The Glade 4.0

Revolutionarys in the U.S. were not terrorists. They were organized combatants that fought an organized enemy army. Occasionally they might have engage in acts that terrified loyalist civilians, but that would, in modern terms, fall under military misconduct.

Now we arrest all white Christians and charge them with terrorism. Duh!

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Which of course, I never argued. I never said all criminals are terrorists. I said *these* criminals are terrorists.

Actually, he was.

His agenda was political and religious. It was not personal.

Feminazi abortion groups? Yeah.

These are not fabrications -

Meet Clayton Waagner, avid member of the Army of God, a US terrorist organization that promotes the use of violence against abortion providers. Other people associated with this terrorist organization are Shelley Shannon, who first shot Dr. Tiller but failed to kill him.

tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence_in_the_United_States#United_States]List of abortion violence[/url]

If you go through that list, you will begin to see connections between various movements like the Operation Rescue and abortion violence. This isn't a coincedence, and it's not coincidence that Operation Rescue was there defending Scott Roeder outside the courthouse. Operation Rescue is headed up by previously convicted abortion terrorists like Cheryl Sullenger. From the Wiki Article -



As for bombings and Arson -



Nearly every one of these acts is clearly an act of terrorism. And each one of them was committed by people just like Scott Roeder.

I agree that there is a non-state actor element to terrorism, and that there can be a non-orgaizational element to terrorism. A person who goes into a church in Knoxville to kill the liberals that are ruining America is not just a random crazy guy. He is also a terrorist. Just like all of the people that bombed abortion clinics and killed abortion providers, kidnapped people, and set fire to clinics.

It's terrorism.

Saying it isn't true over and over does not in fact change the reality of the situation. It's terrorism.

Apparently Wikipedia is a feminazi organization hell bent on fabricating the facts about organizations like the Army of God and Operation Rescue, and their connection to the terrorist that killed Dr. Tiller? And the FBI, as well?

Saying it isn't true over and over does not in fact change the reality of the situation. It's terrorism.

Apparently Wikipedia is a feminazi organization hell bent on fabricating the facts about organizations like the Army of God and Operation Rescue, and their connection to the terrorist that killed Dr. Tiller? And the FBI, as well?

If the FBI considers them terrorists, why have they not been arrested and charged? Because they have not engaged in any terrorist acts? But then, that would mean they are not terrorists.

Many of them have been arrested, charged, and found guilty. Some of those people did their time, and are back in the game (a good analogy would be the hand wringing we see about muslims that the Bush administration released from Gitmo rejoining the fray). Our country has a significantly stronger rule of law than other nations. But that doesn't mean they aren't terrorists.

Remember William Ayers? Remember how fast you folks on the right were in condemning him as a terrorist? He didn't do *half* the **** these people did, and he was a terrorist. Why not hold these people to the same standards? His group, the Weather Underground, is only different than Army of God and Operation Rescue in that they warned people to leave the places they targeted. Also, they didn't actually kill anyone outside of their organization. Scott Roeder took more lives than Bill Ayers ever did, and he was such a horrible terrorist that even associating with him was considered terrorist sympathizing.

You cannot separate the personal motivation from the political and the religious (which is, in effect, political).

Roeder's Rescue
Why is killing abortionists wrong?
Jacob Sullum | January 13, 2010

Scott Roeder, whose trial begins this week in Wichita, Kansas, wanted to argue that killing the abortion doctor George Tiller was necessary to prevent a greater evil: the murder of unborn children. Since that is not how the law views what Tiller did for a living, it is not surprising that the judge would not let Roeder present a “necessity” defense.

But it is surprising that so many people who proclaim that fetuses have a right to life reject Roeder’s argument out of hand. Killing abortionists may or may not be a good long-term strategy for saving unborn babies, but it is hard to see why the use of deadly force is not morally justified, at least in principle, once you accept the premise that abortion is tantamount to murder.

After Roeder shot Tiller in the doctor’s Wichita church last May, anti-abortion groups rushed to condemn the attack. “The National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation,” the organization declared. “The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.”

