On phone so can't post story. I heard qbout it on the radio.
Planned Parenthood officials say they don't know if their facility in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was the target of a shooting there Friday. "We don't yet know the full circumstances and motives behind this criminal action, and we don't yet know if Planned Parenthood was in fact the target of this attack," Vicki Cowart, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said in a written statement. "We share the concerns of many Americans that extremists are creating a poisonous environment that feeds domestic terrorism in this country. We will never back away from providing care in a safe, supportive environment that millions of people rely on and trust."
[Previous story, posted at 5:07 p.m. ET Friday]
Police were in a shootout with a gunman inside a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Friday afternoon, hours after a shooter was first reported in the area.
"The officers inside the building have encountered the individual. As of about a minute ago, they were exchanging gunfire with him," Lt. Catherine Buckley told reporters.
At least four officers have been injured in the shooting, she said. Local hospital officials said at least eight people had been taken to medical facilities in the area. Details about their injuries were not immediately available.
The shooting, which was first reported around 11:30 a.m. (1:30 p.m. ET), also left a nearby shopping center on lockdown as police searched for the gunman.
"We don't have the suspect yet and we do consider this still an active situation," Buckley told reporters earlier Friday. There could be hostages and there could be an additional shooter at large, she said.
"There are a lot of possibilities with this scenario," she said. "As I said, it is very active and we are working our way through it."
It was not immediately clear whether Planned Parenthood was the target of the shooting.
"We're not sure what the connection is to Planned Parenthood, but that was the original address we received for the call for service," Buckley said.
Witnesses: Police swarmed area
Denise Speller, who works at a nearby salon, said she heard at least 10 gunshots go off and saw a police officer get hit.
"It was terrifying," she said, adding that it was unclear exactly where the shots were coming from.
Brigitte Wolfe, who said she works in the area of shooting, told CNN that she saw about five officers behind a building with their guns drawn, as well as about three SWAT vehicles and roughly seven police cars from her vantage point in a strip mall that's across the street from the Planned Parenthood. A grocery store and bank are nearby, Wolfe noted.
Colorado Springs police tweeted that the shooting took place on Centennial Boulevard. A newspaper in the city, The Gazette, reported that traffic was shut down in both directions on that road and that customers were told to stay put in a nearby grocery store and shops.
That sentiment was echoed by Colorado Springs police, who warned around 12:20 p.m. (2:20 p.m. ET) that the area was "not secure" that those in a nearby shopping center should "shelter in place."
At a grocery store in the shopping center, an intercom announcement told shoppers not to leave.
The city, in the central part of the Colorado, has more than 400,000 residents.
Planned Parenthood: 'This is a developing situation'
FBI teams were also responding to the shooting, agency spokeswoman Deborah Sherman said.
Officials released few details as the shooting unfolded, saying their focus was getting the situation under control.
"At this time, our concern is for the safety of our patients, staff and law enforcement," Vicki Cowart, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, said in a written statement. "This is a developing situation, and we'll continue to share updates as we have them."
Planned Parenthood is a national health care provider that delivers reproductive health care and sex education to women and men throughout the United States. The organization runs nearly 700 health centers throughout the United States, according to its website.
The group says each year 2.7 million people in the United States visit its health centers for health care services and information.
CNN's Ariane DeVogue, Polson Kannath, Pam Brown, John Berman, John Newsome, Keith Allen, Kyung Lah, Jason Hanna, Josh Berlinger, Kim Hutcherson and Nelson Quiñones contributed to this report.
There is a video from the News in the linked report.
In custody, several items being investigated to make sure none of them are explosives, we should know what his background is pretty soon and if PP was the target and if so why.
I think everybody is fairly sure the shooter isn't Muslim or a Syrian refugee though.
d-usa wrote: I think everybody is fairly sure the shooter isn't Muslim or a Syrian refugee though.
Now now D. No jumping to conclusions;
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the bright side, so far it doesn't seem like anyone is dead. Only reports of people being sent to hospitals (so that's good right )
The gunman who shot 11 people -- including five police officers -- has been taken into custody, according to the Colorado Springs police department.
The "active shooter" situation at the Planned Parenthood building lasted for roughly five hours this afternoon. Police said the number of casualties are unknown and the conditions of the 11 people who were shot have not been publicly released.
Colorado Springs Lt. Catherine Buckely said that police have not identified the identity of the shooter. The suspect, a male, had brought "items" with him into the Planned Parenthood building. Police said they do not know what the items were.
PHOTO: Colorado Springs police officers search the area near the scene of an active shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 27, 2015. Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images
Colorado Springs police officers search the area near the scene of an active shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 27, 2015.
more +
The standoff came to an end when police officers were able to gain entry to the building and began shouting to communicate with the suspect, Buckley said. It was then that officers got "him to surrender and he was taken into custody" at 4:52 p.m. local time, Buckley added.
Police are still working to clear the Planned Parenthood building and said they are treating it "as a crime scene." Officials are also working to help anyone in the surrounding buildings who set up barricades during the standoff.
Man Hears Gunshots While Speaking to Sister at Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood
"This is still very much unfolding for us," Buckley said.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper released the following statement: “We hold the Colorado Springs community in our thoughts and prayers. The bravery and courage of local law enforcement officers have prevented a dire situation from being far worse, and we are all grateful. We are in contact with Mayor Suthers. All state Public Safety resources are at the ready, if and when needed.”
PHOTO: An officer waits on the intersection of Windmill and Centennial while facing south towards the scene of a shooting Nov. 27, 2015 in Colorado Springs, Colo.Brent Lewis/The Denver Post via Getty Images
An officer waits on the intersection of Windmill and Centennial while facing south towards the scene of a shooting Nov. 27, 2015 in Colorado Springs, Colo.
more +
President Obama was briefed on the shooting, a White House official confirmed, and the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are assisting in the investigation.
Police initially responded to a call of shots fired in the Planned Parenthood at 11:38 a.m. local time. The shooter had a "long gun" of some type. Police said there was just one suspect.
PHOTO: Police respond to active shooting situation in Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 27, 2015.ABC News
Police respond to active shooting situation in Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 27, 2015.
In a statement, Planned Parenthood said: "At this time, our concern is for the safety of our patients, staff and law enforcement. This is a developing situation, and we’ll continue to share updates as we have them," according to Vicki Cowart, the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain.
Police said the connection between the shooting and Planned Parenthood was not clear.
Cops have asked residents to avoid the area near Centennial Boulevard and West Fillmore Street. They also tweeted that a stretch of Centennial Boulevard, from Garden of Gods Road to Fillmore, has been closed in both directions.
The gunman who shot 11 people -- including five police officers -- has been taken into custody, according to the Colorado Springs police department.
The "active shooter" situation at the Planned Parenthood building lasted for roughly five hours this afternoon. Police said the number of casualties are unknown and the conditions of the 11 people who were shot have not been publicly released.
Colorado Springs Lt. Catherine Buckely said that police have not identified the identity of the shooter. The suspect, a male, had brought "items" with him into the Planned Parenthood building. Police said they do not know what the items were.
PHOTO: Colorado Springs police officers search the area near the scene of an active shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 27, 2015. Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images
Colorado Springs police officers search the area near the scene of an active shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 27, 2015.
more +
The standoff came to an end when police officers were able to gain entry to the building and began shouting to communicate with the suspect, Buckley said. It was then that officers got "him to surrender and he was taken into custody" at 4:52 p.m. local time, Buckley added.
Police are still working to clear the Planned Parenthood building and said they are treating it "as a crime scene." Officials are also working to help anyone in the surrounding buildings who set up barricades during the standoff.
Man Hears Gunshots While Speaking to Sister at Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood
"This is still very much unfolding for us," Buckley said.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper released the following statement: “We hold the Colorado Springs community in our thoughts and prayers. The bravery and courage of local law enforcement officers have prevented a dire situation from being far worse, and we are all grateful. We are in contact with Mayor Suthers. All state Public Safety resources are at the ready, if and when needed.”
PHOTO: An officer waits on the intersection of Windmill and Centennial while facing south towards the scene of a shooting Nov. 27, 2015 in Colorado Springs, Colo.Brent Lewis/The Denver Post via Getty Images
An officer waits on the intersection of Windmill and Centennial while facing south towards the scene of a shooting Nov. 27, 2015 in Colorado Springs, Colo.
more +
President Obama was briefed on the shooting, a White House official confirmed, and the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are assisting in the investigation.
Police initially responded to a call of shots fired in the Planned Parenthood at 11:38 a.m. local time. The shooter had a "long gun" of some type. Police said there was just one suspect.
PHOTO: Police respond to active shooting situation in Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 27, 2015.ABC News
Police respond to active shooting situation in Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 27, 2015.
In a statement, Planned Parenthood said: "At this time, our concern is for the safety of our patients, staff and law enforcement. This is a developing situation, and we’ll continue to share updates as we have them," according to Vicki Cowart, the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain.
Police said the connection between the shooting and Planned Parenthood was not clear.
Cops have asked residents to avoid the area near Centennial Boulevard and West Fillmore Street. They also tweeted that a stretch of Centennial Boulevard, from Garden of Gods Road to Fillmore, has been closed in both directions.
Welp so much for the good stuff. 2 dead including one officer.
Watching live press conference. Lt. Catherine Buckley of the CSPD confirmed two civilian and one PD death. Four civilians and five officers transferred to hospitals with gunshot wounds and are in "good" condition.
Nothing yet about the suspect or any motive. Stay away from social media on this until the CSPD releases info. Twitter and FB are already toxic as hell.
I mean, it was an old white guy in a historically libertarian/conservative state shooting at cops from a Planned Parenthood office in a city where the military employs ~20% of the residents. It shouldn't be surprising if people's mind drift a certain way.
Twitter has a positive part to play. Someone might not have gone into the wrong part of town because they spotted an early hashtag comment giving them a heads up.
Social media can help as well as hinder by being faster to react to breaking news than the professional press or government bodies.
dogma wrote: I mean, it was an old white guy in a historically libertarian/conservative state shooting at cops from a Planned Parenthood office in a city where the military employs ~20% of the residents. It shouldn't be surprising if people's mind drift a certain way.
With all the violent rhetoric that the republican party puts out about PP and abortion in general, I wouldn't be surprised if he took cues from it and wanted to do something about it.
Here's your format; _____ shot up _____ because ______ and if you don't see it you're _____ wake up Sheeple!
Society might be sick. It might have always been sick. There may be no cure. I don't know.
I'm reminded of those words that give me comfort in times of trouble: "The cure is if you let in just a little more love I promise you this, a little's enough"
3 are now dead. 9 injured but in good condition. The culprit is identified as 57 year old Robert Dear (just saying, that is a name that screams "I'm gonna shoot some place up some day"). Media says he was using an AK, but we all know how US news is with guns.
Still no confirmation on why the building was attacked. A witness says he was 'calm but crazy' and ranting.
lord_blackfang wrote: So basically a christian extremist terrorist attack that won't be called that by anyone ever.
yep, and if they went looking for his "network" you'd find it's his chuch members. some priests even have made up wanted dead signs for doctors who perform abortions. Could you imagine the outrage if they rounded up his church, it wouldn't matter if they were all guilty of conspiracy and plotting this attack.
While religion/politics are the common sense motives here, especially given the degree to which Planned Parenthood has become a specific religious/political target, I think it would be prudent to wait until other plausible motives have been ruled out. For example, the man may have been a disgruntled employee, or perhaps had a non-political grudge against an individual who worked at the Planned Parenthood.
jasper76 wrote: While religion/politics are the common sense motives here, especially given the degree to which Planned Parenthood has become a specific religious/political target, I think it would be prudent to wait until other plausible motives have been ruled out. For example, the man may have been a disgruntled employee, or perhaps had a non-political grudge against an individual who worked at the Planned Parenthood.
Yet someone who looks Middle Eastern does something similar and it's ISIS at work.
jasper76 wrote: While religion/politics are the common sense motives here, especially given the degree to which Planned Parenthood has become a specific religious/political target, I think it would be prudent to wait until other plausible motives have been ruled out. For example, the man may have been a disgruntled employee, or perhaps had a non-political grudge against an individual who worked at the Planned Parenthood.
Yet someone who looks Middle Eastern does something similar and it's ISIS at work.
Not sure if this is targeted at me, or just a general statement. As a rule, I try to hold my tongue on motives until they're known.
jasper76 wrote: While religion/politics are the common sense motives here, especially given the degree to which Planned Parenthood has become a specific religious/political target, I think it would be prudent to wait until other plausible motives have been ruled out. For example, the man may have been a disgruntled employee, or perhaps had a non-political grudge against an individual who worked at the Planned Parenthood.
Yet someone who looks Middle Eastern does something similar and it's ISIS at work.
Those of us who hate how others jump the gun shouldn't jump the gun ourselves
A religiously motivated attack is probable, even likely. But we still don't know. For all we know he though PP stood for "Plenty of Pennies" and he only started shooting when he learned there were no pennies
jasper76 wrote: While religion/politics are the common sense motives here, especially given the degree to which Planned Parenthood has become a specific religious/political target, I think it would be prudent to wait until other plausible motives have been ruled out. For example, the man may have been a disgruntled employee, or perhaps had a non-political grudge against an individual who worked at the Planned Parenthood.
Yet someone who looks Middle Eastern does something similar and it's ISIS at work.
Not sure if this is targeted at me, or just a general statement. As a rule, I try to hold my tongue on motives until they're known.
It's targeted at your statement. When something like this happens and a white guy who is likely Christian and probably a Republican is the suspect?
"HOLD THE PHONE EVERYONE! We need to find out what's going on!"
