June 2, 2009

Struck Again By Terrorists

Plain and simple, the killing of Dr George Tiller is an act of terrorism. Suspects in this case ought to be considered suspected terrorists.

Terrorism is, plain and simple, violence or the threat of violence for the purpose of intimidating and coercing to bring about an ideological change. The targeting of doctors who perform abortions is an act of terrorism intended to further the ideological agenda of the pro-life movement, whether these are officially sanctioned or not.

Just as islamist terrorists have their supporters, you can find a network of moral support among terrorist sympathizers here in this country. The evidence appeared on Twitter as people eagerly weighed in with their approval and support of this terrorist act.

The fact that the news does not call this terrorism and does not call Scott Philip Roeder a suspected terrorist shows a strong bias. What sort of bias? Is it pro-Christian bias? Anti-Muslim bias? There doesn't appear to be any such reluctance when the perpetrator is Muslim. Richard Reid and Jose Padilla were both considered suspected terrorists before they were convicted. And their plans never came to fruition. You tell me what it means.

If we are going to target terrorism, we cannot ignore domestic terrorism and we can't ignore that terrorism can be performed by non-Muslims, even Christians.

In Jose Padilla's case, the judge sentenced him to over 17 years for conspiracy. Judge Cooke was quoted saying that such conspiracy would not be treated lightly. Cooke said: "The sentence will serve to inform others [...] that conspiracy to support murder, maiming and kidnapping will not be tolerated in this country."

I know that law enforcement works hard to find a killer when a shooting like this occurs, but is the conspiracy to support such terrorism getting sufficient treatment when the conspirators are white? I don't ask this lightly, we are already seeing tolerance in the language used against certain types of terrorists. They are not called suspected terrorists for their actions, and that's wrong.

I don't care where it's coming from, the use of violence to further an ideological agenda or intimidate a population is wrong and it is erosive to our society. We needn't pull punches in calling it out.

Perhaps as they link this suspect to extremist groups, the news media will eventually find the courage to call this act what it is: the first high-profile act of terrorism during the Obama administration. Their reluctance should be disheartening to anyone who wants to live in an equitable and safe society.

BONUS: A current events story about what is happening in Tanzania, where abortions are illegal.

Posted by James at June 2, 2009 8:58 AM
Create Social Bookmark Links
Comments

Hear, hear! I am tired of the label of terrorist being dependent on which deity you pray to.

If a fellow Jew had done this, I would still call him a terrorist. I don't care who you believe in. Killing someone to make other people fall in line with your beliefs is terrorism.

Posted by: briwei at June 2, 2009 11:22 AM

Admittedly, I haven't been going out of my way to read about this, but I wonder how long it will take to link him to some organization with Neal Horsley, author of the "Nuremberg Files" website. Remember that one? It was devoted to collecting names, addresses, and lots of stalker-friendly information about clinic owners and workers.

Posted by: Julie at June 2, 2009 12:07 PM

Right, the terrorist sympathizer / enabler.

Posted by: James at June 2, 2009 12:15 PM

The comments on the carnal nation page James linked are, as you would expect, ridiculous and disgusting. To save others from mind-numbing lack of sense, let me pull out the "best" for you:

"Tiller was more evil than Hitler. Hitler didn't kill Christians. Tiller murdered innocence and raped the world of beautiful children of our savior. OUR Savior. Not just mine. But yours too. Regardless of what you might think. Tiller makes me sick. The man (or woman) that bravely sent him to hell should be praised. There's no doubt that BHO and the rest of the liberal baby killers will give this hero the death penalty. At which point we REAL christians should move to have this man canonized. He is a saint. In every sense of the word. The world needs to wake up. The two biggest problems facing this world is the abortion holocaust and radical Islam. Both should be stamped out. And nothing short than any army of Christ will accomplish that."

So what have we learned?
1) Killing babies and Christians - bad. Killing anyone else is ok.
2) Abortion is one of the 2 biggest problems in the world. Greater than poverty, HIV/AIDS, etc.
ugh.

Posted by: jeremy at June 3, 2009 8:51 AM

I think the reason the media won't call it terrorism is that they are afraid doing so will solidify the label "liberal media" in the eyes of the right wingers. They are already thought to be liberal in bias in every way. It's just a fear thing, they might also be afraid of being targeted themselves...

Posted by: Rui at June 8, 2009 4:18 AM

Well, I would love for there to be a liberal equivalent to Fox Nooz, with the same amount of hysteria and clout. It would have to have to be marketed at liberals who possess the same kind of gullibility as the Fox Nooz fans, and the same need to be immersed in a world where everyone agrees with them. (It's a big group, I promise. I don't know if it's a profitable one, though.)

Such a channel could actually split or steal a segment of Fox's audience, because there are plenty of people who just prefer that tabloid-style of "news," regardless of what I'll generously call their political "philosophy."

It's not that I think we need more garbage on the airwaves, but I doubt that it would cause more people to be uninformed. I believe that most people who are uninformed are uninformed by choice. We can't realistically expect Fox Nooz and its audience to go away, but we can hope for a way to split it.

Anyway, the benefit of this liberal nooz channel would be to dispel the myth that the mainstream press has a liberal bias. The entire reality-based world looks like it has a "liberal bias" if the only thing you can compare it to is Fox Nooz.

Put something on the other side, and then people can talk about a real "liberal bias" paranoid freakshow where even the mildest-mannered Republicans are depicted as insane fascists, with a daily feature about the right-wing conspiracy to force all gay and/or single people to marry someone of the opposite sex and have children and buy guns. They can speak glowingly of a pilot program to prevent drug-related crime in schools by selling crack, meth, and heroin in the lunchroom.

Then people will have an equivalent, balancing reference point as to what a "liberal bias" looks like and then maybe they will calm down.

The most significant bias of the mainstream media (including Fox) is a commercial one. Nobody in the mainstream media wants to talk about that, but it's why it's so easy to know more about Susan Boyle's adventures than what's going on in Iraq.

Posted by: Julie at June 8, 2009 11:04 AM

The shooter is now claiming that nationwide anti-choice violent is imminent. I don't believe him, but threats make this an even more blatant case of terrorism.

Posted by: Julie at June 8, 2009 11:12 AM

I meant "violence," not "violent."

Posted by: Julie at June 8, 2009 12:34 PM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved