I was intending to complete a post I've worked on for days regarding my opposition to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court prior to her June 2 confirmation hearings when the news broke about the murder of Dr. George Tiller. That post will now have to wait until I get these thoughts off my brain.
There has been a great deal of celebration masquerading as condemnation of the assassination of George Tiller. The mad scramble to disavow responsibility by the many vocal commentators of the corporate media would be humorous if the topic weren't so serious. This mass protestation of innocence in the vast right-wing conspiracy to impose the morality of a narrow portion of a religion which proclaims that it worships a peaceful holy man (one who refused to allow his followers to defend him from arrest, torture, and execution through violence) is only one example of their massive hypocrisy.
Allow me to establish an example. In Afghanistan, the Taliban actively threaten through murder and destruction of facilities the education of females. From Taliban "night letters" marked with a logo of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan - in English - as delivered to the commissioner of education for the Kunduz province: "As of today, girls are no longer allowed to attend school."
Another letter got more graphically violent, depicting a schoolgirl at the gallows. "We have warned you," the letter chides. "If we now kill schoolgirls, you shouldn't be surprised."
Are we not at war with the Taliban in TWO countries over religious extremists performing violent acts against the United States?
Now we switch you to Randall Terry, formerly of Operation Rescue and still a very vocal opponent of abortion in the United States: "Surely there will be a dreadful accounting for what [Dr. Tiller] has done....Our actions must be equal to this crime....If abortionists were gunned down every week, it would gather no more attention than crack dealers who are gunned down every week.” (You can watch all of Terry's call to action here.)
Do you not hear "We have warned you. If we now kill doctors providing abortions you shouldn't be surprised"?
Now explain to me what the difference is between the Taliban threatening violence against the education of young women because they don't believe in it, and the radical religious types like Randall threatening violence against the generally health-related issues of women seeking abortions because they don't believe in it. (Don't take my word on abortions being generally health related. Ask conservative blogger and abortion opponent Andrew Sullivan, who appeared on MSNBC's Countdown tonight and told of the many stories he's heard from many women regarding why they chose abortion. I'll give you a sample of his message: "the testimonials we got from readers...touched upon the trauma, the risk, the terror, the regret, the uncertainty, and the ultimately personal nature of late-term abortions.")
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
And now we read yet more whining about the murder of a man who basically killed late term fetuses. Yes, his murder was wrong, and his murderer was a terrorist. But you seem to ignore the other side of the coin in your oh-so-diverse culture, Realist. Read on.
This talkback was recorded at the Huffington Post article condemning "Christian Terroroism"
William Long was murdered in a parking lot outside an army recruiting office in Little Rock, AK. Both he and Quinton Ezeagwula were shot at by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim. I have yet to see any article, written by you, Ms. Moore, that would call this man a terrorist. Yet, you are quick on the draw to spout 'Christian Fundementalist Terrorism' the moment someone of the christian faith commits murder. If the murderer of this abortion doctor was committed by a Jewish man, would you call this 'Jewish Fundementalist Terrorism'? ... Are you brave enough to be honest with your readers and yourself and write an article that calls this man for what he is? A terrorist? Or not? And if not, why?
2 - zingzing
so you're saying this guy was a lone loon and nothing more?
or are you saying that muslims who murder soldiers are terrorists?
or are you saying they were both terrorists?
or are you saying that the murders in little rock didn't make the news?
or are you saying that blogcritics doesn't give a shit?
or are you saying that you like to point out muslim crimes before christian crimes?
or are you saying that the huffington times doesn't give a shit?
or are you saying you hate the left wing?
or are you saying you given up on america?
or are you saying you need a new hobby?
3 - Dave Nalle
I'd like to tell you the difference between the two, Realist, but as there is none I can't do it.
Dave
4 - Baritone
First: Abortion, including late term abortion, is NOT murder. Not legally. Not ethically. Not morally. The aborted fetus is nothing more than a potential vessel for a human life. It has not had its first thought or experienced its first moment of life.
Anti-abortionists are a grouping of tight assed idiots who believe they're doing their god's work. What the hell's wrong with their supposed omnipotent god? If it's his work, let him do it. If he is so outraged by all the baby killers, let him take his measure of justice. Who the fuck do these self-righteous assholes think they are? I could go on.
What I find despicable about those who make all their accusations on the tube and even more so on the internet, know full well that there are enough nut jobs out in the world watching and listening that at some point one or more of them will rise up, lock and load, and take action.
Then those who did all the prodding will step back shaking their heads disavowing any responsibility. Most will even claim to be just as horrified as the rest of us. Of course, it's all bullshit. Inside, privately they are cheering; "Hurrah, one more murdering bastard down!"
Yes! Emphatically, they are ALL terrorists! They achieve their goals through intimidation and fear. They are no less than the worst of the Taliban or Al Qaida.
They are, themselves, collectively murderers. Stupid, robotic murderers.
B
5 - Clavos
They are no less than the worst of the Taliban or Al Qaida.
Oh, please.
6 - Cannonshop
EW, foam...
Okay, I'll bite. Here's the difference:
NOBODY is going to lionize this asshat for shooting the doctor. Nobody. On the other hand, there are whole sectors of America that really think all you need to do to settle the Taliban down, is give them what they want. NOBODY in their right mind is going to say that you can settle down the American brand of Lone Nut ('cause that's what they are-they aren't organized and they sure as hell don't have international support) by caving to their demands.
I do find it interesting that jokers like this guy always seem to crop up in time to give the Left more ammunition in eroding the rights of the rest of us.
7 - zingzing
cannonshop, do you really think that "there are whole sectors of America that really think all you need to do to settle the Taliban down, is give them what they want," and are willing to do that? do you know what they want?