Someone who looks Middle Eastern or Indian/Pakistani gets shown as the suspect in custody or a photo gets circulated or witness reports?
"OHEMGEE TERRORISM!"
It's a ridiculous double standard. This is NOT the first time a Planned Parenthood clinic has been targeted by a white Christian, probably a Republican/Tea Party member, nor will it likely be the last time it happens with the irresponsible drek that gets shoveled by the Republican party's demagogues.
jasper76 wrote: While religion/politics are the common sense motives here, especially given the degree to which Planned Parenthood has become a specific religious/political target, I think it would be prudent to wait until other plausible motives have been ruled out. For example, the man may have been a disgruntled employee, or perhaps had a non-political grudge against an individual who worked at the Planned Parenthood.
Yet someone who looks Middle Eastern does something similar and it's ISIS at work.
Those of us who hate how others jump the gun shouldn't jump the gun ourselves
A religiously motivated attack is probable, even likely. But we still don't know. For all we know he though PP stood for "Plenty of Pennies" and he only started shooting when he learned there were no pennies
I'm allowed to be hypocritical in this situation.
People generally don't shoot up Planned Parenthood clinics as "targets of opportunity". I cannot think of an instance where a PP clinic was involved in a non-religious motivated shooting.
Is there a CHANCE that this was motivated by something other than religion?
Sure. But it's so minute of a chance that it's not even worth mentioning.
jasper76 wrote: While religion/politics are the common sense motives here, especially given the degree to which Planned Parenthood has become a specific religious/political target, I think it would be prudent to wait until other plausible motives have been ruled out. For example, the man may have been a disgruntled employee, or perhaps had a non-political grudge against an individual who worked at the Planned Parenthood.
Yet someone who looks Middle Eastern does something similar and it's ISIS at work.
Not sure if this is targeted at me, or just a general statement. As a rule, I try to hold my tongue on motives until they're known.
It's targeted at your statement. When something like this happens and a white guy who is likely Christian and probably a Republican is the suspect?
"HOLD THE PHONE EVERYONE! We need to find out what's going on!"
Someone who looks Middle Eastern or Indian/Pakistani gets shown as the suspect in custody or a photo gets circulated or witness reports?
"OHEMGEE TERRORISM!"
It's a ridiculous double standard. This is NOT the first time a Planned Parenthood clinic has been targeted by a white Christian, probably a Republican/Tea Party member, nor will it likely be the last time it happens with the irresponsible drek that gets shoveled by the Republican party's demagogues.
Feel free to go looking for a post on my part where I've jumped in and said "OHEMGEE TERRORISM!" or the like because an attack occurred and the perpetrator was not a white Christian. You won't find one.
jasper76 wrote: While religion/politics are the common sense motives here, especially given the degree to which Planned Parenthood has become a specific religious/political target, I think it would be prudent to wait until other plausible motives have been ruled out. For example, the man may have been a disgruntled employee, or perhaps had a non-political grudge against an individual who worked at the Planned Parenthood.
Yet someone who looks Middle Eastern does something similar and it's ISIS at work.
Not sure if this is targeted at me, or just a general statement. As a rule, I try to hold my tongue on motives until they're known.
It's targeted at your statement. When something like this happens and a white guy who is likely Christian and probably a Republican is the suspect?
"HOLD THE PHONE EVERYONE! We need to find out what's going on!"
Someone who looks Middle Eastern or Indian/Pakistani gets shown as the suspect in custody or a photo gets circulated or witness reports?
"OHEMGEE TERRORISM!"
It's a ridiculous double standard. This is NOT the first time a Planned Parenthood clinic has been targeted by a white Christian, probably a Republican/Tea Party member, nor will it likely be the last time it happens with the irresponsible drek that gets shoveled by the Republican party's demagogues.
Feel free to go looking for a post on my part where I've jumped in and said "OHEMGEE TERRORISM!" or the like because the perpetrator was not a white Christian. You won't find one.
I'm not saying you did.
I'm saying that your STATEMENT is what I have an issue with. The "calls for calm and patience" are few and far between when we have things like the shootings in Paris, but with things happening on our own soil?
All of a sudden we need to step back and wait for the proper authorities to do their jobs? And it's ALWAYS the same thing. We hear about this for MAYBE three or four days, then nothing.
You won't hear about how his church might have "radicalized him", or how he bought the guns legally or any of that crap. You'll just hear about how he's a "misunderstood" individual who had deeply held religious convictions.
I'd say yes, we should wait until there is some source that the attack was religiously motivated before we automatically assume that it was. I don't have my head in the sand. I am awake to the dangerous rhetoric that religious groups and GOP politicians are leveling against abortion practitioners and specifically Planned Parenthood. I realize that in all likelihood, this shooting spree, terrorist attack, mass murder, whatever you want to call it was motivated by that rhetoric.
But no media source that I've seen has claimed to have identified a motive at this point.
jasper76 wrote: I'd say yes, we should wait until there is some source that the attack was religiously motivated before we automatically assume that they are. I don't have my head in the sand. I am awake to the dangerous rhetoric that religious groups and GOP politicians are leveling against abortion practitioners and specifically Planned Parenthood. I realize that in all likelihood, this shooting spree, terrorist attack, mass murder, whatever you want to call it was motivated by that rhetoric.
But no media source that I've seen has claimed to have identifed a motive at this point.
Not surprising, they almost never bring up a white mans religion when he goes on a shooting spree in the states. Nor will they ever mention it was religiously motivated
jasper76 wrote: I'd say yes, we should wait until there is some source that the attack was religiously motivated before we automatically assume that they are. I don't have my head in the sand. I am awake to the dangerous rhetoric that religious groups and GOP politicians are leveling against abortion practitioners and specifically Planned Parenthood. I realize that in all likelihood, this shooting spree, terrorist attack, mass murder, whatever you want to call it was motivated by that rhetoric.
But no media source that I've seen has claimed to have identifed a motive at this point.
Which is EXACTLY my point!
In any other case, Fox would have already been running some kind of "special report" about how dangerous Muslims are or how black people get given passes on violent crime because it's "black on black crime" or some other garbage.
But I guaran-frigging-tee you that if anyone from that police department says that it was motivated by Christian ideology? We'd be hearing about the friggin' "War on Christianity" again.
Sorry if you feel like I'm taking things out on you, specifically, but it's just irritating to see this nonsense. Especially so close on the heels of the "we need to keep Syrian refugees out because otherwise ISIS is going to kill us all" crap.
@sirlynchmob: Depends on who "they" are. Left leaning media like Huffington Post will be swift to tie these crimes to right-wing churches and right-wing politicians.
sirlynchmob wrote: Not surprising, they almost never bring up a white mans religion when he goes on a shooting spree in the states. Nor will they ever mention it was religiously motivated
I wouldn't agree with that. When the faith of the person in question is relevant to the crime, it is usually brought up such as the case of Joe Rogers, Scott Roeder, and Eric Rudolph.
What I would agree with is that attacks on Planned Parenthood generally receive remarkably little press attention given how many of them involve bombs and arson. Terrorism is also rarely a word applied to such attacks by mainstream media outlets.
jasper76 wrote: @sirlynchmob: Depends on who "they" are. Left leaning media like Huffington Post will be swift to tie these crimes to right-wing churches and right-wing politicians.
They=mainstream TV media.
bad joke: don't read it.
Spoiler:
we know christian extremest can't read, that's why they've never read their bible
jasper76 wrote: @sirlynchmob: Depends on who "they" are. Left leaning media like Huffington Post will be swift to tie these crimes to right-wing churches and right-wing politicians.
Could you please show me where HP actually does that?
There's a bit from Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains("We don't yet know the full circumstances and motives behind this criminal action, and we don't yet know if Planned Parenthood was in fact the target of this attack. We share the concerns of many Americans that extremists are creating a poisonous environment that feeds domestic terrorism in this country. We will never back away from providing care in a safe, supportive environment that millions of people rely on and trust," the statement continued.") and then HP finishes out the article mentioning:
Spoiler:
Four Planned Parenthood clinics were the targets of attacks in the past four months, including a Washington state clinic that was set on fire and one in California that was fire-bombed in a similar fashion.
Earlier this year, a series of heavily edited undercover videos claimed the family planning provider was harvesting fetal tissue after abortions and selling it. The group denies the charges and says it only donates fetal tissue for medical research when the patient requests it, and does not make a profit from the donation.
Congress is investigating Planned Parenthood's practice of fetal tissue donation, and has so far found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Friday's attack unfolded less than a month after a shooting rampage in Colorado Springs left four people dead, including the gunman.
This past Halloween, 33-year-old Noah Harpham fatally shot three people in the mountain town. Four Colorado Springs Police Department officers were placed on administrative leave after fatally shooting Harpham, who was recovering from substance abuse and wrote a rambling blog entry just days before the attack discussing religion and his spiritual beliefs.
But that's the only time "religion" gets brought up by HP itself.
jasper76 wrote: @sirlynchmob: Depends on who "they" are. Left leaning media like Huffington Post will be swift to tie these crimes to right-wing churches and right-wing politicians.
"We don't yet know the full circumstances and motives behind this criminal action, and we don't yet know if Planned Parenthood was in fact the target of this attack"
If they're going to tie it to right wingers, they haven't as of yet.
jasper76 wrote: @Kanluwen: Those were the sections of the article I was referring to.
The first part isn't actually Huffington Post though. That's a STATEMENT FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS.
The remainder is actually fairly relevant, and the mention of religion and spiritual beliefs has nothing to do with any of the Planned Parenthood attacks.
jasper76 wrote: @sirlynchmob: Depends on who "they" are. Left leaning media like Huffington Post will be swift to tie these crimes to right-wing churches and right-wing politicians.
They=mainstream TV media.
bad joke: don't read it.
Spoiler:
we know christian extremest can't read, that's why they've never read their bible
jasper76 wrote: @Kanluwen: Those were the sections of the article I was referring to.
The first part isn't actually Huffington Post though. That's a STATEMENT FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS.
The remainder is actually fairly relevant, and the mention of religion and spiritual beliefs has nothing to do with any of the Planned Parenthood attacks.
In any case, if and when the motive is determined to be anti-abortion, my main point was that there will be no shortage of left leaning publications with articles discussing the ties between anti-abortion rhetoric and anti-abortion violence.
If you all are waiting for conservative preachers, politicians, and news outlets like FOX to start admitting their mutual complicity in anti-abortion violence, I have the feeling you'll be waiting indefinitely.
sirlynchmob wrote: Not surprising, they almost never bring up a white mans religion when he goes on a shooting spree in the states. Nor will they ever mention it was religiously motivated
The religion of Vester Flanagan, an African American, and Seung-Hui Cho, a naturalized US citizen from South Korea, were also not much discussed in the media and neither of them were white. The recent shooting in New Orleans between gangs was also not reported as religiously motivated either. The reason that most of these incidents are not reported as religiously motivated is because the overwhelming majority of them are not religiously motivated, but are carried out by people with grudges, mental illnesses, etc.
Was this particular attack religiously motivated? We don't yet know.
sirlynchmob wrote: Not surprising, they almost never bring up a white mans religion when he goes on a shooting spree in the states. Nor will they ever mention it was religiously motivated
The religion of Vester Flanagan, an African American, and Seung-Hui Cho, a naturalized US citizen from South Korea, were also not much discussed in the media and neither of them were white. The recent shooting in New Orleans between gangs was also not reported as religiously motivated either. The reason that most of these incidents are not reported as religiously motivated is because the overwhelming majority of them are not religiously motivated, but are carried out by people with grudges, mental illnesses, etc.
Was this particular attack religiously motivated? We don't yet know.
seeing as it was a planned parenthood clinic, the quick answer is Yes.
we know pro lifers, who quote the bible as the source of why they hold their beliefs also do this:
Every clinic bombed or burned, and every clinician assaulted or killed, had been previously picketed, targeted or assailed by antiabortion groups like Operation Rescue and the Army of God. Operation Rescue issued “Wanted” posters of abortion providers, often listing their home addresses. Several of the doctors listed on the posters, including David Gunn, George Patterson, John Britton and George Tiller, were killed by antiabortion zealots.
if they are not religiously motivated, then why not label them a terrorist group and treat them accordingly? And if not religiously motivated, why are they calling themselves the army of god?
Every clinic bombed or burned, and every clinician assaulted or killed, had been previously picketed, targeted or assailed by antiabortion groups like Operation Rescue and the Army of God. Operation Rescue issued “Wanted” posters of abortion providers, often listing their home addresses. Several of the doctors listed on the posters, including David Gunn, George Patterson, John Britton and George Tiller, were killed by antiabortion zealots.
if they are not religiously motivated, then why not label them a terrorist group and treat them accordingly? And if not religiously motivated, why are they calling themselves the army of god?
The actual motive of the shooter has not yet been determined, so at this point you are leaping to conclusions.
Has there been any evidence released to show this shooter's connection to Operation Rescue or Army of God?
The man definitely doesn't look all there. I'm wondering if he had some type of episode like the lady who took her car into that crowd of people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: I mean, it was an old white guy in a historically libertarian/conservative state shooting at cops from a Planned Parenthood office in a city where the military employs ~20% of the residents. It shouldn't be surprising if people's mind drift a certain way.
It's not all tha conservative. I mean they're one of the two states where marijuana is legal.
The actual motive of the shooter has not yet been determined, so at this point you are leaping to conclusions.
Has there been any evidence released to show this shooter's connection to Operation Rescue or Army of God?
No, because no one in the mainstream media (TV) will ask the question. And by the time it comes out at trial, no one will care anymore.
