right wing terrorism: The killing of a doctor

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

I make one exception - I think Dick Cheney is Satan. But I’m not sure that’s politics - I have been registered as a Republican more than as a Democrat. (I am at present unaligned).

But it’s the rhetoric I am campaigning against. We see it all day (some days) right here. It’s the same thing as O’Reilly does. People mimic him. But they’d spew it out without him. It’s that same rhetoric that you object to (and I do, as well). It’s just that only a handful of people read these posts.

But fighting this dastardly rhetoric with equally dastardly rhetoric strikes me as not the best way to go about squelching the rhetoric.

22

you’re right, of course - i retract the assasination quip.

23

it’s the same thing that happened during the election. You had elites coming out and attacking Obama with certain catch-phrases and rhetoric that they knew would ignite their base. This was quickly followed by people yelling death threats and racial slurs during McCain rallies. It eventually became so bad that McCain had to personally address the issue and tell people to calm down. The poing is that the fact that people, who are infact right-wing, and predominately speak for the right-wing in the media, are capable of mobilizing large numbers of people is well known. It’s how they fund-raise and it is how they win elections. They do so with hate speech and anger, with passionate prose and emotional appeals. The necessary and inexorable result is that they will say the wrong thing, make the wrong person angry and militant, and people get killed.

Edited to add this:

This is right-wing extremists elites inciting right-wing extremists. And the horrible fact of 21st century conservative politics is that the abilitiy to mobilize these extremists is necessary and identical to winning elections. These people are not mainstream, but are constantly being enfranchised by the mainstream.

24

I agree with Stitt’s main thrust. For a moment, let’s consider some of the things being said by anti-abortion luminaries in response to this event:

Seems to be a call for radical action . . .

Now, let’s look at OR’s “denouncement” of the act:

That doesn’t sound like a denouncement to me.

Read:

Then again, who knows? Maybe it was just another doctor who was in competition with him, and the other abortionist killed him to make more money. Or maybe it was a patient who went crazy after an abortion (as they are wont to do) and killed the doctor. If that is the case, he deserved it. Or maybe it was just a righteous individual who was justly punished the criminal who had escaped prosecution.

Let’s consider the politics of the individual in question:

Couple all of that with the eliminationist rhetoric found on the right:

The right cultivates this sort of thing and then, when it happens, they try and distance themselves from it. Try to plead some reasonable middle ground. Then they go right back to preaching death. Let’s call it what it is.

25

Preaching God does not create God.

It’s clear to anyone who knows the guy who shot the doctor that the guy was nutso.

And it’s not such a cut-and-dried thing to call late-term abortions something other than murder.

I don’t think we could solve the problem of whether or not abortionists are killers here. It hasn’t been solved anywhere else.

But hey, Marilyn Manson caused Columbine, right?

Let’s blame the entertainers.

It’s another way to make these clowns seem important.

Again, for the record, I am pro-abortion and anti-Rush.

But I’m also for personal responsibility.

26

There is a clear history of violence regarding turning doctors performing abortions into “targets”. O’reilly alone talked about Tiller 29 times since 2005, and has tracked him down with his on scene producers twice. The dots connect themselves, you put one of these guys in the spotlight over a period of years, call him a murderer ect., act offended and angry, and guess what happens…the history of violence continues. They gave some nutjob his target, and they sure as hell know that they did.

27

Xunzian:
Couple all of that with the eliminationist rhetoric found on the right:

[quote]
“I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus – living fossils – so we will never forget what these people stood for.” – Rush Limbaugh

“I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber.” – Melanie Morgan

“”[T]he day will come when unpleasant things are going to happen to a bunch of stupid liberals and it’s going to be very amusing to watch." – Lee Rogers

“And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.” – Bill O’Reilly

“Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!”-- Michael Reagan

“Let’s start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen. Do you have an idea where they live? Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous – grab for the golden ring.” – “The Political Insight”

“Some liberals have become even too crazy for Texas to execute, which is a damn shame. They’re always saying – we’re oppressed, we’re oppressed so let’s do it. Let’s oppress them.” – Ann Coulter

“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee. … That’s just a joke, for you in the media.” – Ann Coulter

LINDA VESTER (host): You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all?