The more confrontational Operation Rescue sang the same tune. “Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels, to bring [Tiller] to justice,” it said. “We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning.” The group nevertheless welcomed the resulting closure of Tiller’s clinic. Similarly, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry implicitly condemned Tiller’s killing even while continuing to call him a “mass murderer.”

Obeying the law is generally a good idea, but there are exceptions. When the law blesses the murder of babies, it is hardly worthy of respect, any more than laws blessing the enslavement of Africans or the gassing of Jews were, and violent resistance against such enactments surely can be justified. A pro-life position does not require pacifism in the face of a murderous assault; it allows and arguably demands the use of force in defense of oneself and others.

That is the logic of the “Defensive Action Statement” formulated in response to the 1993 murder of Florida abortion doctor David Gunn. “Whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child,” the 30 activists who signed the statement declared. “If Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children.”

It is not clear why Operation Rescue and the National Right to Life Committee reject this argument. Both say they are committed to legal, nonviolent change, but they are hazy as to whether that course is morally mandatory or merely prudent. Perhaps they think it is morally mandatory because it is prudent—i.e., because it is ultimately the most effective way to stop abortion.

A campaign of anti-abortion violence could very well undermine the cause in the long run by alienating the public and inviting legal repression. “It has been said by people I respect that the flurry of violence against abortion clinic personnel and abortionists in the 1990s set our Movement back the better part of a decade,” writes Dave Andrusko of the National Right to Life Committee. “In much of the media coverage, the image of pro-lifers as crazed militants was at the expense of much of the work that 99.999999% of us were doing in the legislatures, in the courts, and in crisis pregnancy centers.”

But does this bad press mean that Scott Roeder’s supporters are indeed “crazed militants”—or, as Operation Rescue President Troy Newman puts it, “loons” and “wing nuts”? It seems to me they share the moral premises espoused by other anti-abortion activists but disagree about how best to implement them. Either that, or they take seriously what others only pretend to believe.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2010 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

It's not a label I want applied to them. They *are* terrorists. If I had altered that list of attacks on abortion clinics to be a series of attacks by muslims on christian churches, I doubt you would be defending them so vigerously.

Face it, DE - abortion violence like Tillers murder constitute an act of domestic terrorism. you cannot separate the personal motivation from the political and the religious (which is, in effect, political).

In that case, almost all acts of murder are terrorism.

Not true. Most murders are not politically motivated. People kill for money, for jealousy, for fear, etc. Dr. Tiller was murdered because he was an abortion provider, and Scott Roeder opposed the practice of abortion. It's no different than William Ayers and his group planting a bomb on government property because, in their mind, they were acting in defense of the people of Vietnam. Both were acts of terrorism.

No. There's nothing to face.

All you're saying is "they're terrorists because they're terrorists" and "abortion violence is inherently terrorism".

Yes there is. You just won't face it because I'm saying it.

And this is where we realize you aren't actually reading what I am saying, but what you want me to be saying. I have made neither of these arguments.

They are terrorists because of what they do, and why they do it. Scott Roeder is a terrorist because he committed an act of politically motivated violence. William Ayers is a terrorist for the same reasons. So is the Army of God. Operation Rescue is basically a front for such terrorism. They were directly connected to Roeder's attack.

Why they haven't been indicted on conspiracy charges, I can't say.

Not true. Most murders are not politically motivated. People kill for money, for jealousy, for fear, etc.

Just because he wasn't properly charged doesn't mean he wasn't a terrorist, Bery.

DE - Who's flattering themselves today?

You seem to imagine that what Scott Roeder did existed in some kind of vaccuum. That he got up, grabbed his gun, and just decided that he had to stop Tiller from killing babies.

Roeder was active in and connected to the most radical edges of the anti-abortion movement. He worked with people that had committed acts of terror previously. He had their phone number on the dash board of his car. They told him about Dr. Tiller's movements.

Why they haven't been indicted on conspiracy charges, I can't say.