What is Digg?574 Comments
- IrishJoe, on 06/08/2009, -13/+486He had the phone number of someone who had bombed an abortion clinic on him when he was arrested for this killing. In 1996 he was convicted of having bomb making materials in his car. Days before killing Tiller he was run off Tiller's clinic after vandalizing it. He now claims from prison that there are others in his group who are planning more killings. How is he not a terrorist? Because he's not a Muslim and doesn't have an Arabic name?
- CindyRoss, on 06/08/2009, -12/+257Rob St. Amant points out the discrepancy in the definition of "domestic terror" and its application to specific cases. Scott Roeder has actually claimed there are more murders in the planning stages for other abortion doctors. Any reason he is not being charged under the provisions of the USA Patriot Act? Something doesn't add up.
- atarijedi, on 06/09/2009, -16/+183It is because he is a white christian.
- EnviroChem, on 06/09/2009, -11/+176Joe you nailed the reason on the head. These are domestic terrorists, but we have a hypocritical double standard when it comes to legally labeling groups as terrorists. Goodness knows we wouldn't want to upset the extreme right wing fundamentalist Christians.
- skintigh, on 06/09/2009, -15/+161I have a feeling that if a brown Muslim went into a church and shot people and then claimed that there were more attacks planned, that:
1) The media would call him a "terrorist."
2) Republicans and evangelicals* would be baying for his torture and for him to be stripped of all his legal and human rights.
Yet, when a white Christian goes into a church and shoots people and claims that there are more attacks planned:
1) The media calls him a "murderer."
2) He is given due process under the law.
*http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156 - jleopold, on 06/09/2009, -12/+140this is an EXCELLENT report and an important question that is raised. Indeed, why isn't he. I am eager to see what direction the FBI probe will take.
- Ymeg, on 06/09/2009, -2/+97Are you kidding? No one called McVeigh a terrorist?
- redcolumbine, on 06/09/2009, -10/+99If Roeder was charged as a terrorist, that means all of the organizations advocating violence to further political aims would have to be charged as well. That would include powerful broadcasting companies. Nobody wants their foot in that door. Pity.
- Myztry, on 06/09/2009, -10/+86Labeling a Christian as a terrorist would derail a whole campaign of fear mongering.
Terrorism is meant to replace the now ineffective term Pagan that led to witch hunts. - imnojezus, on 06/09/2009, -0/+69I'm pretty sure EVERYONE called, and still calls McVeigh a domestic terrorist.
- zyklon, on 06/09/2009, -9/+73Because he's being backed by a political group that has their hands in powerful pockets.
- offrdbandit, on 06/09/2009, -12/+66He is.
Next question. - carbonetc, on 06/09/2009, -22/+75Christians can't be terrorists, silly...
- pintomp3, on 06/09/2009, -9/+61"To me, murder of an individual is murder, not terrorism." That's because you are talking out of your ass. Terrorism has nothing to do with how many people you kill. It's about threatening an entire community in order to send a message.
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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
When blacks were lynched simply for being black, it was a message to the entire black community. When an abortion doctor is killed for performing abortions, it is a message to all those who perform abortions. You always try to play the middle ground when justifying right-wing hate.
-signatures are lame - LaughingMan11, on 06/09/2009, -6/+52Because these particular terrorists think they are doing God's Work by murdering people... oh wait.
- skintigh, on 06/09/2009, -2/+47"The people I disagree with are less than human and it's okay to kill them"
Gee, that kind of thinking hasn't ever lead to anything bad happening. - DankJemo, on 06/09/2009, -11/+52This guy is a domestic Terrorist, and he should undoubtedly be treated like one. The man's entire M.O. falls into the category of a terrorist, if he isn't tried as one it makes our entire judicial system look like the center of a hypocritical tornado. Especially since we have a "war on terror" or we did. That term isn't used anymore, but changing the name doesn't mean it is any different.
That isn't really here or there, though. The guy is a terrorist for what he did, how he did it, and how he planned on doing it again if he had gotten away with it. As I understand it, he is still threatening more attacks on similar people. - pintomp3, on 06/09/2009, -12/+52Because it's not terrorism when the Talibangelicals do it, only brown people who haven't accepted Jesus as their savior.
- Hetman, on 06/09/2009, -0/+40How can murdering an infidel that bombed your country make you a terrorist?
Thats called terrorism logic. - Mike17102, on 06/09/2009, -1/+40Then you are either to young to remember the event or you have some kind of ***** brain damage. Everyone called him a terrorist.
- inactive, on 06/09/2009, -1/+37"I don't remember anyone calling Timothy McVeigh a terrorist."
You don't? What planet do you live on? - lanemik, on 06/09/2009, -2/+36I'm pretty sure Roeder was doing more than advocating violence.
- rhuxley, on 06/09/2009, -10/+44Maybe Dick Cheney should be waterboarding this guy, to prevent further attacks.
- mparker21311, on 06/09/2009, -5/+37Apparently only liberals and Muslims can be terrorists.
- MWeather, on 06/09/2009, -6/+38I support the uniform application of the law.
- decx, on 06/09/2009, -8/+39i bet they wouldnt have a problem with labeling white people terrorists if they would kidnap/kill a ceo of some company like coca cola or mcdonalds... companys that make money of the suffering of others... that would clearly be labeled as terrorism
- treehugger87, on 06/09/2009, -4/+32I am sure that the 9/11 highjackers thought that what they were doing was trying to stop a bad country from doing a bad thing.
- EatingPie, on 06/09/2009, -45/+73Answer: The same reason the Marine who had recently converted to Islam and murdered a recruiter is not considered a terrorist... And supposedly his indoctrination into radical Islam was a major factor in the killing.
Whether that's consistent or not, I do not know. To me, murder of an individual is murder, not terrorism. (That's not a hard and fast rule, as life tends to break rules quite often.) They're both absolutely despicable crimes, and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
And FYI... Timothy McVeigh was TOTALLY CALLED A TERRORIST. Sheesh. People do not remember their history. The Oklahoma bombing was ALWAYS referred to as "The worse domestic terrorism incident in history" until 9/11.
-Pie - mickstephenson, on 06/09/2009, -6/+34That's not the reason, the reason is that any groups he is associated could by proxy be argued to be terrorist organisations, and just being a member of a terrorist organisation is a crime.
It's not him being protected, its the groups of fundies that are being protected. - skintigh, on 06/09/2009, -12/+38Buried for being right, and the truth hurts.
Whatever you do, do not suggest to a churchgoer the FACT that churchgoers are more likely to support torture. They will get extremely emotional and do whatever they can to drown out the facts and probably stop talking to you.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156 - Treshnell, on 06/09/2009, -1/+26You don't remember anyone calling Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? What moon were you born under?
- Hetman, on 06/09/2009, -5/+30So you are fine if America tortures people as long as they do not live or torture in this country. That is sad.
- iliveincoto, on 06/09/2009, -2/+26The point of the murder was to influence the pro-abortionists to stop, so how would this not be terrorism? It is the very definition of terrorism. Just because they believe they are doing good does not change the fact that they murdered someone in order to incite fear and terror.
- studiopenguin, on 06/09/2009, -7/+29Let's see how Dictionary.com defines "terrorism"!
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
So... the guy used "violence" and has "threatened" that there will be more violence to "intimidate" women's health care providers and further his "political" agenda. This was terrorism by definition, it meets every criteria of the word. - MWeather, on 06/09/2009, -1/+22The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it vigorously.
- InfiniteNothing, on 06/09/2009, -1/+22People called ayers a terrorist.
- CindyRoss, on 06/09/2009, -2/+23It's a lousy piece of legislation. And, as MWeather says, it is not being uniformly applied.
- enevitable, on 06/09/2009, -15/+34Better question, why aren't we using enhanced interrogation techniques on him to find out whats going to be bombed next and who else is going to die?
Thought it was totally safe?
C'mon clock's ticking 24 style. - maz2331, on 06/09/2009, -1/+20Yes they did.
- Myztry, on 06/09/2009, -6/+25Terrorism is simply the act of invoking terrorism for the purpose of causing compliance.