COULTER: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days.

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too.”

“They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America’s self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn’t slowed them down.”

“I have to say I’m all for public flogging.”

“I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote.”

“Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.”

“My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.”

“In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he [Clinton] ‘did it,’ even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate.”

Faust says: Let’s blame the entertainers.

It’s another way to make these clowns seem important.

Again, for the record, I am pro-abortion and anti-Rush.

But I’m also for personal responsibility.

K: You say you are for personal responsibility which is great but what about the personal responsibility of “entertainers”.
How do they escape this idea of personal responsibility while espousing ideas of murder, bombings and terrorism?
Does being an “entertainer” mean you never have to take any personal responsibility for anything said?

I would also debate this idea of them being entertainers. How does this statement qualify as entertainment?

“Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.”

What does this say about us, if this qualifies as “entertainment”?

Kropotkin

28

Sitt - I guess if they hadn’t put Sharon Tate in that movie, Charles Manson never would have killed her.

29

Peter -

My point exactly.

30

K: What does this say about us, if this qualifies as “entertainment”?

F: My point exactly.

K: a neat trick which allows you to avoid the question as to how do they possible qualify as entertainment
if they advocate murder, bombing and terrorism?

Kropotkin

31
32

Point, game, set, match.

Sorry, Peter, we’re boys, but I have to call this one like I see it.

33

Faust: You’re hooked on Fox News, too. Aren’t you, Peter. It’s the best entertainment on television."

K: When I want a good laugh, I watch it."

K: when they are advocating Obama is not an American citizen or other sheer stupidity, yes, I laugh.
When they advocate murder, bombings and terrorism, I am beyond appalled. Under your theory than
any talk show is entertainment. Which seems to me to so stretch the meaning of the word “entertainment”, as
to mean just about anything.

Kropotkin

34

I know some people take these guys seriously.

Some people cried when they heard Susan Boyle sing.

Some people think athletes are heroes.

Some people name their children after health and beauty aids.

35

So apparently, people on TV or radio have absolutely no obligation in taking personal
responsibility for anything they say on TV or radio. Interesting concept.

By your reckoning, all media has been leveled into the lowest common denominator called
ENTERTAINMENT. It has the exact same value no matter what is on TV or radio
and there is no personal responsibility of any kind for any media by anybody.

Who knew?

Kropotkin

36

How can any show on TV not be classified as, “Entertainment?”

I think when it comes to any show, the question is simply one of degree.

National/Global News = Diversion

At least for most people. I suppose a possible exception would be if one were a cause of the national/global news, then they would simply be viewing the results of their own actions.

37

I dunno. When people post here, aping whatever Keithe Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh say, I find it entertaining.

38

You object to people calling this murderer “right-wing”, even though his obsessions and political proclivities are clearly congruent with the Christian far-right, but you have no trouble labelling him with a psychiatric diagnosis off the top of your head?

Naturally, the right is trying to distance itself from responsibility for this heinous crime by painting this guy as crazy (it might also make him not criminally responsible due to insanity). I don’t know why anyone else should try to do the same.

Roeder is nutso only in the same sense that the political ideology he espouses is nutso. The only difference between him and Bill O’Reilly et al. is that he had the courage to do what they only talked about doing.

39

It’s not off the top of my head. I have read a couple of news stories wherein people who know the guy say he’s a nutball.

My belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is in congruence with secular leftist politics - that doesn’t mean I’ll be cruising the gay bars tonight.

You’re assuming that I agree with the insanity defense.

That’s another assumption. O’Reilly et al are motivated by money to say what they say. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are ever sincere in their expressions. O’Reilly rarely is, from what I have seen.

40

This whole situation reminds me a bit of the Ben Elton novel ‘Popcorn’

There are clearly impressionable people in the world, in fact terrorist recruitors prey almost exclusively on these type of people. There are also people who, sadly, unquestionably take what they are told by their ‘leaders’ to be true and right. Scott Roeder may have been one of these people. But it doesn’t change that responsibility for his actions lie with him. The media and entertainment industry holds far too much sway over people who really don’t want to think for themselves. Spouting hate is also, IMO, wrong, but it is a seperate act from committing hate crimes.