"I do find it interesting that jokers like this guy always seem to crop up in time to give the Left more ammunition in eroding the rights of the rest of us."
say what? no one said anything about eroding any rights from the likes of you. unless you want to take a gun and shoot someone in the face. that's not you're right. stop extrapolating bullshit.
8 - zingzing
name one right/civil liberty that the obama administration has taken away from you.
9 - Clavos
cannonshop, do you really think that "there are whole sectors of America that really think all you need to do to settle the Taliban down, is give them what they want," and are willing to do that? do you know what they want?
There certainly those who think that we should (and can)negotiate with them rather than defeat them.
The question is, if we accede to their demands, will they cease to be aggressive -- to their neighbors and to us?
Many Americans don't think so.
10 - zingzing
"There certainly those who think that we should (and can)negotiate with them rather than defeat them."
well that's not what cannonshop said. and i think we should try to understand them rather before just bombing and killing indiscriminately.
"The question is, if we accede to their demands, will they cease to be aggressive -- to their neighbors and to us?"
that's why people negotiate. to figure that stuff out. if they don't accede to OUR demands, THAT'S when you go in. NOT before. too bad we already did that and now our opportunity to actually be better than them is gone. we're now just as aggressive as they are, if not more so.
"Many Americans don't think so."
many americans don't think, period.
11 - zingzing
besides, clavos, you know i was just pointing out cannonshop's hyperbole.
12 - Clavos
i think we should try to understand them rather before just bombing and killing indiscriminately.
How do you "understand" people who (among many other things) believe girls shouldn't be educated, and to enforce that belief, "indiscriminately" kill innocent little girls whose parents had the audacity to send them to school? Why would you even want to "understand" them?
many americans don't think, period.
No argument from me there. I'd say fewer than 2% of 'em do.
13 - zingzing
"Why would you even want to "understand" them?"
so we don't end up looking just as bad as them.
14 - Clavos
so we don't end up looking just as bad as them.
Because we oppose their barbaric feudalistic, anachronistic beliefs and the aggressive, murderous actions they perform because of those beliefs? I doubt it.
15 - zingzing
"Because we oppose their barbaric feudalistic, anachronistic beliefs and the aggressive, murderous actions they perform because of those beliefs?"
yeah, so we invade and bomb and shoot and shit. look, i know they're bad. that's not the question. the question is whether or not we should try to destroy everything we think is bad. doesn't that make us just as destructive as they are?
pound for pound, we're certainly not as bad as the taliban. but we weigh a hell of a lot more, and what we do has consequences. we have to be careful how we throw around our weight.
do you believe that no one will look at our actions and deem them irresponsible, violent, power-mad, brutal and imperialistic? our actions HAVE killed hundreds of thousands of people, and whether or not the intentions behind those actions were good, people see the body count and forget about the intentions.
16 - Dave Nalle
people see the body count and forget about the intentions.
Which highlights once again, the problem with people and their irrationality.
Dave
17 - zingzing
of course, there is a certain rational to be found, and it is well-founded. there has to be a better way.
18 - Cannonshop
17 "of course, there is a certain rational to be found, and it is well-founded. there has to be a better way."
Okay, Name One...that has worked.
I'll wait.
19 - zingzing
in case you didn't notice, we invaded first and asked questions later, so there's no way to know if there could have been a better way. we kind of fucked ourselves.
but we didn't ever go to war (directly) with the soviet union, and that was a much larger problem on the world stage. we ended that one successfully, although this is a different world, with different problems and different answers to those problems.
unfortunately, the gung-ho attitude we've taken to today's problems has only resulted in more of those problems. we're going about this totally backwards. obviously, what we are doing is compounding the situation, and we need to step back and try a more reasonable, less violent approach. not quite "turn the other cheek," as the christians would have it, but also not "oh, let's see how much you hate me when i do more of the thing you hate me for."
look at israel and palestine. that shit will never end. and now we've got ourselves in a similar situation. hopefully, we're smarter than that. but if people like you can only answer "military invasion!" to every question, then we are squandering any chance at a creative solution, and diving head first into destructive war.
20 - zingzing
it's not so much the decision to go into afghanistan that i'm decry so much as our obviously irrepressible need to go to war somewhere-anywhere, no matter who it was. then we didn't stop there. and the whole world breathed a sigh of relief when bush left office. iran was an "any day now" proposition. i'm sure people were setting up odds and taking bets.
what we needed was a measured response. we've potentially got a billion people hating on us, and the first thing we think of is war? that's a foolish thing to do, and we've reaped the rewards of our foolishness for 6 years now.
21 - Dave Nalle
in case you didn't notice, we invaded first and asked questions later, so there's no way to know if there could have been a better way. we kind of fucked ourselves.
Zing, I'm afraid you are misremembering the history. We attempted to negotiate with both Saddam and the Taliban before invading. Perhaps those negotiations could have gone farther or lasted longer, but we certainly made our intentions and needs clear and gave them plenty of chances to cooperate with what were hardly unreasonable requests.
Dave
22 - zingzing
our negotiations were half-hearted, and obviously never meant to do anything but appease the un, media, etc.
we were going to war, and internal documents show that. there wasn't any stopping it.
23 - Doug Hunter
That's not true Zing, Saddam could have stopped it but as a longtime dictator his pride was too great and his intelligence as much a failure as ours.
24 - Doug Hunter
In response to the article's question there is a very simple distinction. Killing a woman and her family for trying to get an education is an asymetrical response. Killing a doctor who kills babies is not.
25 - zingzing
"That's not true Zing, Saddam could have stopped it but as a longtime dictator his pride was too great and his intelligence as much a failure as ours."
stopped it by doing what? stepping down? come on... that wasn't going to happen, and we knew it.