Every clinic bombed or burned, and every clinician assaulted or killed, had been previously picketed, targeted or assailed by antiabortion groups like Operation Rescue and the Army of God. Operation Rescue issued “Wanted” posters of abortion providers, often listing their home addresses. Several of the doctors listed on the posters, including David Gunn, George Patterson, John Britton and George Tiller, were killed by antiabortion zealots.
It takes some serious leaping and a lot denialism to even possibly imagine it wasn't religiously motivated.
sirlynchmob wrote: It takes some serious leaping and a lot denialism to even possibly imagine it wasn't religiously motivated.
The only thing being denied is your claim that this was religiously motivated when no evidence for that claim exists. Currently your argument appears to be that the absence of evidence concerning the motivation of the shooter proves the motivation was religion.
sirlynchmob wrote: It takes some serious leaping and a lot denialism to even possibly imagine it wasn't religiously motivated.
The only thing being denied is your claim that this was religiously motivated when no evidence for that claim exists. Currently your argument appears to be that the absence of evidence concerning the motivation of the shooter proves the motivation was religion.
I bet you're going to say that this was a bank robbery gone wrong next, right?
His argument is that the selection of target is proof of the motivation being religion.
Kanluwen wrote: I bet you're going to say that this was a bank robbery gone wrong next, right?
How much would you like to bet? I'll send you instructions on where to send the wager.
Kanluwen wrote: His argument is that the selection of target is proof of the motivation being religion.
It may be that it was religiously motivated, I'm not saying it is not a possibility. But to claim it as fact when the actual motivation is not yet known is unhelpful.
Kanluwen wrote: I bet you're going to say that this was a bank robbery gone wrong next, right?
How much would you like to bet? I'll send you instructions on where to send the wager.
See, now that you know I was going to mock you for suggesting it? It'd be a fallacious wager and easy enough for you to claim while making it impossible for me to win.
Kanluwen wrote: His argument is that the selection of target is proof of the motivation being religion.
It may be that it was religiously motivated, I'm not saying it is not a possibility. But to claim it as fact when the actual motivation is not yet known is unhelpful.
You know what else is unhelpful?
Pretending that there, realistically, could be some other kind of motivation. People don't generally target Planned Parenthood centers. They generally are in areas with a pretty quick police response time, and police are aware that Planned Parenthood has been the target of shooters/bombings before which amps up the response time as well.
You could make the argument that this was an attempt at "suicide by cop" but that falls flat pretty quick since he surrendered to the police rather than doing something to necessitate the police to end him.
It probably is religiously motivated and no one here is denying that. The disagreement is over whether or not to assume it is, or if to wait for further evidence to confirm/deny the most likely motive. Personally I think that people jumping to conclusions in regards to ethnic and/or Muslim shooters is an unfortunately common occurrence, but that doesn't justify jumping to conclusions here. Even if its a short jump.
But really, shooting like this shouldn't make national news. As a country we have decided to be relatively free in terms of gun ownership and control. This means we have accepted (consciously or not) the benefits and downsides of this policy. There is a lot of discussion to be had (elsewhere) on if it reduces crime or increases it or if it is a good thing or bad. Regardless, our current policies mean that shootings like this will happen with decent frequency because there are always crazy individuals in any society and in ours those people can get access to guns. Which brings me to the question that people should ask themselves; why react to this as anything but the norm?
curran12 wrote: So why are we not waiting for the evidence again?
It could be religious, it could be a domestic issue, it could be space fairies inside his brain. Right now, we don't know.
So why aren't we waiting for more information? Can someone clear that up for me.
Mostly just because whenever a Muslim terrorist does something everybody dog piles and gaks on Islam and starts talking about how Muslims and refugees are he greatest threat to America that ever existed, that Islam so violent from the core, and that this sort of thing never happens with Christians and that there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist.
And when it was pointed out that Christian terrorist bomb and shoot up abortion clinics the counter was pretty much "maybe, but that doesn't happen anymore, Muslims are killing people RIGHT NOW and Christiand haven't hurt an abortion clinic in years!"
So for me it's half just rubbing the irony in people's faces while also hoping that maybe this country will get it's collective gak together and focus on the threats in our own back yard before condemning entire populations and telling them to feth off and die.
d-usa wrote: while also hoping that maybe this country will get it's collective gak together and focus on the threats in our own back yard before condemning entire populations and telling them to feth off and die
Maybe we should meet up for a drink in 2025 to celebrate ten years of hoping.
OgreChubbs wrote: Not sure why everyone is so mad. He is just a doctor preforming late term abortions. Couple months couple years whats the difference.
That seems like the comment that only a steaming pile of human garbage would make before the blood is dry. Of course, if I called you a steaming pile of human garbage, I'd be violating rule #1, so obviously I'm saying what you said is something a person like that would say.
OgreChubbs wrote: Not sure why everyone is so mad. He is just a doctor preforming late term abortions. Couple months couple years whats the difference.
That seems like the comment that only a steaming pile of human garbage would make before the blood is dry. Of course, if I called you a steaming pile of human garbage, I'd be violating rule #1, so obviously I'm saying what you said is something a person like that would say.
I do feel bed for the cops who got shot or anyone innocent. But for dotors nurses or patiens of said place.... Cant say I would be to sad. Allowed to pick off the old, the children and now the sick, how close in etween I guess is still up for grabs.
OgreChubbs wrote: I do feel bed for the cops who got shot or anyone innocent. But for dotors nurses or patiens of said place.... Cant say I would be to sad. Allowed to pick off the old, the children and now the sick, how close in etween I guess is still up for grabs.
I'm glad you were able to rationalize murder in your head; which is of course also the kind of thing a steaming pile of human garbage would do, when said murder coincides in favor of your political views. Not that, of course, you're a steaming pile of human garbage; just that that's one one would think.
OgreChubbs wrote: I do feel bed for the cops who got shot or anyone innocent. But for dotors nurses or patiens of said place.... Cant say I would be to sad. Allowed to pick off the old, the children and now the sick, how close in etween I guess is still up for grabs.
I'm glad you were able to rationalize murder in your head; which is of course also the kind of thing a steaming pile of human garbage would do, when said murder coincides in favor of your political views. Not that, of course, you're a steaming pile of human garbage; just that that's one one would think.
The funny thing is that you're obviously trolling, but I feel like I'm the one skirting a warning.
Sorry if it upsets you but I see them as murders getting murdered. Do you cry when a prisoner in jail kills another prisoner?
Sorry if this sounds strange but I am quite curious how you feel when a murder gets the death penalty? I see people get to sit behind glass amd cheer it on while it happens. Whcih seems a bit disturbing.
P.s. Sorry for the loss of an officers life. Around christmass is a rough time to lose someone.
I've been checking all the major sites, and still no word I've seen on a motive. Has anyone seen one posted, other than what they have extrapolated it to be?
OgreChubbs wrote: Not sure why everyone is so mad. He is just a doctor preforming late term abortions. Couple months couple years whats the difference.
That seems like the comment that only a steaming pile of human garbage would make before the blood is dry. Of course, if I called you a steaming pile of human garbage, I'd be violating rule #1, so obviously I'm saying what you said is something a person like that would say.
I do feel bed for the cops who got shot or anyone innocent. But for dotors nurses or patiens of said place.... Cant say I would be to sad. Allowed to pick off the old, the children and now the sick, how close in etween I guess is still up for grabs.
I think I am on mind blown overload here. Are you really saying you are glad people were murdered? I'm no fan of the bulk of abortions going on, but to see something like this happen is pretty horrific.
OgreChubbs wrote: Sorry if this sounds strange but I am quite curious how you feel when a murder gets the death penalty?
I feel like someone who can't distinguish between convicted murderers, and innocent people who participate in a totally legal medical procedure in the US is either a troll or an imbecile and neither one of which is really worth engaging - something I've already done substantially more than I should have.
It's probably the point you click the triangle, sigh, and move on, realising that someone who holds such insane, disgusting views isn't worth talking to.
OgreChubbs wrote: Not sure why everyone is so mad. He is just a doctor preforming late term abortions. Couple months couple years whats the difference.
That seems like the comment that only a steaming pile of human garbage would make before the blood is dry. Of course, if I called you a steaming pile of human garbage, I'd be violating rule #1, so obviously I'm saying what you said is something a person like that would say.
I do feel bed for the cops who got shot or anyone innocent. But for dotors nurses or patiens of said place.... Cant say I would be to sad. Allowed to pick off the old, the children and now the sick, how close in etween I guess is still up for grabs.
I think I am on mind blown overload here. Are you really saying you are glad people were murdered? I'm no fan of the bulk of abortions going on, but to see something like this happen is pretty horrific.
Not happy just have no apathy. Those who want to kill kids that bother them will go somewhere else. The doctors who kill babies will charge more and life goes on. Greatly sad to see some cops go tho.
As for the docs nurses and clients more like a mafia hit. The kill their own.
MrDwhitey wrote: It's probably the point you click the triangle, sigh, and move on, realising that someone who holds such insane, disgusting views isn't worth talking to.
curran12 wrote: So why are we not waiting for the evidence again?
It could be religious, it could be a domestic issue, it could be space fairies inside his brain. Right now, we don't know.
So why aren't we waiting for more information? Can someone clear that up for me.
Because certain people have pre-formed conclusions that need no evidence
d-usa wrote: Mostly just because whenever a Muslim terrorist does something everybody dog piles and gaks on Islam and starts talking about how Muslims and refugees are he greatest threat to America that ever existed, that Islam so violent from the core, and that this sort of thing never happens with Christians and that there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist.
Like the dog pile that started on page 1 of this thread, by post 3?
There is such a thing as a Christian terrorist, and this could very well be an attack by a Christian terrorist. But that depends on what the motive is revealed to be. Most Muslim terrorist attacks are labelled as such very early on as these extremists are somewhat prone to shouting "Allah you Akbar" during the attack. If this attacker shouted something similar then I would absolutely consider him a religiously motivated terrorist.
d-usa wrote: And when it was pointed out that Christian terrorist bomb and shoot up abortion clinics the counter was pretty much "maybe, but that doesn't happen anymore, Muslims are killing people RIGHT NOW and Christiand haven't hurt an abortion clinic in years!"
Strawman. Unless you can actually show someone in this thread said that.
d-usa wrote: So for me it's half just rubbing the irony in people's faces while also hoping that maybe this country will get it's collective gak together and focus on the threats in our own back yard before condemning entire populations and telling them to feth off and die.
So you hope that the country gets it's collective [blank] together while you rub people's faces in it? Let me know how that works out for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: As a country we have decided to be relatively free in terms of gun ownership and control.
Yes any time I go to a store to buy a product I feel that a background check is a sign of freedom.
OgreChubbs wrote: Sorry if it upsets you but I see them as murders getting murdered.
You are aware that PP provides, and many people make use of, many other health services right?
I guess you don't see that abortion isn't murder, but I hope that you can realise how calling anyone using or working for PP a murderer is pretty dumb.
lord_blackfang wrote: So basically a christian extremist terrorist attack that won't be called that by anyone ever.
yep, and if they went looking for his "network" you'd find it's his chuch members. some priests even have made up wanted dead signs for doctors who perform abortions. Could you imagine the outrage if they rounded up his church, it wouldn't matter if they were all guilty of conspiracy and plotting this attack.
Objection. In addition to revealing extremist bigoted views on your part, this statement assumes facts not in evidence.
If you want to pretend that the thread from a week ago doesn't exist be my guest, meanwhile I won't act like those exact things weren't posted.
And there is also a difference between "rubbing people's faces in it" and pointing out that they are wrong and that we should focus on real threats that are still happening instead of pretending that Muslim refugees from Syria are a threat because French nationals attacked Paris and acting like we don't have domestic terrorists and proclaim "Christians would never do this".
MrDwhitey wrote: It's probably the point you click the triangle, sigh, and move on, realising that someone who holds such insane, disgusting views isn't worth talking to.
That isn't what the yellow triangle is for. The yellow triangle is for posts like Ouzes that blatantly try to bypass forum rules and openly insult people.
Different views, no matter how foolish they might be, aren't violating any rules.
d-usa wrote: If you want to pretend that the thread from a week ago doesn't exist be my guest, meanwhile I won't act like those exact things weren't posted.
And there is also a difference between "rubbing people's faces in it" and pointing out that they are wrong and that we should focus on real threats that are still happening instead of pretending that Muslim refugees from Syria are a threat because French nationals attacked Paris and acting like we don't have domestic terrorists and proclaim "Christians would never do this".
Those refugees need help now and people need to let them in. Give them a job and let them work and be a part of the country. Many are starving and been at u.n. Camps for years, there is no terrorists in them except for the ones we breed through hate.
d-usa wrote: If you want to pretend that the thread from a week ago doesn't exist be my guest, meanwhile I won't act like those exact things weren't posted.
Yeah, I have definitely seen the posting you describe - handwaving away the violence of Christian fundamentalist terrorism over Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as a relic of the past, stop bringing up the Crusades, and so on. Not sure how that's a strawman.
Also, I just noticed you added a tiny santa hat to the ebola strand - well done.
To my liberal and conservative brothers and sisters, I'm confused. Is it okay to link an entire religion to the actions of a few madmen or not? You're sending mixed signals and I'm curious so I know what's considered appropriate.
The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.
Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.
d-usa wrote: If you want to pretend that the thread from a week ago doesn't exist be my guest, meanwhile I won't act like those exact things weren't posted.
And there is also a difference between "rubbing people's faces in it" and pointing out that they are wrong and that we should focus on real threats that are still happening instead of pretending that Muslim refugees from Syria are a threat because French nationals attacked Paris and acting like we don't have domestic terrorists and proclaim "Christians would never do this".
