Sarah Palin, like most right-wingers, doesn't get it: Abortion-clinic violence is terrorism
By David Neiwert Monday Jun 01, 2009 3:30pm
Right-wingers have a problem admitting that there's such a thing as right-wing terrorism. We saw it recently with that prescient Homeland Security bulletin that they all claimed smeared them. And now we're seeing it again with the assassination of Dr. George Tiller.
Sarah Palin issued a statement today about the assassination of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas that was a classic Double Fail:
I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, 'What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today's event in Kansas?'
Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller's abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message.
Palin, like most movement conservatives, is worried most of all about the possible effects this murder will have on the anti-abortion movement and her own politics.
More to the point, she refuses to acknowledge -- just as she did in the campaign last year, in the above interview with John McCain -- that abortion-clinic violence is in fact domestic terrorism.
She's certainly not alone in that regard. Michelle Malkin openly mocked the very idea of it today, as did others.
But this is not a new problem. Back in 2003, then-Rep. Porter Goss-- prior to his stint as CIA director -- made similar claims:
"The trouble is, 'terrorism' is a very broad word, and it lends itself to a lot of mischief for people who would abuse common sense," Goss said. He then cited bombings of abortion clinics. "To me, that's not the kind of terrorism I'm talking about."
But in 2004, anti-abortion militants in the Army of God -- the violently anti-abortion organization with which Scott Roeder, Tiller's assassin, was associated at one time -- openly celebrated their status as terrorists:
Pleading, politics and pandering have done precious little to stop the holocaust against the innocent. But the Christian terrorist is not so inadequate. Dead abortionists don't kill babies, and a fire-bombed death camp can no longer facilitate the holocaust against them.
As cream rises to the top, so the Christian terrorist rises above the huddled masses of churchgoers and the many voices that denounce their violent attempts to defend the innocent from their murderous assailants.
The people committing these acts see themselves as terrorists and embrace the notion. Unfortunately, their fellow right-wingers who don't condone or share their behavioral extremism -- but do share their belief that abortion is murder and that Dr. Tiller was a "mass murderer" -- are much too busy covering up that fact. And their friends in the media are willing to let them get away with it.
Login or Register to post comments.
Dear god, please protect me from those who believe in you.
We don't have enough tubes on all the internets to list what my Gov. doesn't understand
-steve in ak
Aaamen, Amen Amen Amen.
Sarah Palin "doesn't get it" in every subject you could ask her about. Why would this be any different?
Then how did she have so many kids
Parthenogenesis?
budding.
...if a right winger does it it's ok, whatever "it" happens to be. So, of course, it's not terrorism.
What a slimeball.
NOW Identifies Murder of Dr. George Tiller As Domestic Terrorism, Calls for Action from Justice Department and Homeland Security
Nebraska physician vows to keep Tiller abortion clinic open
I'm glad too hear that the cowardly actions of an irrational ideologue shall not infringe upon the rights of individuals whom don't share all his anal worldviews. I'm sure the honorable Dr. Tiller would want no less then to stand strong against these radical sects. It took awhile for them to stop burning witches... this is quite similar.
The US invades and conquers weak kneed little nations using state sponsored terrorism, it's citizens murder those they don't agree with using domestic terrorism, the corporations hold the work force by the throat using unemployment terrorism, and the banks threaten global meltdown using financial terrorism. Thank the great stars above, that all these terrorisms don't come with some extra new versions of torture.....oh wait...
Sarah "Frickin" Palin again? Good Gawd, why don't they take that idiotic woman out helicopter hunting and toss her out at a high altitude? Where DO they find these political idiots?
a double dose of Sarah Stupid today.
You may be onto something. Perhaps that is why she is so stupid. A double dose? Would explain that wink thing she does. She got some in her eyes!
Other people tried to save him or stop the attacker.
Logical conclusion : People, including women and children, were terrorized in their place of worship. It is most likely they will no longer feel safe to attend that same church again as an experience like this has long lasting affects on a person.
Take away the names and reasons and view this as it should be, impartially.
This was a terrorist attack on a person attending a church IN AMERICA.
I believe it would be imprudent to disregard the reason(s).
I think the last line is pure sarcasm.
But more seriously, if they'll gun down a doctor in a church, they'll do it anywhere. It's interesting what's sacred to these "Christians".
I read a few comments that suggested this vile act, contemporaneously coincided with the anniversary of an earlier tragedy with similar dimensions?
Symbolism seems to be important to them, like 9/11, Timothy McVeigh on April 19, 1995, the second anniversary of the Waco Siege, etc.
Anyways... Thanks for your time as well (SDGreg) √
Put yourself in the shoes of the people in the church's congregation who knew nothing of the Doctors activities outside of the fact he was in attendance every week at church and helped things go smoothly at the service.
Then a gun man comes into your church and kills this person in cold blood.
What does it look like to you?
You have now become a victim of terrorism within your own church environment.
To an outsider looking in, maybe it matters what this person did outside of church, but to a member of the congregation, and I am fairly sure this would have included children, this was murder, terrorism plain and simple.
I think the intent of gunning down an abortion doctor in a church was not to intimidate people in churches, but to show there's no safe place for an abortion doctor. If you'll kill in a church, is there any place you won't kill? They want to intimidate anyone who might otherwise want to be near an abortion doctor at any time hoping that fear will effectively cause those doctors to be shunned as those near them fear for their safety. This is the essence or terrorism.
Though I cannot say with certainty, how many attendees were familiar with the courageous Doctor Tiller's notoriety outside his place of worship, I myself, would tend to think the majority of his fellowship would be aware of his background?
I absolutely agree it was terrorism... but until we find out the true reason(s) why this individual chose too assassinate Mr. Tiller, irregardless of the location or as we are aware... (In his house of worship) this type of activity will persist.
Maybe it's just semantics but I get confused at the point you say... "Then a gun man comes into your church and kills this person in cold blood.
What does it look like to you?
You have now become a victim of terrorism within your own church environment."
Unless your suggesting that the congregation is relative to this vile individuals action? I'm an atheist and I feel every decent human, the world over, should honestly admit... by definition, this was undeniably a terrorist act irregardless of where this took place. In any case, I'd like to thank you once again for your time and wish you and yours all the best.
This was a terrorist act of political intimidation where ever the terrorist choose to attack.
These people want to use fear and violence to shape policy. They know that murdering doctors who perform abortions will discourage others from doing the same. They're actually more traditionally terrorist than Tom McVeigh was.
The fact that so many right-wingers can't condemn this latest politically-motivated attack in a church as terrorism is a commentary on how ideologically insane they are. This is just sick.
Is actually a very specifically defined word. The killing of abortion doctors fits the dictionary definition exactly as you stated.
It's politicians who have "broadly defined" it to suit their agendas.
the muslim convert that killed at an army recruiting post is the top story on CNN and we don't know about the killer of Dr. Tiller. They are calling the muslim a terrorist, yet the right wing does not call the killer of Dr. Tiller a terrorist. He must have a "christian" sounding name.
Technically they're both alleged until they're convicted.
But only the paler one gets the caveat.
Suspect is Scott Roeder.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/200...
It's almost always the same story with these passionate nuts. Though I've noticed a common denominator overwhelmingly present in these instances. I'll leave the answer up to any curious individuals too deduce.
"Separately, it's also being reported that Roeder was once a subscriber, and occasional contributor, to the extremit anti-abortion newsletter Prayer and Action News. Dave Leach, an Iowa-based activist who runs the newsletter, said he didn't necessarily see Roeder's act as a crime. "To call this a crime is too simplistic," Leach told the New York Times. "There is Christian scripture that would support this."
So by that logic, if I start a church that has scripture that says it's okay to kill anti-abortionists, then doing so wouldn't be a crime. That, or course, is insane. These people are nothing more than religious zealots, some of them terrorists. Will the FBI infiltrate some of the more extreme anti-abortion organizations?
to the fact that in this country it is US legal code that determines whether an act is criminal or not and NOT his Bible!!! I take it he's a proud member of that "Consitution" Party that wants to do away with our Constitution and replace it with biblical Judaic law so that we can be just like those that live under Sharia law?
Is mcgramps checking out her thighs?
It's ok! Better to be old and horny than dead.
He ain't a stiff yet.
n/t
It is only the true believers and fundamentalists of any stripe that resort to violence. They are so certain of their convictions that all others are wrong. Fundy Muslim or Fundy Christian.....no difference. The American Taliban are now amongst us.
So what's next, splashing the faces of schoolgirls with acid?
But if they do something like that, I hope they get the Biblical treatment as punishment -- an eye for an eye...
Funny how many of these 'Christians' believe in the very things their faith is supposed to stand against. Racial discrimination, the death penalty, greed, intolerance - all are supposedly against their religion's teachings. I know because I grew up attending an English school where religious education was mandatory. Funny how that sort of thing makes more atheists than Christians, but I digress.
The bottom line is these so-called pro-lifers are nothing but hypocrites and always will be. Notice how many of them support the death penalty for example. Apparently the price of innocent men and women dying is acceptable, but even contraception is not. And certainly it's fair to call them terrorists because what they're doing is the precise definition of the word terrorism.
Al Quaeda successfully terrorized the United States by forcing us to abandon our civil liberties in fear of a future attack.
These people are successfully terrorizing the United States because they use fear of violence to change the way society would normally choose to live.
Al Quaeda suppresses women's rights with cruelty and violence and is rightly castigated for it. So-called pro lifers suppress women's rights with cruelty and violence and idiots like Palin praise them.
The application of the terrorist label on an individual or group is almost always subjectively based on the values possessed by both the accused and the accuser. When the cause is viewed in a sympathetic light, they're not terrorists because their actions are attributed some sense of righteousness, even if the actions aren't condoned, or were "taken too far".
The labeling of a crime as terrorism will always be a he said/she said, and these right-wingers will never admit that anybody from under their (increasingly small) big tent is a terrorist, as nobody they associate with is Muslim, and that is prereq #1 for them to label anybody a terrorist.
That's the problem with creating a new set of laws for terrorists or "enemy combatants", as there is no clear delineation between whether a criminal is or is not a terrorist. He should be tried for murder and whatever other charges are relevant.
The dictionary definition of terrorism is as follows.
"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
Killing people, bombing clinics, intimidating protests preventing women from attending those clinics - all fall well within this definition. It is terrorism when you force your will on society using violence and intimidation, no matter whether you call yourself a 'rebel freedom fighter' or not.
The IRA for example didn't call themselves terrorists. But they freely acknowledged that terrorism was one of their tools and that they were willing to use it to gain their political objectives.
I'm not for one moment going to argue the rights and wrongs of that particular example, but rather that most 'freedom fighters' do acknowledge their use of terrorism. Their position on whether they're entitled to do so or not is where you get the differences of opinion as well as how the groups themselves are labeled.
David is parroting what Scarce has already put up here. More screening please!
The christian fanatics are just as bad. It is time that the vile Patriot Act was used to control these home grown terrorist cells that call themselves right to lifers.
Self-promotion and pandering.
Sarah Stupid understands two things -
Self-promotion, pandering and pimping her kids for publicity.
Okay; three things: Silly Sally Stoopid understands three things:
Self-promotion, pandering, pimping and butt-wiggling -
Among the things she understands blarba darba darba...
We can't justify these acts. We have home grown terrorism that is as dangerous and sometime more dangerous than any outside our country. The most terrifying thing about this home grown variety is who these groups think is the enemy. Is is liberal education? Is it liberal media? Is it liberal libraries? And what is liberal? Is Mark Twain liberal? Is 'To Kill a Mockingbird' too liberal?
Is contraceptives to young unmarried women too much for these groups? It goes on and on?
Plain and simple, these people are nuts and you don't give them an inch.
Her answer to Brian Williams said she was against "harming INNOCENT Americans" or anyone who would "seek to destroy...INNOCENT Americans."
In other words, doctors who perform abortions are not innocent. So people who kill them aren't terrorists.
Just goes to show you how Republicans live in a world fraught with double-standards, where terrorists for their causes are patriots (Ollie North, Eric Rudolph, Kissinger).
No, people aren't terrorists as long as they're terrorists for the Reich. Just like the GOP is the "law-and-order" order party, but their biggest mouthpiece is a drug addict and they still listen to G. Gordon Liddy, who was not only a criminal, but a pretty lousy one at that...
I'm on board with ya, buddy, but this is how you introduce it?
See, right there you are implying that it is debatable that events like 9/11 were orchestrated by non-right-wingers.
The 9/11 terrorists were right-wing. They were simply the right wing of a different plane, if you will. They weren't socailists. They weren't commies. They were god-fearing, pious [insert name of religion here] soldiers, marching as to war.
Your first sentence might make one think that it is reasonable to call the 9/11 terrorists anything but right-wing.
Now, that said; nice entry.
Cheers.
Sarah Palin is dumber than a bag of rocks. They should give her and Limbaugh a primetime television show 5 nights a week.
The 21% party, would be a 16% party in a few weeks.
I respect the sanctity of life
Didn't she have "brownshirts" at her rallies calling for Obama's murder? To which she said nothing to denounce?
I don't ever want to hear this stupid, terrorist sympathizing bitch talking about having respect for life.
... is redundant. The use of fear has always been the right's preferred M.O. to control people. Of course, Nazi Germany is the most obvious example of a right-wing terrorist state. But most cases of "left-wing terrorism" in recent times have turned out to have been funded and/or orchestrated by the right, more specifically by the crypto-fascist right (for example, the CIA's long-running Operation Gladio in Europe and, for that matter, the Russian Revolution which was funded by Wall Street). The FBI's Cointelpro program relied heavily on agents provocateur to incite and sometimes facilitate left-wing terrorism.
Login or Register to post comments.