, Kansas, according to Law Enforcement authorities in the area. Roeder has not been formally charged with the killing at this time. Police say he was arrested without incident after a traffic stop.

July 7, [1997], Kansas: Scott Roeder is sentenced to sixteen months in state prison for parole violations following a 1996 conviction for having bomb components in his car trunk. Roeder, a sovereign citizen and tax protester, violated his parole by not filing tax returns or providing his social security number to his employer.:"

He was also an active member of Operation Rescue; in 2007 a “Scott Roeder” posted this on the Operation Rescue website (which has been down throughout the day, probably more as a result of increased traffic than any sense of collective shame):

[May 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pm] Bleass everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn’t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to tiller"

The Lawrence Journal-World and News relays that Kansas City station KMBC reported a post-it note with a phone number for Operation Rescue in his car at the time of his arrest.

So a bombmaker, tax protester, member of the “sovereignity” movement, anti-abortion zealot and Operation Rescue member: the arrested suspect manages to fit every stereotype of right-wing militia teabagger."

K: the season of terrorism has begun. I see right wing terrorism as increasing as they step up their attacks on America.
Think about this, what if Roeder had been Muslim? People like Limbaugh would be demanding we nuke Iran in retailation.
Right wing terrorism is just as dangerous as 9/11 and least anybody forgets, before 9/11 the largest terrorist attack against
America was conducted by right wing fanatics, Timothy McVay and Terry nichols. The danger to america is not osama bin laden,
but dick chaney and his type of fanaticism.

Kropotkin

2

“Dick Cheney”

Knee jerk to right wing terrorism.

Good Job.

3

It’s blatantly unfair to characterise this as “right-wing”. Right-wing of what? Not of any mainstream political group. “Anti-abortion” and “will kill people because they perform abortions” are not the same thing.

A nutball is a nutball first, and an ideologue second.

4

I could have used several people who are right wing terrorists: Dick chaney, Rush Limbaugh, sean hamnity,
glenn beck, ann coulter, each of whom have advocated the use of violence to achieve their desired ends.
and what is the classic definintion of a terrorist?

An ideological driven person who advocates the use of violence to achive a desired end.

Osama bin laden is one such person AND Dick Chaney is another.

Kropotkin

5

The Patriots, the Founding Fathers and FDR qualify, then.

6

Faust: It’s blatantly unfair to characterise this as “right-wing”. Right-wing of what? Not of any mainstream political group. “Anti-abortion” and “will kill people because they perform abortions” are not the same thing.

A nutball is a nutball first, and an ideologue second.

K: please note part of the post:
July 7, [1997], Kansas: Scott Roeder is sentenced to sixteen months in state prison for parole violations following a 1996 conviction for having bomb components in his car trunk. Roeder, a sovereign citizen and tax protester, violated his parole by not filing tax returns or providing his social security number to his employer.:"

K: clearly protesting taxes is not anti-abortion. Protesting taxes is political in nature, not religious.

Kropotkin

7

Faust: The Patriots, the Founding Fathers and FDR qualify, then."

K: The founding fathers? I seem to recall a little war I like to call “the American Revolution”
The founding fathers tried for a peaceful solution and the British refused.
FDR? Hitler is a better candidate.

and as for the patriots! Yes, the New England Patriots are truly the poster child of terrorism.
Keeping Randy Moss in the league! Downright Un-American, I say. The house where Tom Brady grew up
in, is an easy 10 minute drive from my house. Just wrong, I tell you, getting all those supermodels pregnant.
Dam him, DAM HIM.

Kropotkin

8

The Patriots and FF’s advocated a violent solution, and were ideologically-driven. No politician was more ideology-driven than FDR - he practically invented left-wing politics as we know it today. And he fought a war. Ideologically-driven + advocating violence. That’s what you said. I didn’t say it.

I am just following your lead. I think you have a bad definition or terrorism, and a worse one of “right-wing”.

Everyone protests some taxes. Refusing to pay them and building bombs does not constitute a political position. Certainly not one that is a “wing” of any normal position.

Peter - you just use handy catch-phrases to make a political point. That’s mere rhetoric.

9

Faust: The Patriots and FF’s advocated a violent solution, and were ideologically-driven. No politician was more ideology-driven than FDR - he practically invented left-wing politics as we know it today. And he fought a war. Ideologically-driven + advocating violence. That’s what you said. I didn’t say it.

K: feel free to name one time that FDR advocated violence toward Germany or Japan before December 7, 1941?
As for the patriots and the founding fathers, I don’t think you can separate them out. It is clear from their actions they hoped for
a peaceful solution. They didn’t want war with the most powerful nation on Earth, a war they felt they were going to get waxed in.

F: I am just following your lead. I think you have a bad definition or terrorism, and a worse one of “right-wing”.

From Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate or cause terror[2] for the purpose of “exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies.”[1] The term “terror” is largely used to indicate clandestine, low-intensity violence that targets civilians and generates public fear. Thus “terror” is distinct from asymmetric warfare, and violates the concept of a common law of war in which civilian life is regarded. The term “-ism” is used to indicate an ideology —typically one that claims its attacks are in the domain of a “just war” concept, though most condemn such as crimes against humanity.