That brush is so broad you could paint a Warlord Titan with it. And I don't mean the FW model.
Rubbing people's faces in it is usually considered very demeaning, degrading, and wholly negative, whereas politely pointing out that someone is wrong and substantiating it can actually be a positive thing. Which method is more likely to bring your desired end result of this country getting it's _____ together?
OgreChubbs wrote: I do feel bed for the cops who got shot or anyone innocent. But for dotors nurses or patiens of said place.... Cant say I would be to sad. Allowed to pick off the old, the children and now the sick, how close in etween I guess is still up for grabs.
I'm glad you were able to rationalize murder in your head; which is of course also the kind of thing a steaming pile of human garbage would do, when said murder coincides in favor of your political views. Not that, of course, you're a steaming pile of human garbage; just that that's one one would think.
The funny thing is that you're obviously trolling, but I feel like I'm the one skirting a warning.
Sorry if it upsets you but I see them as murders getting murdered. Do you cry when a prisoner in jail kills another prisoner?
Sorry if this sounds strange but I am quite curious how you feel when a murder gets the death penalty? I see people get to sit behind glass amd cheer it on while it happens. Whcih seems a bit disturbing.
P.s. Sorry for the loss of an officers life. Around christmass is a rough time to lose someone.
The surgical removal of a lump of anthropomorphic meat is not a crime, nor should it be regarded as taboo in any way. I am still against murderers getting the death penalty, as killing in the name of shallow retribution makes the state no better than the murderer themselves.
Any death is a bad thing, as everybody can benefit the world in at least some way, at the very least as a human cautionary tale. The doctors and providers targetted are shining examples of people who desire to do good, despite ignorant religious trash targetting them as murderers for the medical treatments they provide.
MWHistorian wrote: To my liberal and conservative brothers and sisters, I'm confused. Is it okay to link an entire religion to the actions of a few madmen or not? You're sending mixed signals and I'm curious so I know what's considered appropriate.
Only if it is not your reglion.
In the real world there is extremists in all belife circles.
d-usa wrote: If you want to pretend that the thread from a week ago doesn't exist be my guest, meanwhile I won't act like those exact things weren't posted.
Yeah, I have definitely seen the posting you describe - handwaving away the violence of Christian fundamentalist terrorism over Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as a relic of the past, stop bringing up the Crusades, and so on. Not sure how that's a strawman.
And that is really the only reason for my posts on that topic. It's not for the purpose of "whataboutism", it's just to point out that it is a threat as well and that we should quit demonizing all Muslims just like we don't demonize all Christians. Both sides have extremist murderers and both sides have a vast majority of decent human beings.
Also, I just noticed you added a tiny santa hat to the ebola strand - well done.
Just be careful that you don't "catch" the Christmas spirit.
MWHistorian wrote: To my liberal and conservative brothers and sisters, I'm confused. Is it okay to link an entire religion to the actions of a few madmen or not? You're sending mixed signals and I'm curious so I know what's considered appropriate.
No.
MrDwhitey wrote: The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.
Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.
d-usa wrote: If you want to pretend that the thread from a week ago doesn't exist be my guest, meanwhile I won't act like those exact things weren't posted.
Yeah, I have definitely seen the posting you describe - handwaving away the violence of Christian fundamentalist terrorism over Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as a relic of the past, stop bringing up the Crusades, and so on. Not sure how that's a strawman.
And that is really the only reason for my posts on that topic. It's not for the purpose of "whataboutism", it's just to point out that it is a threat as well and that we should quit demonizing all Muslims just like we don't demonize all Christians. Both sides have extremist murderers and both sides have a vast majority of decent human beings.
Also, I just noticed you added a tiny santa hat to the ebola strand - well done.
Just be careful that you don't "catch" the Christmas spirit.
The difficulty of course is that the terrorists in group A are much more successful. How many thousands have died this year alone?
Terrorists in group B typically are pretty bad at it and there are very few of them.
MWHistorian wrote: To my liberal and conservative brothers and sisters, I'm confused. Is it okay to link an entire religion to the actions of a few madmen or not? You're sending mixed signals and I'm curious so I know what's considered appropriate.
No.
See, that's what I thought, but there seems to be a lot of people on both sides doing it. Hmmm....
OgreChubbs wrote: Not sure why everyone is so mad. He is just a doctor preforming late term abortions. Couple months couple years whats the difference.
I agree. And for that matter, not sure why everyone is so mad about the 9/11 attacks. I mean it was just murderers being murdered afterall. If those ~3,000 people didn't want to get brutally killed by airplanes then they wouldn't have chosen to fund the bombs and bullets that the US Government uses to help Israel blow up Arabs. Right? Right?
If it wasn't obvious, that's literally the argument that Osama Bin Laden proposed to justify 9/11, and you're about a step away from that.
Ouze won't outright say it because he has class and because he's afraid of getting in trouble with the mods, but I don't and I'm not. If you can't understand the difference between executing a criminal who's been convicted under US court of law and murdering law abiding citizens performing law abiding acts, then one doesn't even need a pro-abortion argument. Your existence is justification in itself.
OgreChubbs wrote: Not sure why everyone is so mad. He is just a doctor preforming late term abortions. Couple months couple years whats the difference.
I agree. And for that matter, not sure why everyone is so mad about the 9/11 attacks. I mean it was just murderers being murdered afterall. If those ~3,000 people didn't want to get brutally killed by airplanes then they wouldn't have chosen to fund the bombs and bullets that the US Government uses to help Israel blow up Arabs. Right? Right?
If it wasn't obvious, that's literally the argument that Osama Bin Laden proposed to justify 9/11, and you're about a step away from that.
Ouze won't outright say it because he has class and because he's afraid of getting in trouble with the mods, but I don't and I'm not. If you can't understand the difference between executing a criminal who's been convicted under US court of law and murdering law abiding citizens performing law abiding acts, then one doesn't even need a pro-abortion argument. Your existence is justification in itself.
A vague self superiorty complex is why you are blind and make you so violant. Why get upset about a differnt point of view? You say the goverment and the adults in your life told you this is the law and this makes it right. I simply disagree and see anyone ending a human life no matter the state of being a murder. Get upset get crazy matters little. I simply disagree and offer a differing point of view.
But remeber one who believes he is always in the right and his point of views are the correct one is the same as those the chastise. So relax little one I shall not shatter your belifes stay calm and disagree, name caling is for those with nothing better to say to make a point.
Except the fetuses in question are more akin to sea sponges than human. All they are is meat. What you are saying is akin to saying a teratoma should not be excised, because the teratoma is also made of human meat.
Verviedi wrote: Except the fetuses in question are more akin to sea sponges than human. All they are is meat. What you are saying is akin to saying a teratoma should not be excised, because the teratoma is also made of human meat.
So not being fully developed automatically means its not a human? Is a sprout still a plant?
Verviedi wrote: Invalid comparison. A sprout is closer to a plant than a fetus is to a human. A true comparison would be more like a fertilized seed.
Perhaps you should take this derailment to PM or a new thread?
Either way, it's a hot button topic and will ensure high emotions on either side. Talking in absolutes isn't good for positive discussion.
Verviedi wrote: Except the fetuses in question are more akin to sea sponges than human. All they are is meat. What you are saying is akin to saying a teratoma should not be excised, because the teratoma is also made of human meat.
So not being fully developed automatically means its not a human? Is a sprout still a plant?
Well, yes, just like those sea sponges are still an animal.
MrDwhitey wrote: The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.
Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.
Of course it's never the church with Christians. They never give someone a gun and tell them to go shoot a doctor. They just say how that doctor deserves to die and it sure would be nice if someone were to cap him, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.
Verviedi wrote: With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.
Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.
You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.
Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.
MrDwhitey wrote: The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.
Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.
Of course it's never the church with Christians. They never give someone a gun and tell them to go shoot a doctor. They just say how that doctor deserves to die and it sure would be nice if someone were to cap him, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.
Would be interesting to see if you have support that more than one or two wackjob churches in fact does this. Otherwise, you're again just being a bigot .
Appears the shooter lived at least part time in a cabin without water or power and was previously charged with animal cruelty.
You guys are discussing a fundamental, binary issue that cannot be rationalized.
You either are pro-life or pro-death (or don't care at all...why are you reading this?) and both sides have legit arguments for why their opinion is better than the other opinion. So you can either try to brute-force your opinion into each other's faces and most likely risk getting a timeout and / or the thread locked or move back to the topic at hand. What you do right now is the written equivalent to two groups of primates throwing poo at each other at the zoo.
Re-iterating to my previous question: I still wonder why he was able to shoot down police officers and civilians alike without /not even being harmed/ at all (if I got that right). How? Any further details?
How can something be self sustaining if it requires sustaining from someone else?
As to the guy, wasn't he talked down? They didn't have to actually take him down in a gun fight because he was holed up and submitted after the police talked to him. As to before that, he probably got the drop on the people he shot.
Verviedi wrote: With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.
Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.
You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.
Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.
MrDwhitey wrote: The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.
Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.
Of course it's never the church with Christians. They never give someone a gun and tell them to go shoot a doctor. They just say how that doctor deserves to die and it sure would be nice if someone were to cap him, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.
Sigvatr wrote: You guys are discussing a fundamental, binary issue that cannot be rationalized.
You either are pro-life or pro-death (or don't care at all...why are you reading this?) and both sides have legit arguments for why their opinion is better than the other opinion. So you can either try to brute-force your opinion into each other's faces and most likely risk getting a timeout and / or the thread locked or move back to the topic at hand. What you do right now is the written equivalent to two groups of primates throwing poo at each other at the zoo.
Re-iterating to my previous question: I still wonder why he was able to shoot down police officers and civilians alike without /not even being harmed/ at all (if I got that right). How? Any further details?
He had the element of surprise? He's a gun-ninja? He's an Eldar? The police are not good at their job? He is trained?
Endless questions
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: @Sigvatr
Don't you dare try to make it seem that way. It's either pro-choice or anti-choice.
Verviedi wrote: With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.
Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.
You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.
Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.
Fetuses cannot self sustain, unfortunately.
After 23 weeks about 1/3 of fetuses born are viable outside the womb, at 24 weeks it increases to between half and 2/3 and at 26 weeks virtually all fetuses are viable outside the womb. This is why there are limitations and restrictions on late term abortions in virtually every country. Once a fetus is viable outside the womb it becomes difficult to have an objective medical opinion that it is not a person.
Verviedi wrote: With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.
Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.
You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.
Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.
Fetuses cannot self sustain, unfortunately.
Well then you where a tumor until maybe even present. Your mother after birth either feed you with a bottle or boob til 2 or 3. So tumor life? Well i got a warning from alpha for going against his grain. So guess I am done with free speech lol.
MrDwhitey wrote: The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.
Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.
Of course it's never the church with Christians. They never give someone a gun and tell them to go shoot a doctor. They just say how that doctor deserves to die and it sure would be nice if someone were to cap him, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.
So, you blame Islam as a religion for the attacks on 9/11 and in Paris?
Verviedi wrote: @Sigvatr
Don't you dare try to make it seem that way. It's either pro-choice or anti-choice.
Yeah, no. It's a binary choice. You either choose to let the fetus live or you kill it. Anything else is opinion. If you have a problem with others calling a spade a spade, I suggest thinking about your very own convictions.
Alas, how about opening a pro-life / pro-death / abortion thread then? Not this thread's topic at all.
Verviedi wrote: @Sigvatr
Don't you dare try to make it seem that way. It's either pro-choice or anti-choice.
Yeah, no. It's a binary choice. You either choose to let the fetus live or you kill it. Anything else is opinion. If you have a problem with others calling a spade a spade, I suggest thinking about your very own convictions.
Alas, how about opening a pro-life / pro-death / abortion thread then? Not this thread's topic at all.
It is possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life. You may not choose to have an abortion yourself, but do not see a reason to force your beliefs on others. The so-called pro-life camp is pro-life, anti-choice, while anyone who routinely uses an abortion as a form of birth control is pro-choice pro-abortion. Pro-abortion Anti-choice is the position favored by eugenicists.
OgreChubbs wrote: A vague self superiorty complex is why you are blind and make you so violant. Why get upset about a differnt point of view?
Your point of view is a tacit advocacy of murder.
You say the goverment and the adults in your life told you this is the law and this makes it right. I simply disagree and see anyone ending a human life no matter the state of being a murder.
The literal definition of murder is killing that's not sanctioned by the state, so it doesn't really matter what your opinion on it is. And it isn't your job (or the job of any individual outside of our justice system) to arbitrarily decide who is a murderer deserving of judgment and who isn't. Even if you take the laws of the land out of the equation, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say that you should murder the gak out of someone if they perform an action that you deem morally reprehensible.
But remeber one who believes he is always in the right and his point of views are the correct one is the same as those the chastise. So relax little one I shall not shatter your belifes stay calm and disagree, name caling is for those with nothing better to say to make a point.
You seem to be under the impression that opinions should be free from criticism- you're wrong. You have the right to express your opinion, but that same right gives me the right to offer my own commentary on your opinion. If you're going to exercise your right to express an opinion and claim that you don't find it completely unacceptable to murder law-abiding citizens then I'm going to exercise my right to express an opinion and state that your opinion makes you sound like a dangerous psychopath.
OgreChubbs wrote: A vague self superiorty complex is why you are blind and make you so violant. Why get upset about a differnt point of view?
Your point of view is a tacit advocacy of murder.
You say the goverment and the adults in your life told you this is the law and this makes it right. I simply disagree and see anyone ending a human life no matter the state of being a murder.
