Domestic Terrorism

Posted Monday, June 1, 2009, at 8:00 PM

The Heritage Dictionary defines as terrorism as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

In 2001, the United States was awakened to just how terrible terrorism can be on a large scale. But it was not the first time terrorism has happened in the United States. Most of the terrorism that has occurred in the United States has been Domestic Terrorism. The one that is most prevalent to me is the Oklahoma City Bombing. In this case, we had a person, Timothy McVeigh, decided that close to 1000 people were to blame for what happened in Waco, Texas. Because of his act of terrorism, 168 people died.

Domestic terrorism doesn't just happen on a large scale. In recent years, most of the domestic terrorism has been aimed at abortion providers. In 1996, a clinic was bombed because abortions were performed there. Many innocent people were killed because this person decided they were to blame for abortion.

Yesterday, in Kansas, Dr. Tiller was gunned down inside a church because he performed LEGAL abortions. Now, whether or not you support the right to abortion, it is legal. The fact that it happened at church makes it that more despicable.

In my mind, this person is no better than the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11. He used violence against an individual because of his ideological beliefs. He feels that government is to blame for this, and somewhere in his mind he puts all those people who perform legal abortions as his ideological enemy and he decided to make that difference clear by using a gun to end Dr. Tiller's life.

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Dr. David Gunn

Dr. John Britton

James Barrett

Shannon Lowney

Lee Ann Nichols

Robert Sanderson

Dr. Barnett Slepian

Dr. George Tiller

Dr. Tiller is not the only person to lose their life for working at an abortion clinic. The above people have also lost their lives because someone decided to take it on themselves to stop abortions. Not all of these people were doctors who performed abortions. Some were simply employees. One was an off-duty cop working as a security guard.

This is not including the myriad of attacks that mentally or physically injured people at abortion clinics.

Now, for those of you who blame abortion 'murders' on all of us liberals, please recognize your responsibility in the death of these men and women. Recognize that when you say things like "abortion is murder" and call it a "genocide worse than the holocaust", that people will act upon it. Impressionable people who are convinced they are doing good. People who feel that they are soldiers in a war against abortion. A war that has largely been created by the religious right in our country. You have the freedom to speak whatever your opinion is. But words and opinions have a cost.

I'm not pointing figures at individuals, so please don't take this as a personal attack on any of you. I'm simply pointing out that if you subscribe to the logic that all liberals are to blame for abortion, by the same logic, the weight on your shoulders is heavier as well.

Dr. TIller was famous for performing 'late term' abortions (after 20 weeks). Fact: Less than 1.5% of abortions performed in the US are late term abortions (CDC).

Women who receive late term abortions do so for many reasons. Some make the heart wrenching decision after they find out about genetic defects that will make their children's lives short and painful. Some women had difficulty making arrangements for an earlier abortion. Many simply didn't realize they were pregnant (this is especially common in underage girls who are raped and do not tell anyone).

I'll end with a link.

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/kans...

This site hosts the stories of just a few of the women who had to make the heart wrenching decision to end their pregnancies late in their pregnancies. If you're pro-life, read them. And try to decide if these women made the right choice, or even see if you can understand their choice, and why they chose to make it. The issue is not as black and white as most of us think.

-- Posted by jhat on Mon, Jun 1, 2009, at 8:36 PM

You're right steffanie. 2 wrongs always make a right.

Widowers of murder victims always feel 100 percent better after the murderer is put to death. We all know if you murder a murderer it will bring back the dead spouses quicker than the pet cemetary.

-- Posted by mccookreader on Mon, Jun 1, 2009, at 11:07 PM

I disagree with you therefore I must be on crack.

I like your logic.

-- Posted by mccookreader on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 1:22 AM

>>>Military Recruiter Killed In Ark. Shooting

Police in Arkansas say a military recruiter has been killed in a shooting at an Army-Navy recruiting office in Little Rock and a second recruiter has been wounded.

................

>>>Special report: Tracing the Left's escalating war on military recruiters

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/07/spe...

