Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A novice's take on the local, state and national political scenes
Me
David Allen
- Politics 101
- All politics is local -Tip O'Neil
Best sites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(239)
-
▼
January
(41)
- Wingnut of the Week
- Surprise, surprise
- The sad truth
- Cha-cha-cha change
- Drugs in Ark City
- School changes
- Dose of sanity
- Wingnut of the Week
- Lobby time
- Death debate continues
- How deep is the problem?
- Strother-County brotherhood
- TIF tiptoes ahead
- Dems demolished?
- MLK
- National sales tax
- Ray's right, but why rant?
- Wingnut of the Week
- Kansas Week
- Tif time
- Health care confusion
- The never crowd.
- Anti-tax absolutists
- Scott Roeder
- Smoking ban
- To tax or not to tax?
- Death debate continues
- Reid vs. Lott
- Wingnut of the Week
- Stimulus working
- Death Penalty
- Tax exemptions gone awry
- Brownback app
- Crack in the clouds
- Dennis McKinney-can
- Great question
- Self strikes again
- Brownback pact
- Wingnut part II
- Wingnut of the Week
- Getting political
-
▼
January
(41)
8 comments:
Terrorist? I think it has become far too easy for some people to throw the word "Terrorist" around, and it lessens the impact when using it to describe an actual terrorist. Roeder had a person in mind who, he believed, was committing attrocities against mankind. The only way he saw to make this man stop, since the government authorities would not, was to take matters into his own hands. No matter if his thinking was right or wrong, it is not terrorism, and you should not be so quick to use that term.
Dave. He is free to argue any defense he wants. There are laws that must be followed however.
This is such a fascinating place that presents the most amazing ironies. Many of these are bounded by religion.
So the argument is: because Roeder killed someone who performed abortions, Roeder is not subject to the death penalty, even though it is clearly premeditated murder.
Shot Tiller with a hand gun right out in front of God and everybody (if you know what I mean).
Wow!
That sure is something to think about.
Could that apply to insurance company execs who deny life-saving coverage? Can you justifiably kill them?
Tobacco execs? They kill a bunch of folks as part of their business, too. How about them?
Every Halloween, there are nutty folks in town that say it supports witchcraft, and even the cops have said that there are witches in town. Must be true. Exodus 22:18 says: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
How about that? Can we kill witches in Ark City?
But Roeder shouldn't get the death penalty.
Fascinating.
"Roeder the hero" to whack jobs... "Roeder the terrorist" to those that understand the meaning of the word.
I guess to some people, you have to be Muslim in order to qualify.
I cannot believe anyone would defend the actions of Roeder. He does deserve the death penalty!
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
Since when did killing a person become a terrorist act? Was Lee harvey Oswald a terrorist? How about John Wilks Booth? Mark David Chapman? James Earl Ray? The guy who shot up the Denny's in Killeen, Tx.? The gang member who killed the other gang member in Wichita, or South Central LA, or New York? They all killed someone because their beliefs told them to, yet they are not labeled as terrorist. But then, you liberals would probably label our country's soldiers terrorists as well, so I shouldn't be surprised.
And I never said Roeder was a hero. Am I glad Tiller will not be doing any more late term abortons? Yes I am. But I wish he were sitting in jail instead of someone having to take the law into their own hands. If your liberal representatives in the government had done their job, he'd still be alive.
Here's a definition of terrorist rather than terrorism:
ter·ror·ist [ térrərist ] (plural ter·ror·ists) noun
Definition:
somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes
or this one:
someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes
The dictionary you cite does not even define the word "terrorist."
Now, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or defender...so I can see why you would want to avoid admission of how Roeder's intent was political.
You pose some questions:
Was Lee harvey Oswald a terrorist? Yes, it was a political killing so it qualifies by definition.
How about John Wilks Booth? yes
Mark David Chapman? No, he was just a religious nut job that was angry that Lennon said jokingly that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.
James Earl Ray? If he did it to slow the civil rights movement, then yes.
The guy who shot up the Denny's in Killeen, Tx.? Actually it was "Luby's." No, serial killer more likely.
The gang member who killed the other gang member in Wichita, or South Central LA, or New York? Yes, by definition. Even though these types of killings are not done for "normal" political reasons, they would be done for "street politics," would they not?
...you liberals would probably label our country's soldiers terrorists as well... I'm no liberal (LOL...you use it as a dirty word...), but yes, if they torture a prisoner (with or without orders), kill "civilians" on purpose and with intent, drag bottles of water behind Hummers while thirsty kids run trying to get a drink and then shoot them. Etc., etc., etc.
typical liberal garbage. Just admit it.. you hate America. Why don't you move?!
Post a Comment