The key differentiation is whether it's legalized terrorism (such as police drawing weapons at unarmed civilians), or illegal terrorism as committed by groups not authorized to do so under law.
Terrorism is more common than people think due to the way it's meaning has been perverted by groups commonly claiming to suffer from it, while themselves also utilizing the act of invoking terror for compliance.
Waterboarding is a form of terrorism as well. - treehugger87, on 06/09/2009, -0/+19So if I come and terrorize you and your family in your home it doesn't count because there aren't enough of you for it to be called terrorism in any way?
- fandyllic, on 06/09/2009, -5/+23Tiller was the victim, you idiot.
- MWeather, on 06/09/2009, -1/+18It was retaliation for Waco. That's why he chose the second anniversary of Waco. How do you \now know this? It was the worst act of terrorism in American history until 9/11. Please tell me you know about the statements by Bin Laden explaining why 9./11 happened.
- nickespinosa, on 06/09/2009, -5/+21Because he isn't threatening corporate interests.
Radical environmentalists are routinely charged with HUGE penalties for things like destruction of property. Jeff Luers was sentenced to 22 YEARS with terrorism enhancement charges for burning 3 SUVs to draw attention to our current environmental crisis, where no one was injured and damages totalled $28,000. Without advocating this kind of action, it is a stark contrast to murder as a political action, which happens to not challenge corporate interests.
www.greenisthenewred.com - manjas8, on 06/09/2009, -0/+16Yeah, he was a domestic terrorist. If you don't recall him being called that it's probably because you're just too damn young to remember it.
- skintigh, on 06/09/2009, -1/+17Piglet,
Ummmmmm, okay... I guess you must think you know who I know more than I do, and I must be the only person in South Texas who doesn't know any churchgoers. *That's* plausible... I also like how you speak for *all* Texan churchgoers. Presumptuous much?
You need to watch yourself some San Antonio televangelists. I know I've learned a lot, for instance: I am personally responsibly for 9/11 by being a liberal gay loving abortionist. And if you pray for money you get it, because Jesus loves the rich -- it's called the Prosperity Gospel. And the average gay has over 1,000 partners a day. That's finding, dating and ***** 3 new people a day!!! Man, I would be tired!
And yes, a lot of people believe all of that. I had a woman laugh HYSTERICALLY at me when she found out I believed in the Big Bang. The rest of my co-workers just think I'm an idiot for believing in it. And two guys at work are always trying to argue with me for believing in the Moon landing. And don't even bring up Evolution. One lady insists that if the Bible says the Sun orbits the Earth (which it does say), then it does. Also, while she doesn't believe in Dinosaurs she does believe in Giants (Goliath) and that you can live in a whale, and that all the worlds millions of species can fit onto one boat.
And the "least of these" is a reference to the Bible, specifically to what Jesus Christ said: "as you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." The "least of these" were the people commonly looked down upon: the beggars, the thieves, the Samaritans. But in this I can think of none more least than the terrorists we're torturing. - enki25, on 06/09/2009, -19/+34Duh, he's not brown.
- EricSchC1, on 06/09/2009, -1/+16"He was trying to stop a bad man from doing bad things."
If those "bad things" are legal, that doesn't justify murder, for one. Additionally, how is Roeder's motive any different than the terrorists who planned and executed 9/11? - Myztry, on 06/09/2009, -2/+17Terrorism & Paganism are absolutely unrelated. Using "(The) difference between", while may be well intended is silly, for there is no similarity for there to be a difference.
The common point between the two terms is what certain unsavory religious factors are TRYING TO REDEFINE the terms to mean. The are trying to recreate the success that the early Church had, which was compliance through terror - which ironically defines terrorism. - skintigh, on 06/09/2009, -2/+16@ DiggPiglet
I live in Texas. Everyone goes to church. Many don't believe in evolution or dinosaurs or the moon landing, but most believe it is good to do evil in the name of good by torturing people. The ends justify the means, just like Jebus taught.
Golden rule? Never heard of it. What do you mean the "least of these?" -
Show 51 - 100 of 581 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is