Ideas have consequences. Inaction has consequences. For the past several years, I've chronicled the Left's escalating war on military recruiters--and the apathetic, weak-kneed response to it. In 'Unhinged', I devoted a sub-section of my chapter "They Don't Support Our Troops" to the organized campaign of harassment against recruitment offices on college campuses nationwide. The anti-recruiter thugs have thrived thanks to a combination of public indifference, law enforcement fecklessness, and left-wing ideological apologism...

....................

The number of induced abortions declined worldwide between 1995 and 2003, from nearly 46 million to approximately 42 million. About one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.ht...

..........

40,000,000 to 72,000,000 deaths from World War II

15,000,000 to 25,000,000 deaths from World War 1

2,495,000 to 5,020,000 deaths from the Vietnam War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll

.............

**We see that abortion costs as more lives EVERY YEAR than did the worst war in history. So, who is the greater terrorist? The man who murdered an abortion doctor, or the man who murdered a military recruiter?

Which is the greatest evil...the military, or abortion?

Which is more torturous...waterboarding, or shredding a human body in an abortion?

...Waterboarding, or burning a human to death in saline solution?

...Waterboarding, or causing a human heart to contract violently enough to rip the muscles apart?

................................

No murder is EVER right. The murder of Tiller is an act that must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

BUT that murder is NO WORSE than the murder of the unborn innocent children.

That murder is NO WORSE than the murder of a military recruiter.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 7:26 AM

Another fine example of domestic terrorism are the many street gangs that pollute the streets of almost every large city in this country.

-- Posted by seentoomuch on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 7:51 AM

Mike:

I agree that the murder of this doctor is a horrendous crime that people can justifiably call an act of terrorism. There is no justification for these acts and I'm saddened for Dr. Tiller's friends and family. I'm curious, do they have the death penalty in Kansas?

jhat:

I followed your link and read the stories, truly saddened me as well. I'm saddened that we still live in a country where people with disabilities are seen as sub-human and waste to be excised. I understand how difficult those choices must have been for those women, but personally I still cannot agree with their decisions based on the information they provided. I'm not pro-life for some right winged religious reasons, I feel like I'm more mainstreamed, I understand and uphold the right to an abortion in some circumstances, just not as a method of birth control (in the general not literal sense). I just don't feel wanting to save yourself from the struggle of raising a child with significant disabilities is one of them. Eugenics is not a program I can get on board with.

I also found it interesting that there was not a page for stories of people who where not aborting children with disabilities. Although, to be fair there could have been stories on another link from that page I didn't poke around too much. I would have been interested to read the story of the girl who got drunk, knocked up, but couldn't face her friends and families.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 8:58 AM

The fact that you used an article from Michele Malkin calls all your facts into question.

I do not distinguish between the two murders Sunday and yesterday. Both men should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

It is highly interesting how you always try to make things right down the middle black and white ... and there just isn't an issue that is that simple.

We don't know the full details on why the man in Little Rock killed the recruiter yesterday. We do know why the man killed Dr. Tiller, and it was because Dr. Tiller was performing abortions and that man figured that if he took out Dr. Tiller, that would be one less abortion taking place.

I do not condone what happened in Little Rock yesterday, but I am going to stop short of calling it terrorism for the moment.

MrsSmith, since you made the satement that no murder is EVER right, can I then assume you are against the death penalty?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 8:58 AM

seentomuch, street gangs are not terrorists. They are attacking each other for street cred. It is a problem that needs to be addressed, to be sure, but it is not terrorism. To classify it as such is to water down the definition of terrorism.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 8:59 AM

"We do know why the man killed Dr. Tiller, and it was because Dr. Tiller was performing abortions and that man figured that if he took out Dr. Tiller, that would be one less abortion taking place."

Talk about black and white!! I'm glad YOU know this for certain. No one else seems to know it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...

Specifics are just starting to emerge...

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 9:12 AM

"Both men should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law."

Well since there is a death penalty in both Kansas and Arkansas, I guess it's fair to assume that Mike supports the death penalty. See how easy it is to twist peoples words.