The literal definition of murder is killing that's not sanctioned by the state, so it doesn't really matter what your opinion on it is. And it isn't your job (or the job of any individual outside of our justice system) to arbitrarily decide who is a murderer deserving of judgment and who isn't. Even if you take the laws of the land out of the equation, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say that you should murder the gak out of someone if they perform an action that you deem morally reprehensible.
But remeber one who believes he is always in the right and his point of views are the correct one is the same as those the chastise. So relax little one I shall not shatter your belifes stay calm and disagree, name caling is for those with nothing better to say to make a point.
You seem to be under the impression that opinions should be free from criticism- you're wrong. You have the right to express your opinion, but that same right gives me the right to offer my own commentary on your opinion. If you're going to exercise your right to express an opinion and claim that you don't find it completely unacceptable to murder law-abiding citizens then I'm going to exercise my right to express an opinion and state that your opinion makes you sound like a dangerous psychopath.
The u.s.a actually went to war against countries who said they where in the right murdering people... By the state country or what have you. Dont forget you also use to be allowed to kill your slave whcih I guess is not murder since the state let you?
OgreChubbs wrote: The u.s.a actually went to war against countries who said they where in the right murdering people... By the state country or what have you. Dont forget you also use to be allowed to kill your slave whcih I guess is not murder since the state let you?
Yes, murder has a specific definition and legally sanctioned killings such as executions and war are not murder. I take moral issue with many of the wars we've participated in because I don't think they were justified and I also take issue with people being legally allowed to kill slaves, however that doesn't make either situation murder, and I wouldn't condone dragging the President or Slave-owners out of their beds at night and hacking them to pieces via mob-justice. If the law is fethed up then that means that the law needs to be changed.
Also cool thank you for your opnion good job :-)
Your welcome. I wish I could extend that same sentiment to you, but frankly I think your opinion sucks.
OgreChubbs wrote: The u.s.a actually went to war against countries who said they where in the right murdering people... By the state country or what have you. Dont forget you also use to be allowed to kill your slave whcih I guess is not murder since the state let you?
Yes, murder has a specific definition and legally sanctioned killings such as executions and war are not murder.
Also cool thank you for your opnion good job :-)
Your welcome. I wish I could extend that same sentiment to you, but frankly I think your opinion sucks.
Differmt oppnions breed conversation and action. Stupidty breeds in those with the same opnion and no need to change. Which is why two like minds never prosper.
OgreChubbs wrote: The u.s.a actually went to war against countries who said they where in the right murdering people... By the state country or what have you. Dont forget you also use to be allowed to kill your slave whcih I guess is not murder since the state let you?
Yes, murder has a specific definition and legally sanctioned killings such as executions and war are not murder.
Also cool thank you for your opnion good job :-)
Your welcome. I wish I could extend that same sentiment to you, but frankly I think your opinion sucks.
Differmt oppnions breed conversation and action. Stupidty breeds in those with the same opnion and no need to change. Which is why two like minds never prosper.
If you're going to attempt to condescend to me with random non-sequiturs, can you at least do so with proper spelling and grammar so that I can understand what you're saying?
In regards to it being a black-white issue or not, I'd highly recommend checking out this story. It's about OB-GYN training and how those being trained to do it feel about it, and whether they will or won't do abortions when they go into practice. It's very interesting, and shows a side that you don't normally see.
These people represent themselves, not all people of any group, religious or not. And they represent poorly.
It's like the Arabs that Trump watched when they celebrated 9/11!
The only things I've watched involving Trump are either not postable here due to content or him going "beep beep bing bong", so I don't know what you're referring to. If he's saying that all muslims are evil because he saw some arabs post celebrations over 9/11, he's merely confirming further he's a turd.
OgreChubbs wrote: The u.s.a actually went to war against countries who said they where in the right murdering people... By the state country or what have you. Dont forget you also use to be allowed to kill your slave whcih I guess is not murder since the state let you?
Yes, murder has a specific definition and legally sanctioned killings such as executions and war are not murder.
Also cool thank you for your opnion good job :-)
Your welcome. I wish I could extend that same sentiment to you, but frankly I think your opinion sucks.
Differmt oppnions breed conversation and action. Stupidty breeds in those with the same opnion and no need to change. Which is why two like minds never prosper.
If you're going to attempt to condescend to me with random non-sequiturs, can you at least do so with proper spelling and grammar so that I can understand what you're saying?
Sorry no I cant I have two kids climbing over me, typing on a tablet that has a 45 second delay from typing to showing up.
Also I was not insulting you relax I will dumb down my quote. If people think the same nothing gets fixed. If people have different opnions then they can find loke minded problems and fix them. Sorry but I do not insult people I am not a child.
But this is going no where but a circle so I will end it here.
Have a nice day everyone with different opnions then my own hopefully you see my opnion as I see yours and we leave as adults with out childish name calling or grudes. Good day.
It is possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life.
The decison itself is binary. Personal stance doesn't matter. What matters is the decision.You might be pro-life all the time but the decide to still have the fetus be killed.
You may not choose to have an abortion yourself, but do not see a reason to force your beliefs on others.
I'm "pro-choice". In my /personal/ opinion, if you can bear killing an unborn child and living with all of its consequences, then you should feel free to do so.
These people represent themselves, not all people of any group, religious or not. And they represent poorly.
It's like the Arabs that Trump watched when they celebrated 9/11!
The only things I've watched involving Trump are either not postable here due to content or him going "beep beep bing bong", so I don't know what you're referring to. If he's saying that all muslims are evil because he saw some arabs post celebrations over 9/11, he's merely confirming further he's a turd.
He's claiming that he personally watched thousands of Muslims and/or Arabs celebrate the attacks in the streets of New Jersey as the towers were collapsing.
These people represent themselves, not all people of any group, religious or not. And they represent poorly.
It's like the Arabs that Trump watched when they celebrated 9/11!
The only things I've watched involving Trump are either not postable here due to content or him going "beep beep bing bong", so I don't know what you're referring to. If he's saying that all muslims are evil because he saw some arabs post celebrations over 9/11, he's merely confirming further he's a turd.
It is possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life.
The decison itself is binary. Personal stance doesn't matter. What matters is the decision.You might be pro-life all the time but the decide to still have the fetus be killed.
And with that, you've lost me. How can one be Pro-Life "All the time" and still decide to kill the fetus? Can you please define what you mean when you say pro-life, because I think the language barrier may be kicking in.
Some basic information about the shooter is starting to appear;
- lived in a cabin in the woods with no water or electricity
- did not openly discuss religion
- interacted with people in a rambling manner
- series of run ins with the law (peeping tom, cruelty to animals)
- self identified as female
- registered as unaffiliated voter, but was not a fan of Obama
MrDwhitey wrote: The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.
Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.
Of course it's never the church with Christians. They never give someone a gun and tell them to go shoot a doctor. They just say how that doctor deserves to die and it sure would be nice if someone were to cap him, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.
Would be interesting to see if you have support that more than one or two wackjob churches in fact does this. Otherwise, you're again just being a bigot .
Appears the shooter lived at least part time in a cabin without water or power and was previously charged with animal cruelty.
These things are known, just ignored by christians. Based on past history I'll take the safe bet, only one group attacks planned parenthood clinics for providing breast exams.
What if it is just one or two wackjob churches? they are still christian wackjob churches. christian wackjob churches that have distributed wanted posters for doctors who "mysteriously" get murdered shortly after they're distributed. It has nothing to do with bigotry, It has to do with facts, but whatever helps you stay in denial.
And even in this thread we see the mainstream christians supporting and enabling their extremest by not calling them out. They're celebrating the attack, not condemning it.
NEW YORK, NY – Every news organization in the world agreed Saturday never to describe the shooter who attacked a Planned Parenthood in Colorado a ‘Christian terrorist,’ even though that’s exactly what he is.
“Well, he's an angry Christian conservative white man,” said CNN news chief Wolf Blitzer. “So we prefer to refer to him as being mentally ill.”
Some suggested that this decision was motivated by ratings.
“We obviously can't call him a Christian extremist or a Christian terrorist,” said Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. “Most of our audience is Christian and would be offended. Besides, we would never report that anyway, because it's something that’s true.”
MSNBC's Chris Matthews agreed that telling the truth would hurt ratings.
“If we called this shooter what he is, a violent Christian extremist who was motivated by the rhetoric of angry Republican politicians to save the lives of the unborn by killing the born, people would flip their lids,” said MSNBC host Chris Matthews. “Everyone knows that the Tea Party is not that far off from being ISIS, but we can't say that, because white conservative viewers would get upset and this would hurt ad revenue.”
Others noted the difference in reporting between different types of religious terrorism.
“See, when a Muslim extremist does something violent, we can point out how they're a Muslim and how people should be afraid of Muslims and everyone is okay with that,” said NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who somehow still has a job. “But when it's a Christian terrorist, it's important for us to note how he was just one lone-wolf rotten egg out of millions and that he's a mentally ill monster.”
In the 24 hours since the Planned Parenthood shooting, there have been zero reports of Christians being harassed. The lack of fear mongering by the media has also led to zero armed militia members showing up to patrol churches.
NEW YORK, NY – Every news organization in the world agreed Saturday never to describe the shooter who attacked a Planned Parenthood in Colorado a ‘Christian terrorist,’ even though that’s exactly what he is.
“Well, he's an angry Christian conservative white man,” said CNN news chief Wolf Blitzer. “So we prefer to refer to him as being mentally ill.”
Some suggested that this decision was motivated by ratings.
“We obviously can't call him a Christian extremist or a Christian terrorist,” said Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. “Most of our audience is Christian and would be offended. Besides, we would never report that anyway, because it's something that’s true.”
MSNBC's Chris Matthews agreed that telling the truth would hurt ratings.
“If we called this shooter what he is, a violent Christian extremist who was motivated by the rhetoric of angry Republican politicians to save the lives of the unborn by killing the born, people would flip their lids,” said MSNBC host Chris Matthews. “Everyone knows that the Tea Party is not that far off from being ISIS, but we can't say that, because white conservative viewers would get upset and this would hurt ad revenue.”
Others noted the difference in reporting between different types of religious terrorism.
“See, when a Muslim extremist does something violent, we can point out how they're a Muslim and how people should be afraid of Muslims and everyone is okay with that,” said NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who somehow still has a job. “But when it's a Christian terrorist, it's important for us to note how he was just one lone-wolf rotten egg out of millions and that he's a mentally ill monster.”
In the 24 hours since the Planned Parenthood shooting, there have been zero reports of Christians being harassed. The lack of fear mongering by the media has also led to zero armed militia members showing up to patrol churches.
I really hope you understand that article is satire.
This is one of the reasons that we should wait for the facts to be established. Who remembers this; http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/investigations/2015/02/20/colorado-springs-bombing/23742111/ The initial reports were that someone had tried to plant a bomb in an NAACP office, and the FBI were investigating it as a domestic terror incident. Turns out that the perpetrator was mad at a tax preparation company that used offices in close proximity.
In a similar manner it appears that this incident started outside Planned Parenthood, that the attacker moved into the Planned Parenthood building to use as cover, shot out from the building, but did not harm PP staff. On the face that seems at odds with someone making a statement against PP, but that is a supposition on my part and the facts should establish the truth.
NEW YORK, NY – Every news organization in the world agreed Saturday never to describe the shooter who attacked a Planned Parenthood in Colorado a ‘Christian terrorist,’ even though that’s exactly what he is.
“Well, he's an angry Christian conservative white man,” said CNN news chief Wolf Blitzer. “So we prefer to refer to him as being mentally ill.”
Some suggested that this decision was motivated by ratings.
“We obviously can't call him a Christian extremist or a Christian terrorist,” said Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. “Most of our audience is Christian and would be offended. Besides, we would never report that anyway, because it's something that’s true.”
MSNBC's Chris Matthews agreed that telling the truth would hurt ratings.
“If we called this shooter what he is, a violent Christian extremist who was motivated by the rhetoric of angry Republican politicians to save the lives of the unborn by killing the born, people would flip their lids,” said MSNBC host Chris Matthews. “Everyone knows that the Tea Party is not that far off from being ISIS, but we can't say that, because white conservative viewers would get upset and this would hurt ad revenue.”
Others noted the difference in reporting between different types of religious terrorism.
“See, when a Muslim extremist does something violent, we can point out how they're a Muslim and how people should be afraid of Muslims and everyone is okay with that,” said NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who somehow still has a job. “But when it's a Christian terrorist, it's important for us to note how he was just one lone-wolf rotten egg out of millions and that he's a mentally ill monster.”
In the 24 hours since the Planned Parenthood shooting, there have been zero reports of Christians being harassed. The lack of fear mongering by the media has also led to zero armed militia members showing up to patrol churches.
I really hope you understand that article is satire.
This is one of the reasons that we should wait for the facts to be established. Who remembers this; http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/investigations/2015/02/20/colorado-springs-bombing/23742111/ The initial reports were that someone had tried to plant a bomb in an NAACP office, and the FBI were investigating it as a domestic terror incident. Turns out that the perpetrator was mad at a tax preparation company that used offices in close proximity.
In a similar manner it appears that this incident started outside Planned Parenthood, that the attacker moved into the Planned Parenthood building to use as cover, shot out from the building, but did not harm PP staff. On the face that seems at odds with someone making a statement against PP, but that is a supposition on my part and the facts should establish the truth.
Have there been any credible reports that the shooter shot at anyone besides the cops? I've seen reports that the location of the shooter given in the 911 calls was the PP office but haven't seen reports that anyone in PP was attacked. I don't have cable so it may have been reported and I missed it.
Prestor Jon wrote: Have there been any credible reports that the shooter shot at anyone besides the cops? I've seen reports that the location of the shooter given in the 911 calls was the PP office but haven't seen reports that anyone in PP was attacked. I don't have cable so it may have been reported and I missed it.