Terrorism is more commonly understood as an act which is intended to create fear (terror), is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence or unconventional warfare, but at present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.[3][4]

A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. Acts of terrorism are defined as criminal acts according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and the domestic jurisprudence of almost all nations.

K: clearly, this excludes FDR.

DHS: Department of Homeland Security

Now the second part of this. From the DHS report on right-wing violence:

(U) Revisiting the 1990s
(U//FOUO) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

K: this seems clear enough.

F: Everyone protests some taxes. Refusing to pay them and building bombs does not constitute a political position. Certainly not one that is a “wing” of any normal position.

K: Refusing to pay taxes and building bombs is by definition, a political position. If you build a bomb or refuse to pay taxes, how is that not
a political position?

Peter - you just use handy catch-phrases to make a political point. That’s mere rhetoric."

K: As the right wing is the side advocating the tax issue and the side bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors,
so it follows through that they have taken ownership of this aspect, it has pass beyond rhetoric when people like
the good doctor is dead. The left wing haven’t been advocating killing someone for ideological reasons as the
right wing has and has done.

Kropotkin

10

Probably committed by an imbalanced religious nut. Maybe they considered themselves an instrument of Gods wrath.

Aside from hypocrisy, the religion driven murder of an abortionist is probably the result OF the fanatical right wing, but it need not represent the sentiments of the right wing.

11

Then again, if we compare this to something like burning a wooden cross on someones lawn, or lynch mob murders, what we have is a form of terrorism.

All terrorism is committed by fanatics right?

12

Wonderer: Probably committed by an imbalanced religious nut. Maybe they considered themselves an instrument of Gods wrath.

K: perhaps.

W: Aside from hypocrisy, the religion driven murder of an abortionist is probably the result OF the fanatical right wing, but it need not represent the sentiments of the right wing."

K: is the right wing driven from the top or the bottom? I suggest it is top driven which would mean that it does represent the sentiments
of the right wing. Look at the teabag movement, it was clearly driven by the top, fox news funded them. Against taxes? check. Against,
abortion, check. I don’t see how you can separate the right wing from its fanatics these days. The fanatics run the right wing, see rush Limbaugh.

Kropotkin

13

On his show, Bill Oreilly repeatedly publicly attacked Dr. Tiller - called him “Tiller the Baby Killer” and compared him to NAMBLA and Al Qeda

That’s not exactly a call for the man’s assasination - but it comes pretty damn close

14

How much you want to bet a legal defense fund is already being collected for him
by conservative churches?

Kropotkin

15

Peter - I’ll accept the Wiki definition - it’s yours I think isn’t a good one.

To my knowledge, the american Right is not advocating any bombing.

No, it’s not.

There were alternatives to war - they went to war. Same with FDR - he opposed entering the war, and then advocated it. Again, it’s your sloppy definition of terrorism that i disagree with, and not the historical facts.

16

ugly -

No, it’s not close at all.

I’m not sticking up for the Right. I’m sticking up for intelligent discussion, without base, incendiary and unthinking rhetoric.

17

i know you’re not making partisan arguments, Faust - and maybe i’m rushing to judgment - but it DOES seem to me that this guy was a popular right wing boogeyman - and it also seems pretty likely that that’s why he was targeted by this particular murderer

obviously, i’m not claiming this is part of a right wing conspiracy or saying that the average right winger would advocate or condone wanton murder - but it does, at this point, seem fair to assert that the killing was politically motivated - and that it’s pretty likely that the hate-mongering of guys like OReilly was a factor in this guy being chosen as a target

18

I guess I just get sick of hearing that everything the right does is wrong or that everything the left does is wrong. It seems so simple-minded.

Worse is when everything bad that happens is caused by the right or that everything bad that happens is caused by the left. You know, depending who you talk to.

Should Fox and MSNBC just go off the air because someone they talk about might get hurt? I think O’Reilly is a punk, but he didn’t kill anyone.

I don’t understand how people who call themselves philosophers can toe the party (either party) line on so much.

We read from this poster that everything any liberal has ever done is evil, in the most hyperbolic and absolute tones, and from that poster the same about conservatives.

It’s not enough to say “I disagree with George Bush and here’s why…” - instead we read that he is evil incarnate. It’s not enough to hear the same about Obama.

Or, in truth, it’s too much.

It requires actual thought to truly disagree with someone in a meaningful way. IIt’s easy just to demonise. Way too easy.

19

serves him right

he reaps what he soes

20

Faust: i totally appreciate your frustration - it wasn’t my intention to demonize the right (tho, Oreilly is a shit talker and a dick - maybe i wanted to demonize HIM a little) - i just think at a certain point, it becomes fair to say that this or that kind of rhetoric has real-life consequences, and throwing it about like a kid in a schoolyard (the way Oreilly does) is well . . . irresponsible . . . at best.