As much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with the raving Steffanie on this last one, if Dr. Tiller's murderer is a terrorist, why is someone who attacks a military recruiting station not? That's the problem with a word like terrorist, you can't just apply it where you want to, ask Bush about that.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 9:28 AM

Naturally you completely misrepresented that story. You use that one quote to make it seem that the cops have no idea why the murder took place. The motive is pretty cut and dry, from his anti-abortion emblem, to his following and decrying of Dr. Tiller's work.

He subsribed to a magazine calling for the murder of abortion doctors and claiming justifiable homicide.

He was a well known proponent of so-called "justifiable homicided" on abortion doctors.

He even posted on the OperationRescue.org website that he wanted to congregate with several other followers at Dr. Tiller's church.

This action was a pre-mediatated assassination of a law abiding man.

Thanks, though, MrsSmith, for providing me a link that helped proove my point.

By the way when an article says specifics are just starting to emerge, they aren't talking about the actual carrying out of the crime or the motive. They are talking about the specifics of the weeks, days, and hours leading up to this assassination.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 9:46 AM

Touce SWNebr.

The reason you can't call the action in Arkansas an act of terrorism (YET) is because we really don't know what the motives of the killer were. If he shot those two men because they are agents of the military and government of the United States, then it is absolutely terrorism.

If, on the other hand, he shot them because he was pissed off at them, then it is just (how odd of a word to use) murder.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 9:50 AM

There you go Steffanie with your glittering generalities.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 9:51 AM

Interestingly:

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the man who murdered the two Privates in Arkansas, is being charged with murder, attempted murder, and multiple accounts of ENGAGING IN A TERRORIST ACT.

Scott Roeder, the man who killed Dr. Tiller is (as far as I know) only being charged with murder, not terrorism.

So Swnebr, to answer your question, the man IS being treated as a terrorist, while Dr. Tiller's killer is not. Do you think they should both be charged with terrorism?

-- Posted by jhat on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 11:59 AM

No I don't. Personally I think Mr. Roeder should be charged with murder, and Mr. Muhammad should be charged with one murder and several cases of attempted murder. I don't really think either of them are "terrorists" and only said that I understand why some people would consider them to be terrorists and tried to point out some of the double speak and hypocricy on these boards at times. Although I am no legal scholar the word terrorist to me implies that someone is using a method of fear to try to compel others to do as they wish. I don't think it applies in either of these cases, what we have here are two separate cases of terrible criminal acts. Unfortunately people on both fringes try to sensationalize tragedies like these for thier own purposes.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 12:12 PM

SWNebr,

I think it really depends on the motives of the attackers. If their motives were to simply kill people they did not like, then I would agree, it's simply murder.

But if their motives were idealogically motivated, and intended to intimidate others, then the acts both fit the dictionary and legal definitions of terrorism. If Mr. Roeder wanted to kill Dr. Tiller to prevent others from performing abortions (due to fear of death), or if Mr. Muhammad wanted to kill the recruiters to make other army recruiters afraid to recruit, then it's domestic terrorism.

Actions that are intended to instill fear of death/reprial in order to prevent an act or further a political agenda, are terrorism.

I suppose we'll have to wait until both of their trials for the prosecutors to establish motive.

-- Posted by jhat on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM

After reading through several reports on what the police have said that the murderer in Arkansas has said to them, I can say that yes, the case in Arkansas is an act of Domestic Terrorism.

SWNebr, using your logic, the attack on 9/11 would not be counted as terrorism, because they weren't using the method of fear to try to compel others to do as they wish. They were, to put it bluntly, attacking America. Am I reading this right or have I missed something? I am being honest here because I truly do want to know what your thinking on this is.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 12:34 PM

Hmm, interesting question. I suppose I would consider the 9/11 attacks terrorist because they came from a large, organized, supported body that had stated goals and had used those attacks as a method of furthering the organization's goals. They also had planned meticulously and trained in order to inflict damage on another large organized body "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

In these two incidents, from what reports I have read so far, they don't seem to fit my and the Heritage Dictionary's definition. Every act that any one takes is in some way designed to influence others I think the mistake is made when we oversimplify an issue to get a good "sound bite" and sensationalize them to fit our own agendas.