Two civilians shot. Neither of which were/are PP staff
NEW YORK, NY – Every news organization in the world agreed Saturday never to describe the shooter who attacked a Planned Parenthood in Colorado a ‘Christian terrorist,’ even though that’s exactly what he is.
“Well, he's an angry Christian conservative white man,” said CNN news chief Wolf Blitzer. “So we prefer to refer to him as being mentally ill.”
Some suggested that this decision was motivated by ratings.
“We obviously can't call him a Christian extremist or a Christian terrorist,” said Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. “Most of our audience is Christian and would be offended. Besides, we would never report that anyway, because it's something that’s true.”
MSNBC's Chris Matthews agreed that telling the truth would hurt ratings.
“If we called this shooter what he is, a violent Christian extremist who was motivated by the rhetoric of angry Republican politicians to save the lives of the unborn by killing the born, people would flip their lids,” said MSNBC host Chris Matthews. “Everyone knows that the Tea Party is not that far off from being ISIS, but we can't say that, because white conservative viewers would get upset and this would hurt ad revenue.”
Others noted the difference in reporting between different types of religious terrorism.
“See, when a Muslim extremist does something violent, we can point out how they're a Muslim and how people should be afraid of Muslims and everyone is okay with that,” said NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who somehow still has a job. “But when it's a Christian terrorist, it's important for us to note how he was just one lone-wolf rotten egg out of millions and that he's a mentally ill monster.”
In the 24 hours since the Planned Parenthood shooting, there have been zero reports of Christians being harassed. The lack of fear mongering by the media has also led to zero armed militia members showing up to patrol churches.
I really hope you understand that article is satire.
This is one of the reasons that we should wait for the facts to be established. Who remembers this; http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/investigations/2015/02/20/colorado-springs-bombing/23742111/ The initial reports were that someone had tried to plant a bomb in an NAACP office, and the FBI were investigating it as a domestic terror incident. Turns out that the perpetrator was mad at a tax preparation company that used offices in close proximity.
In a similar manner it appears that this incident started outside Planned Parenthood, that the attacker moved into the Planned Parenthood building to use as cover, shot out from the building, but did not harm PP staff. On the face that seems at odds with someone making a statement against PP, but that is a supposition on my part and the facts should establish the truth.
Have there been any credible reports that the shooter shot at anyone besides the cops? I've seen reports that the location of the shooter given in the 911 calls was the PP office but haven't seen reports that anyone in PP was attacked. I don't have cable so it may have been reported and I missed it.
Well ,IIRC, 9 people were shot, but only four officers, so I assume so.
Edit: got the number wrong
Ustrello wrote: What the violent rhetoric and silent approval from republicans led to this? Nooo
Violent rhetoric from Republicans? I don't pay a lot of attention to the abortion debate but I haven't heard this accusation leveled at the Republicans.
Ustrello wrote: What the violent rhetoric and silent approval from republicans led to this? Nooo
Violent rhetoric from Republicans? I don't pay a lot of attention to the abortion debate but I haven't heard this accusation leveled at the Republicans.
When you get republicans everyday calling PP terrible people etc I would called that violent rhetoric, and seeing how we have not seen a single condemnation of the shooter besides cruz saying he will pray for the victims.
Ustrello wrote: When you get republicans everyday calling PP terrible people etc I would called that violent rhetoric, and seeing how we have not seen a single condemnation of the shooter besides cruz saying he will pray for the victims.
You believe that calling people terrible is violent rhetoric?
Ustrello wrote: What the violent rhetoric and silent approval from republicans led to this? Nooo
Violent rhetoric from Republicans? I don't pay a lot of attention to the abortion debate but I haven't heard this accusation leveled at the Republicans.
Well, the man was apparently shouting about 'no more baby parts' which one would assume is a reference to a debunked video purporting to show a director of PP selling of fetal body parts. A video that has been widely used, including by republican presidential candidates and senators, to attack PP and justify cuts to it's budget or legislation to target it, even months after it was debunked.
But no, incessant attacks and use of a fraudulent video in order to frame everything and everyone at PP as baby murderers had absolutely nothing to do with this attack, I'm certain of it.
Ustrello wrote: When you get republicans everyday calling PP terrible people etc I would called that violent rhetoric, and seeing how we have not seen a single condemnation of the shooter besides cruz saying he will pray for the victims.
You believe that calling people terrible is violent rhetoric?
In simple terms yes, when you have them saying that they are killing people and they deserve what is happening to them that is a passive violent rhetoric.
Goliath wrote: Well, the man was apparently shouting about 'no more baby parts' which one would assume is a reference to a debunked video purporting to show a director of PP selling of fetal body parts. A video that has been widely used, including by republican presidential candidates and senators, to attack PP and justify cuts to it's budget or legislation to target it, even months after it was debunked.
But no, incessant attacks and use of a fraudulent video in order to frame everything and everyone at PP as baby murderers had absolutely nothing to do with this attack, I'm certain of it.
So we have the rhetoric, but which part of it was violent or encouraged violence against PP?
Ustrello wrote: In simple terms yes, when you have them saying that they are killing people and they deserve what is happening to them that is a passive violent rhetoric.
As I said before I don't follow the abortion debate so if you have a source for this I would be grateful as your statements to date have been tainted by hyperbole
Goliath wrote: Well, the man was apparently shouting about 'no more baby parts' which one would assume is a reference to a debunked video purporting to show a director of PP selling of fetal body parts. A video that has been widely used, including by republican presidential candidates and senators, to attack PP and justify cuts to it's budget or legislation to target it, even months after it was debunked.
But no, incessant attacks and use of a fraudulent video in order to frame everything and everyone at PP as baby murderers had absolutely nothing to do with this attack, I'm certain of it.
So we have the rhetoric, but which part of it was violent or encouraged violence against PP?
If you cannot see the connections that is more of a you problem than anything.
Ustrello wrote: If you cannot see the connections that is more of a you problem than anything.
I am seeing a lot of statements with no evidence to support them. I am waiting for you to demonstrate that the rhetoric from the Republican party was violent.
Shouldn't that just be a second free space at this point?
I'm saying I don't think Breotan was trying to argue with you. He was just pointing out he only needed one more tile for Bingo
FYI Breotan, check the ISIS thread. Bush's name hasn't been said, but a certain poster *certainly not me* might have placed a little blame for the current mess there on previous US foreign policies
Ustrello wrote: If you cannot see the connections that is more of a you problem than anything.
I am seeing a lot of statements with no evidence to support them. I am waiting for you to demonstrate that the rhetoric from the Republican party was violent.
Literally by promoting the videos they were increasing violent attacks on PP, even the FBI said there was an increase because of them. So by pushing those videos they are inciting people to violence ie)violent rhetoric
Do I think that any of the Republicans in the news have told anyone that they should kill abortion providers? Nope, not at all.
Do I think that any of the Republicans in the news want abortion providers to die? Nope, not at all.
Do I think that people are pretty unstable when it comes to things related to PP? Yes, absolutely.
Do I think that fabricated and completely bs video pretending that PP exists to kill babies so that they can harvest their body parts and sell them for profit pushes crazies even more over the edge? Yes, absolutely.
Do I think that Republicans in the news who knowingly keep on pushing this fabricated video as "truth" and who perpetuate the idea that PP is harvesting body parts are also contributing to the climate that pushes people towards acts like this? Yes, absolutely.
I don't blame Republicans because I think they have malice and violence in mind. I blame them because they are simply interested in pandering to their base and play loose with lies without any regard to potential consequences. I don't think that they wanted anyone to get hurt, I don't even think they even considered the fact that anyone would get hurt. Their thoughts probably don't go any further than "that will get me another ballot in November".
Goliath wrote: Well, the man was apparently shouting about 'no more baby parts' which one would assume is a reference to a debunked video purporting to show a director of PP selling of fetal body parts. A video that has been widely used, including by republican presidential candidates and senators, to attack PP and justify cuts to it's budget or legislation to target it, even months after it was debunked.
But no, incessant attacks and use of a fraudulent video in order to frame everything and everyone at PP as baby murderers had absolutely nothing to do with this attack, I'm certain of it.
So we have the rhetoric, but which part of it was violent or encouraged violence against PP?
If you cannot see the connections that is more of a you problem than anything.
Is it like the connection violent video games have to murder?sarcastic mode off.
Ustrello wrote: If you cannot see the connections that is more of a you problem than anything.
I am seeing a lot of statements with no evidence to support them. I am waiting for you to demonstrate that the rhetoric from the Republican party was violent.
Literally by promoting the videos they were increasing violent attacks on PP, even the FBI said there was an increase because of them. So by pushing those videos they are inciting people to violence ie)violent rhetoric
There it is. While we're at it, let's take down Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, and other games that celebrate killing. The logic you put forward is the same.
d-usa wrote: Do I think that any of the Republicans in the news have told anyone that they should kill abortion providers? Nope, not at all.
Do I think that any of the Republicans in the news want abortion providers to die? Nope, not at all.
Do I think that people are pretty unstable when it comes to things related to PP? Yes, absolutely.
Do I think that fabricated and completely bs video pretending that PP exists to kill babies so that they can harvest their body parts and sell them for profit pushes crazies even more over the edge? Yes, absolutely.
Do I think that Republicans in the news who knowingly keep on pushing this fabricated video as "truth" and who perpetuate the idea that PP is harvesting body parts are also contributing to the climate that pushes people towards acts like this? Yes, absolutely.
I don't blame Republicans because I think they have malice and violence in mind. I blame them because they are simply interested in pandering to their base and play loose with lies without any regard to potential consequences. I don't think that they wanted anyone to get hurt, I don't even think they even considered the fact that anyone would get hurt. Their thoughts probably don't go any further than "that will get me another ballot in November".
For gawdsake...a "video". Last time a video was involved cause a shooting match at Benghazi. The riot/attack was inspired by a "video" on the US Consulate so sayeth Obama and HRC. Let's leave the....amateur BS video's out of this. One nutjob "inspired" by a video concerning PP and the other video with satire on Muslims "inspired" a bunch of individuals to kill a US Diplomat with security detail.
Goliath wrote: Well, the man was apparently shouting about 'no more baby parts' which one would assume is a reference to a debunked video purporting to show a director of PP selling of fetal body parts. A video that has been widely used, including by republican presidential candidates and senators, to attack PP and justify cuts to it's budget or legislation to target it, even months after it was debunked.
But no, incessant attacks and use of a fraudulent video in order to frame everything and everyone at PP as baby murderers had absolutely nothing to do with this attack, I'm certain of it.
So we have the rhetoric, but which part of it was violent or encouraged violence against PP?
If you cannot see the connections that is more of a you problem than anything.
Is it like the connection violent video games have to murder?sarcastic mode off.
Ustrello wrote: If you cannot see the connections that is more of a you problem than anything.
I am seeing a lot of statements with no evidence to support them. I am waiting for you to demonstrate that the rhetoric from the Republican party was violent.
Literally by promoting the videos they were increasing violent attacks on PP, even the FBI said there was an increase because of them. So by pushing those videos they are inciting people to violence ie)violent rhetoric
There it is. While we're at it, let's take down Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, and other games that celebrate killing. The logic you put forward is the same.
Off tangent, but there actually is according to the APA
Jihadin wrote: For gawdsake...a "video". Last time a video was involved cause a shooting match at Benghazi. The riot/attack was inspired by a "video" on the US Consulate so sayeth Obama and HRC. Let's leave the....amateur BS video's out of this. One nutjob "inspired" by a video concerning PP and the other video with satire on Muslims "inspired" a bunch of individuals to kill a US Diplomat with security detail.
It's not just a video, it's how people treated that video. Remember the republican debate where everyone was talking about how awful it was, complete with blatant lying about its contents to make the pro-choice side look even more evil?
Jihadin wrote: For gawdsake...a "video". Last time a video was involved cause a shooting match at Benghazi. The riot/attack was inspired by a "video" on the US Consulate so sayeth Obama and HRC. Let's leave the....amateur BS video's out of this. One nutjob "inspired" by a video concerning PP and the other video with satire on Muslims "inspired" a bunch of individuals to kill a US Diplomat with security detail.
It's not just a video, it's how people treated that video. Remember the republican debate where everyone was talking about how awful it was, complete with blatant lying about its contents to make the pro-choice side look even more evil?
People are idiots Brother...both side....Hell in general everyone can be idiots. Is it confirmed this asshat was inspired by said video? I rather wait a few more days and see what comes up. For all we know he's using the video to say he was inspired to do it and later claim Insanity for defense during his trial. Religous insanity..(can't spell). His star witness to confirm his train of thought was the shape the mustard spread on his ham sammich. Cross Examination should be fun
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Some basic information about the shooter is starting to appear;
- lived in a cabin in the woods with no water or electricity
And that's the point where I assume that this is less of a politically motivated killing, and more of just a crazy person doing crazy things.
So far as the right-wing incitement of violence against abortion providers, I give you Bill O'Reilly. Of course, you're going to say "well, he never told anyone to kill the guy", which is true, and also why there is no point in really continuing this argument; because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't explain the subtext behind "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest", as they say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Last time a video was involved cause a shooting match at Benghazi.
Ustrello wrote:[Does that mean you are literally hitler?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Some basic information about the shooter is starting to appear;
- lived in a cabin in the woods with no water or electricity
And that's the point where I assume that this is less of a politically motivated killing, and more of just a crazy person doing crazy things.