Do you agree or disagree?

and sorry about the dig on the death penalty but I couldn't just let that one lay.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 12:58 PM

No apologies needed.

They way in which you describe the acts of 9/11 almost sound more of a military organization than a terroristic act. In the world we live in today a military doesn't need borders to be defined as a military anymore.

I completely agree that too many times we do oversimplify an issue. Maybe I was caught up in the moment of the horrendous act in Kansas. But in the way that I read the definition, both the act in Kansas and the act in Arkansas do qualify as acts of domestic terrorism.

It's an interesting quandry to be sure.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 1:10 PM

ekimsitruc,

With all due respect, the street gangs that you hear about on TV and read about on the internet are not what I am talking about. You have to be there to see what is going on. These cowards will take your car and threaten you with a gun if you are in the wrong neighborhood. They stand on the street and sell drugs, weapons, or whatever good they got from the robbery last night. It is true that most of the fighting is amongst each other, but they will target anyone if they are in the right place and have something they want. As long as they have numbers, they will beat you and they will kill you. They are always armed. They intimidate good people from going into various areas, and they will get rid of you if you threaten their business. Sounds like terrorism to me. In my career as a correctional officer, I was a gangs coordinator for the state of Colorado early in my career, and I can tell you that gangsters are cowardice, pathetic, weak people; but when they have the numbers, they will control entire sections of a city and everyone that lives there. And they use intimidation to do so.

-- Posted by seentoomuch on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 1:41 PM

In a general sense I suppose I would agree that I see a "terrorist organization" more like a para-military or military organization than the attacks by single people on other individuals. My fear is that by overuse and sensationalizing terms and ideas like terrorism they lose impact, if they ever had any to begin with. When people try to demonize another person or group it is for thier own purposes calling these people terrorists is solely designed to get people to stop thinking rationally, in my opinion.

I see a group like Al Qaeda, IRA, ETA, or the Chechyn rebel group as being more militaristic than the proverbial "lone gunman" do you not? Are John Booth, John Hinkley, Charles Guiteau, and James Earl Ray terrorists in your view?

I've been thinking and I don't really understand your comment about a borderless military definition. What military are you referring to?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 1:42 PM

Mike, it seems you missed a few things in the article I posted...

Early reports of Roeder, who was taken into custody shortly after the shooting and is expected to be charged Tuesday, show a history of antiabortion, >>antigovernment philosophy and protest.

According to a statement issued by his brother, David, Roeder has suffered from bouts of mental illness

Roeder was part of the antigovernment Freemen group, which engaged in a three-month standoff with the FBI from a remote Montana farmhouse in 1996

a man identifying himself as Scott Roeder asked in 2007 whether anyone had considered going to Tiller's church to >>ask the doctor about his work

Roeder is most definitely not part of the pro-life movement."

-- Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life president and CEO, U.S. News and World Report, June 1, 2009

"He was fanatic about a lot of things. I went to one of his court appearances and thought, 'This guy is dangerous.' There were a lot of red flags that came up about him."

-- Suzanne James, former director of victim's services for Shawnee County, where Roeder was involved with the Freemen, Kansas City Star, June 1, 2009

As I said, there appears to be more to it than: "We do know why the man killed Dr. Tiller, and it was because Dr. Tiller was performing abortions and that man figured that if he took out Dr. Tiller, that would be one less abortion taking place."

Lilberals seem to think that every mentally ill person committing a crime against an abortionist is the fault of all anti-abortionists, and every mentally ill person committing a crime because "God told them to" is the fault of all Christians, but liberals feel they have NO FAULT when someone takes their statements to the next level and shoots a military recruiter. You can't have it both ways.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 2:13 PM

Okay first of all I don't know any liberal who has ever suggested killing a military recruiter so I don't even know where you are getting that.

By categorizing a few bad apples as ALL liberals you have just done what you are criticizing liberals doing to Christians and anti-abortion groups. So you can't have it both ways

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 3:08 PM

I am referring to al Qaeda. This is a group that is very well organized and as far as we know have two fronts in two different countries. They are a borderless military. Just because they don't wear official military garb or have a flag to fight for doesn't necessarily them not a military.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 3:11 PM

wallismarsh, that's pretty much the exact things I have read and seen about gangs.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 2, 2009, at 3:12 PM

NBC isn't blaming anyone.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jun 3, 2009, at 9:53 AM

Actually, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC DID blame O'Reilly and Fox News for fostering the hate that led to the act.

I can't agree that they are directly responsible (only Mr. Roeder is). But I think it's a believable case that the anti-abortion hatred fostered by fox news personalities (and the far-right in general) is at least INDIRECTLY responsible. Words have power. People can decide to act based on the words of others.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying that anyone but Mr. Roeder is directly (or legally) responsible for the act. Simply that when an ideal fostered by a group causes someone to act, that group shares indirect responsibility for the act.

It cuts both ways. Eco-evangalists on the left are indirectly responsible for eco-terrorism.

(I think that "indirectly responsible" might not be the term I want to use. But unfortunately, I don't know a more appropriate verbiage to express my thoughts on this matter.)

-- Posted by jhat on Wed, Jun 3, 2009, at 12:11 PM

Steffanie,

Again, those types of abortion are extremely rare. The ones you describe would not just be late term abortions, but abortions that occurred when the third term was almost completed.

Abortions after the 24th week are estimated to account for less than 1/10 of one percent of all US abortions (estimated because the statistics aren't officially tracked by week after 20 weeks, source below) about 1,000 are performed each year in the US.

Also, they are illegal in most states, and in the states where they are legal, they are usually only done because of a late diagnosed problem with the fetus, or because of the health of the mother.

The OVERWHELMING majority of abortions are NOTHING like the scenario you described. And the ones that are like that ARE illegal in most places.

Source:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html

-- Posted by jhat on Wed, Jun 3, 2009, at 3:32 PM

Keith Olbermann and MSNBC are not NBC. That would be the same as saying that Fox is responsible for what Bill O'Reilly and Fox News does.

By the way Steffanie, just wondering, do you know who co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jun 3, 2009, at 11:55 PM

Okay well that makes it easier then. Hellen Keller was one of the founders.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jun 4, 2009, at 8:46 AM

Is there some relevance to Hellen Keller's co-founding the ACLU that I am missing from this argument?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Jun 4, 2009, at 4:25 PM

Nope just thought I would mention, since Steffanie is so intent on slandering the ACLU, who one of the founding members was.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jun 4, 2009, at 4:50 PM

Whew, I thought I had really missed something:)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Jun 4, 2009, at 7:58 PM

This issue of abortion really IS black and white. The killing of persons for our selfish convenience is WRONG - and when people use technology to end the life of an innocent; well, it doesn't get any more black or white than that.

That being said - I'm going on the record as being pro-choice. You make the choice and you live with it. And if you make the choice to hop in the sack, live with your choice; even if your choice results in pregnancy. By the way...rape doesn't justify murder, and neither does incest. The ol' two wrongs don't make a right argument.

Tiller admitted to killing perfectly healthy babies. That really should end the quarrel about what kind of man he was. Was his death justified? In my opinion...no. Will the world miss him soon? IMO...no. Have fun facing your Creator Mr. Tiller...my guess is that your activities indicated where you stand on the sanctity of human life. And your Creator is going to want some answers and some accountability.

-- Posted by Mickel on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 1:05 PM

That whole post Mickel proves that this issues is so MUCH more than black and white.

But, basically, what you are saying Mickel is that if your daughter was brutally raped and became pregnant and wanted to get an abortion. You would just tell her no. Or, if she was of age and got the abortion would you disown her?

Or, how about this, your daughter is brutally raped and becomes pregnant, and there are complications. The doctors tell you that the only way to save your daughters life is to abort the pregnancy. If she doesn't she will die and so will the fetus. You are still going to say no, since it's a black and white issue?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 7:00 PM

First, Sceptre, glad you have returned.

Second, where do you get your 3-1 number and 35 Muslim training camps numbers?

Third, you aren't seriously stating that the Ku Klux Klan is a liberal group are you?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 5:22 PM