So far as the right-wing incitement of violence against abortion providers, I give you Bill O'Reilly. Of course, you're going to say "well, he never told anyone to kill the guy", which is true, and also why there is no point in really continuing this argument; because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't explain the subtext behind "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest", as they say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Last time a video was involved cause a shooting match at Benghazi.
Ustrello wrote:[Does that mean you are literally hitler?
Easiest bingo ever.
Implying I meant it seriously, which is what I assume is needed for the square.
Ustrello wrote: What the violent rhetoric and silent approval from republicans led to this? Nooo
Violent rhetoric from Republicans? I don't pay a lot of attention to the abortion debate but I haven't heard this accusation leveled at the Republicans.
We just had six months of investigations and Congressional hearings into Planned Parenthood based on falsified, fraudulent videos where the agit-prop stated that Planned Parenthood was butchering babies like swine to sell their body parts on the organ markets.
Republicans, both in the citizenry and in Congress, swallowed these lies hook, line and sinker. The shooter has been reported to have screamed "No more butchered babies!" during the rampage.
Psienesis wrote: We just had six months of investigations and Congressional hearings into Planned Parenthood based on falsified, fraudulent videos where the agit-prop stated that Planned Parenthood was butchering babies like swine to sell their body parts on the organ markets.
Republicans, both in the citizenry and in Congress, swallowed these lies hook, line and sinker. The shooter has been reported to have screamed "No more butchered babies!" during the rampage.
Hell, Carly Fiorina doubled down on bs even when called on it. Whether it's that or the non-existent crowd of thousands of Muslims cheering on 9/11 in Jersey City, that's the new normal, I guess. That's what the base wants to hear, facts be damned.
Ustrello wrote: What the violent rhetoric and silent approval from republicans led to this? Nooo
Violent rhetoric from Republicans? I don't pay a lot of attention to the abortion debate but I haven't heard this accusation leveled at the Republicans.
We just had six months of investigations and Congressional hearings into Planned Parenthood based on falsified, fraudulent videos where the agit-prop stated that Planned Parenthood was butchering babies like swine to sell their body parts on the organ markets.
Republicans, both in the citizenry and in Congress, swallowed these lies hook, line and sinker. The shooter has been reported to have screamed "No more butchered babies!" during the rampage.
6 months for a PP video, 13 bengazi hearings, yet for 9-11 it only took 1 hearing that only lasted a few hours to clear bush. (you're welcome Breotan, enjoy your bingo)
Why do republicans take such great interest in, and side with the pro lifers? it's their base, they're pandering to their christian right.
It starts with christian ideology, which many republicans believe in already, or pander to thus supporting that ideology.
But it's not one video that ends up being the "inspiration" for an attack, it's the years of indoctrination before it. hearing day after day how these people are providing breast exams, no err I mean killing babies, eventually someone is going to snap. And when they snap they've been programmed with a clearly "evil" target to go after. A target that must surely be evil as members of their faith, and even elected officials agree that what PP is doing is evil.
A newly-released FBI Intelligence Assessment says, "it is likely criminal or suspicious incidents will continue to be directed against reproductive health care providers, their staff and facilities,"
The attacks and threats pre-dated the PP videos and the FBI said that they would continue. If these incidents were happening prior to the video then it cannot be said that they were happening because of the video. You are shaping the evidence to match your bias.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Some basic information about the shooter is starting to appear;
- lived in a cabin in the woods with no water or electricity
And that's the point where I assume that this is less of a politically motivated killing, and more of just a crazy person doing crazy things.
That, the rambling patterns of speech, the cruelty to animals, and domestic violence do not paint a picture of someone in full control of their faculties.
Ouze wrote: So far as the right-wing incitement of violence against abortion providers, I give you Bill O'Reilly. Of course, you're going to say "well, he never told anyone to kill the guy", which is true, and also why there is no point in really continuing this argument; because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't explain the subtext behind "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest", as they say.
There was absolutely no incitement there and you know it. The troublesome priest comparison isn't even close either. The standard that you are proposing of holding people to re incitement will make a huge inroads into free speech and what may be punished by law. There was no direct incitement, there was nothing even close to a nudge-nudge-wink-wink. Your claim that this is incitement is no better than those calling for Obama's impeachment because of the IRS scrutiny of right leaning groups after he lamented tax provisions.
Psienesis wrote: Republicans, both in the citizenry and in Congress, swallowed these lies hook, line and sinker. The shooter has been reported to have screamed "No more butchered babies!" during the rampage.
And you're going to give me an example of the violent rhetoric that the Republicans used during the PP video discussions, right?
Psienesis wrote: Republicans, both in the citizenry and in Congress, swallowed these lies hook, line and sinker. The shooter has been reported to have screamed "No more butchered babies!" during the rampage.
And you're going to give me an example of the violent rhetoric that the Republicans used during the PP video discussions, right?
Planned Parenthood directly compared to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
I've never watched these videos because I thought it wasn't worth it. I already have my opinions on abortion and am in large part against it, with some exceptions.
I am curious, however about what she said about a fully formed fetus on the table with a pumping heart, etc. What was that all about. Is that something that was legitimate in the video or was it just theatre?
Relapse wrote: I've never watched these videos because I thought it wasn't worth it. I already have my opinions on abortion and am in large part against it, with some exceptions.
I am curious, however about what she said about a fully formed fetus on the table with a pumping heart, etc. What was that all about. Is that something that was legitimate in the video or was it just theatre?
I have only seen sanitized versions of the videos. I do know that her description of the video was called out as demonstrably inaccurate by the press.
CHUCK TODD: Let me start right in with the Planned Parenthood situation. At the debate -- the most recent debate -- you described the following scene, claiming it was on a tape: "A fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." Since then, when asked about the claim, your campaign has attacked Planned Parenthood, but there is no tapes, there is no evidence that the scene you describe exists. Are you willing now to concede that you exaggerated that scene?
CARLY FIORINA: No, not at all. That scene absolutely does exist, and that voice saying what I said they were saying, we're going to keep it alive to harvest its brain, exists as well. Here's the thing. Yesterday, I was at a football game--
[CROSSTALK]
TODD: So you saw that moment on the tape? Because -- you saw that moment on the tape?
FIORINA: Yes, and I would challenge Planned Parenthood. Here's the deal. Yesterday I was protested by Planned Parenthood people who were throwing condoms at me. I don't know what that has to do with this. They're trying to distract the American people from the hideous reality that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses alive to harvest their brains and other body parts. That is a fact. Planned Parenthood will not and cannot deny this because it is happening. It is happening in this nation. And taxpayers are paying for it. Planned Parenthood desperately wants everyone to think this isn't going on because when Americans realize it is going on, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, they are horrified. This goes to the character of our nation, and it must be stopped.
TODD: Well the footage you describe at best is a re-enactment. The videos -- even the people that made the videos admit it's stock footage, yet you went right along and said it's Planned Parenthood.
FIORINA: Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, do you think this is not happening? Does Hillary Clinton think this is not happening? So sad that you miss the opportunity to ask Mrs. Clinton why she said late-term abortions were only performed for medical purposes. That is patently false. This is happening in America today, and taxpayers are paying for it. That is a fact. It is a reality, and no one can run away from it.
TODD: But you are ducking the video, the specific of this question. And I guess I'm trying - because let me tell you what, The Washington Post--
FIORINA: I'm not -- I am not -- I am not ducking - I am not.
TODD: A Washington Post editorial this morning - a Washington Post editorial is calling it a full-fledged falsehood, Miss Fiorina. They said that it doesn't excuse your mistruths. They said, they understand you have a deeply held belief on abortion, but that you're exaggerating this specific claim.
FIORINA: No. Well, first of all, The Washington Post also claims that I am lying about being a secretary, so let's get real. I mean, I don't even know how to deal with that. I was a secretary, part-time to put myself through college and full-time after I graduated. The Washington Post gave me three Pinocchios for claiming that I was a secretary. So honestly, I don't think The Washington Post has a lot of credibility here. This is not about being pro-life or pro-choice. It is certainly not about birth control. It is not even about women's health. It is about the character of our nation. No one can deny this is happening because it is happening.
“ONE OF the benefits of a presidential campaign is the character and capability, judgment and temperament of every single one of us is revealed over time and under pressure.” Since presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina made that comment at the start of the second Republican debate, there have been some telling revelations about her character and her judgment. Caught making a false claim, she couldn’t just admit she made a mistake but instead doubled down and worsened the falsehood.
Arguing during the Sept. 16 GOP debate to defund Planned Parenthood, Ms. Fiorina offered this description of a disturbing scene that was supposedly captured on controversial undercover videos of the organization: “Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” No such scene exists, as even some of her defenders have had to admit. Ms. Fiorina was challenged by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace to acknowledge “what every fact checker has found”: that the scene was only described by someone who claimed to have witnessed it but was not shown in the video.
Ms. Fiorina could have acknowledged her error while maintaining, fairly, that the tapes contain other disturbing images and language and while affirming her objections to Planned Parenthood. Instead she insisted: “No, I don’t accept that at all. I’ve seen the footage.” She went on the attack against the mainstream media, and her supporters concocted a video that splices video and audio from different places in an effort to buttress her claims. Most deceptive in the CARLY for America video is use of an image (also used in the videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress) of a fetus born prematurely, not aborted, at 19 weeks of development. The premature birth by a Pennsylvania woman had no connection to Planned Parenthood or to abortion. That, though, didn’t stop Ms. Fiorina’s supporters from using it — with the voice-over and caption of “Here’s a stomach, heart, kidney, and adrenal” — to support specious allegations of Planned Parenthood selling fetal tissue for profit.
Ms. Fiorina may have deeply felt objections to abortion. That doesn’t excuse her use of mistruths to justify her willingness to shut down the government, which by the way she seems to consider no big deal. “I’m not aware of any hardship to anyone, other than the veterans trying to get to the World War II memorial,” she said of the last shutdown. When it comes to character and capability, that kind of blithe ignorance is another worrying sign.
It seems like the video is along the lines of, "Obama prays this secret of his past doesn't come to light", kind of nonsense that only true haters can swallow, then.
I really get sick of the sewage that passes these days for news that drowns out truth and turns the gullible into dribbling idiots.
jasper76 wrote: Planned Parenthood directly compared to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
I'm assuming you didn't watch the video because it doesn't say what you think it does. She did not compare PP to Iran's nuclear ambitions. What she said was that she wanted to discuss something that, in her words, affected the moral character of the US and something that affected the security of the US. There was no comparison.
d-usa wrote: Confusing pro-choice with pro-death is part of the problem.
One can be both pro-choice and pro-life.
Funny terms in any case, given that the pro-lifers kill the... pro-deathers but not the reverse.
A more accurate term would be pro-birth. They don't give two gaks about what happens after birth. All they care about is "punishing da dirty wimmins for having sex". It's all control. More unwanted children equals more crime. More crime equals more profit for prisons and other exploitive corporations. Why make money once by providing state abortions, when you could exploit the unwanted child for the rest of it's life?
d-usa wrote: Confusing pro-choice with pro-death is part of the problem.
One can be both pro-choice and pro-life.
Funny terms in any case, given that the pro-lifers kill the... pro-deathers but not the reverse.
A more accurate term would be pro-birth. They don't give two gaks about what happens after birth. All they care about is "punishing da dirty wimmins for having sex". It's all control. More unwanted children equals more crime. More crime equals more profit for prisons and other exploitive corporations. Why make money once by providing state abortions, when you could exploit the unwanted child for the rest of it's life?
That hits on a very true issue that undercuts a big part of , as you put it, the Pro Birthers. It's all well and good to sit on one's ass in the comfort of the living room and say, "Don't be a baby murderer". However if the words aren't backed by action, if someone isn't willing to shoulder some of the responsibility of helping that unwanted child grow, either through money, volunteer labor, adoption(the best option if able to do so) or some other means, then they could very likely be condemning that child to a slow death by other means.
Anyone that has worked child services can tell some pretty grim tales of some of these kids in this predicament.
jasper76 wrote: Planned Parenthood directly compared to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
I'm assuming you didn't watch the video because it doesn't say what you think it does. She did not compare PP to Iran's nuclear ambitions. What she said was that she wanted to discuss something that, in her words, affected the moral character of the US and something that affected the security of the US. There was no comparison.
There was also no violent rhetoric towards PP.
Her quote: "I'd like to link these two issues, both of which are incredibly important: Iran and Planned Parenthood."
I didn't link these two issues, I'm still not sure what the purported link is even after hearing her statement. Perhaps you can enlighten me here??
I'm assuming you didn't watch the video because it doesn't say what you think it does. She did not compare PP to Iran's nuclear ambitions. What she said was that she wanted to discuss something that, in her words, affected the moral character of the US and something that affected the security of the US. There was no comparison.
There was also no violent rhetoric towards PP.
Her quote: "I'd like to link these two issues, both of which are incredibly important: Iran and Planned Parenthood."
I didn't link these two issues, I'm still not sure what the purported link is even after hearing her statement. Perhaps you can enlighten me here??
You stated that she "directly compared" PP to Iran. Your video proves no such thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: she wants to link in the solution to ISIS to include PP, bomb them out of existence, and kill them all.
She does? I didn't hear that in the video, when did she say such a thing? If she did in fact say that then obviously it is utterly reprehensible. If she didn't actually say it then the question must be asked why you would ascribe such an obviously false statement to her.
I didn't think I could like her less, but.. here we are. I can only take solace in the fact that her presidential run, as with her previous enterprises, will remain unmarred by success.
Ustrello wrote: What the violent rhetoric and silent approval from republicans led to this? Nooo
Violent rhetoric from Republicans? I don't pay a lot of attention to the abortion debate but I haven't heard this accusation leveled at the Republicans.
When you get republicans everyday calling PP terrible people etc I would called that violent rhetoric, and seeing how we have not seen a single condemnation of the shooter besides cruz saying he will pray for the victims.
Many are terrible. So are used car salesmen and librarians. Thats not violent rhetoric unless you live in make believe lala land.
Ustrello wrote: When you get republicans everyday calling PP terrible people etc I would called that violent rhetoric, and seeing how we have not seen a single condemnation of the shooter besides cruz saying he will pray for the victims.
You believe that calling people terrible is violent rhetoric?
In simple terms yes, when you have them saying that they are killing people and they deserve what is happening to them that is a passive violent rhetoric.
So then the entire Democratic party is violent, as they constantly are saying republicans are bad people. This definition is stupid.
Jihadin wrote: For gawdsake...a "video". Last time a video was involved cause a shooting match at Benghazi. The riot/attack was inspired by a "video" on the US Consulate so sayeth Obama and HRC. Let's leave the....amateur BS video's out of this. One nutjob "inspired" by a video concerning PP and the other video with satire on Muslims "inspired" a bunch of individuals to kill a US Diplomat with security detail.
It's not just a video, it's how people treated that video. Remember the republican debate where everyone was talking about how awful it was, complete with blatant lying about its contents to make the pro-choice side look even more evil?
People are idiots Brother...both side....Hell in general everyone can be idiots. Is it confirmed this asshat was inspired by said video? I rather wait a few more days and see what comes up. For all we know he's using the video to say he was inspired to do it and later claim Insanity for defense during his trial. Religous insanity..(can't spell). His star witness to confirm his train of thought was the shape the mustard spread on his ham sammich. Cross Examination should be fun
jasper76 wrote: Planned Parenthood directly compared to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
I'm assuming you didn't watch the video because it doesn't say what you think it does. She did not compare PP to Iran's nuclear ambitions. What she said was that she wanted to discuss something that, in her words, affected the moral character of the US and something that affected the security of the US. There was no comparison.
There was also no violent rhetoric towards PP.
Her quote: "I'd like to link these two issues, both of which are incredibly important: Iran and Planned Parenthood."
I didn't link these two issues, I'm still not sure what the purported link is even after hearing her statement. Perhaps you can enlighten me here??
From the video all I get are "these two issues..." I'd like to see what the question was she's responding to. Regardless of the question I'm not seeing any comparison between the two direct or otherwise.
Here is the relevant portion of the transcript. Bash's question to Christie is in reference to shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. Fiorina interjects, linking Iran to Planned Parenthood. Perhaps this is simply a rhetorical maneuver so she could display her hawkishness on Iran, but they'd been discussing Planned Parenthood for a while at this point in the debate. Still wondering what the link is...
CHRISTIE: No, no, it’s really important, Dana. We got to talk about what we would be willing to shut down for. Why don’t we put tax reform on this president’s desk, and make him veto it if that’s what he wants to do? Why haven’t we repealed and replaced Obamacare?
Make him veto if that’s what he wants to do.
BASH: We’re talking about Planned Parenthood right now.
CHRISTIE: And why don’t we do the same thing with Planned Parenthood?
BASH: Can you answer yes or no?
CHRISTIE: We elected a Republican Congress to do this. And they should be doing it, and they’re not. And they’re giving the president a pass.
FIORINA: Dana, I’d like to…
BASH: One more time. I’m sorry, I just want to get the answer.
CHRISTIE: I put it in the list, Dana. We should be doing these things and forcing the president to take action.
BASH: So you would support a shutdown.
CHRISTIE: Let’s force him to do what he says he’s going to do. Now I don’t know whether he’ll do it or not, but let’s force him to do it.
FIORINA: Dana, I would like to link these two issues, both of which are incredibly important, Iran and Planned Parenthood.
One has something to do with the defense of the security of this nation. The other has something to do with the defense of the character of this nation. You have not heard a plan about Iran from any politician up here, here is my plan. On day one in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend to Bibi Netanyahu to reassure him we will stand with the state of Israel.
The second, to the supreme leader, to tell him that unless and until he opens every military and every nuclear facility to real anytime, anywhere inspections by our people, not his, we, the United States of America, will make it as difficult as possible and move money around the global financial system.
We can do that, we don’t need anyone’s cooperation to do it. And every ally and every adversary we have in this world will know that the United States in America is back in the leadership business, which is how we must stand with our allies.
As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, it’s heart beating, it’s legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.
This is about the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up in and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us.
Ah, so she's linking them as issues that O is not being held to the fire over (in their opinions ). Yeah... your definition of "direct comparison " needs a bit of re-examining.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Ah, so she's linking them as issues that O is not being held to the fire over (in their opinions ). Yeah... your definition of "direct comparison " needs a bit of re-examining.
A more accurate term would be pro-birth. They don't give two gaks about what happens after birth. All they care about is "punishing da dirty wimmins for having sex". It's all control. More unwanted children equals more crime. More crime equals more profit for prisons and other exploitive corporations. Why make money once by providing state abortions, when you could exploit the unwanted child for the rest of it's life?
We should meet up for a soy latte later and I'll give you some useful literature for the Revolution.
When it occurs we will make the Artist Formerly Known as Prince into the the TRUE EARTH SOVEREIGN simply known as "KING"
daedalus wrote: This thread bugged me for about the last 10 minutes, until I realized that this thread has caused me to realize I can't distinguish sarcasm anymore.
Verviedi wrote: With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.
Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.
You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.
Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.
Fetuses cannot self sustain, unfortunately.
By that definition, any toddler or younger doesn't qualify as a human. And all those grown adults mooching off their parents and living in their basements. And anybody with debilitating mental or physical deformities.
At the instant of fertilization, you have a human. Its in the earliest life stages and doesn't look like a human yet, but its still a unique individual human being. Its not a turtle, a dog, or a jellyfish. It has a unique set of DNA, it will have a unique personality once it is capable of displaying one, it will have a unique set of finger prints once its fingers develop, etc... Just because it cannot communicate with another human or have a pulse doesn't make it any less human. Or is someone who is blind and deaf and mute not a human because they cannot communicate? Is someone who has cerebral palsy not human because they are incapable of surviving on their own? Is someone who has a genetic disorder that makes them unable to feel pain not a human? Of course not, why is it different for an unborn baby? Thats the usual argument. The Fetus can't feel pain, communicate, or survive on its own, yet there are people alive today who fit all those descriptions, but you would never suggest its ok to kill them.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course not, why is it different for an unborn baby? Thats the usual argument.
Because it has no brain. Unless you want to resort to completely unproven claims about "souls" an entity with human genes and no brain is not a "person" by any reasonable definition. It's the same reason why it isn't murder to remove a brain-dead person from life support even though their body can still function.
No you don't, you have a bundle of cells that might grow into a human, or might not. Do not posit that life begins at conception (which is a belief) as scientific fact.
Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life". If we are only allowed to use "science" here. To say that its not alive requires you to ditch the scientific definition of life completely and go for a metaphysical concept of human life or sentience.
That bundle of cells will only grow into a human because it is human, it will never grow into a turtle, a dog, or any other type of creature. It might die before it is developed enough to breath and gain nourishment without its umbilical cord, it might die after this occurs due to neglect or other physical harm. That doesn't mean its not human.
The entire idea of being "human" isn't a scientific one. It itself is a metaphysical concept.
Grey Templar wrote: Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life". If we are only allowed to use "science" here. To say that its not alive requires you to ditch the scientific definition of life completely and go for a metaphysical concept of human life or sentience.
Why does being "alive" matter so much? The brain-dead person on life support is still "alive", yet we acknowledge that their "life" has no meaning and allow the removal of life support. Being alive is certainly necessary for "personhood", but it is not sufficient.
That bundle of cells will only grow into a human because it is human, it will never grow into a turtle, a dog, or any other type of creature. It might die before it is developed enough to breath and gain nourishment without its umbilical cord, it might die after this occurs due to neglect or other physical harm. That doesn't mean its not human.
Who cares if it has human genes or might become something more in the future? It isn't any of those things now. If you want to go for the "potential" argument then you have to acknowledge that every time you have some alone time with your porn collection you're committing an act of mass murder that makes Hitler look like a saint in comparison. And I don't think you want to do that.
Grey Templar wrote: Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life".
Grey Templar wrote: Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life". If we are only allowed to use "science" here. To say that its not alive requires you to ditch the scientific definition of life completely and go for a metaphysical concept of human life or sentience.
Why does being "alive" matter so much? The brain-dead person on life support is still "alive", yet we acknowledge that their "life" has no meaning and allow the removal of life support. Being alive is certainly necessary for "personhood", but it is not sufficient.
Well it obviously matters since we are quibbling over being alive and what that means.
The scientific definition doesn't support you being able to kill a human at the fetus stage, because its just as much alive by that definition as you and I are.
The metaphysical definition doesn't rely on physical characteristics, so again you cannot claim its not a live.
That bundle of cells will only grow into a human because it is human, it will never grow into a turtle, a dog, or any other type of creature. It might die before it is developed enough to breath and gain nourishment without its umbilical cord, it might die after this occurs due to neglect or other physical harm. That doesn't mean its not human.
Who cares if it has human genes or might become something more in the future? It isn't any of those things now. If you want to go for the "potential" argument then you have to acknowledge that every time you have some alone time with your porn collection you're committing an act of mass murder that makes Hitler look like a saint in comparison. And I don't think you want to do that.
False equivalency. Sperm are not a human fetus. They're only cells which are part of another human whole. The same with an egg. But if you unite a sperm and egg then you create an entirely new human being.
A sperm or egg on their own do have potential, but that alone isn't enough because the act hasn't occurred yet. You require both to unite to create a new human, and in that instant you create a new human life. Both in the scientific and metaphysical sense.
That is no different than if I get cut or scraped and lose some skin cells. Skin cells are only a small part of a particular human being. A developing fetus is 100% of a particular human being.
Grey Templar wrote: Well it obviously matters since we are quibbling over being alive and what that means.
Yes, but you're missing the point here. We've established in other cases that merely being alive is not sufficient to grant "personhood" and all of its various legal protections. A brain-dead person on life support is still alive, but removing life support is not murder. So if this is true then claiming that the fetus is alive is a meaningless statement.
False equivalency. Sperm are not a human fetus. They're only cells which are part of another human whole. The same with an egg. But if you unite a sperm and egg then you create an entirely new human being.
So what? They still have potential. By your own argument it doesn't matter what they are now, it only matters that they can become something worth protecting in the future. You can't keep moving the goalposts like this, either potential matters or it doesn't.
That is no different than if I get cut or scraped and lose some skin cells. Skin cells are only a small part of a particular human being.
Yes! Now you're getting it. Having human genes is not sufficient to grant legal protection, so getting cut and losing some skin cells is not equivalent to murder. Same thing with a fetus: it is a bunch of cells with human genes, but it lacks the attributes that define a "person".
A developing fetus is 100% of a particular human being.
There is only one clean cut point where we can say that something is or isn't human. Conception is a nice clean defining point, because that is when the unique individual human creature first appears. Since we are stuck with only using a metaphysical idea of being "human" we cannot distinguish based on what actions the individual can or cannot do. Someone who cannot communicate because they have not yet developed a mouth or nervous system is no different from someone who cannot communicate because they were deformed or injured.
A brain-dead person on life support is still alive, but removing life support is not murder. So if this is true then claiming that the fetus is alive is a meaningless statement.
So you admit that science has nothing to do with defining what is and isn't human? good.
Same thing with a fetus: it is a bunch of cells with human genes, but it lacks the attributes that define a "person".
Incorrect. It is a unique individual in the metaphysical, and physical, sense. Not some cells which were separated from a greater whole, it is its own greater whole. Albeit a small whole.
Not really, since it's still developing.
A baby in the 2nd trimester is "still developing".
A 1 month old child is "still developing".
A 10 year old child is "still developing".
A 17 year old is "still developing".
We humans don't finish developing long into the teens and early 20s. Using development as a measuring stick is a terrible metric.
Grey Templar wrote: There is only one clean cut point where we can say that something is or isn't human. Conception is a nice clean defining point, because that is when the unique individual human creature first appears.
No, there are a great many clean-cut points where we can say that something is or isn't human. For example: Peregrine is human, nothing else is. You can argue that this is not a definition you agree with, but it's certainly a clean-cut point. But the fact that the truth is messy and full of gray areas should not lead to the conclusion that being clear-cut is more important than being accurate.
Since we are stuck with only using a metaphysical idea of being "human" we cannot distinguish based on what actions the individual can or cannot do.
Why? Why are we stuck with this metaphysical idea, why should we care about metaphysical ideas, and why can't actions and capabilities be included in the idea? You're making a whole bunch of claims here with no evidence to support them.
Someone who cannot communicate because they have not yet developed a mouth or nervous system is no different from someone who cannot communicate because they were deformed or injured.
But we're not talking about someone who can't communicate, we're talking about "someone" who has no brain. Not only are they unable to communicate they have no thoughts to communicate.
So you admit that science has nothing to do with defining what is and isn't human? good.
I admit no such thing. Science, by analyzing brain function, tells us that the brain-dead person on life support is no longer "alive" in any meaningful sense.
Incorrect. It is a unique individual in the metaphysical, and physical, sense. Not some cells which were separated from a greater whole, it is its own greater whole. Albeit a small whole.
And an individual human is just one part of the greater whole of the species. Isn't it nice to be able to apply arbitrary metaphysical labels to stuff?
We humans don't finish developing long into the teens and early 20s. Using development as a measuring stick is a terrible metric.
Why are you assuming that "finish developing" and "become a person" must be the same point? The fetus becomes 100% of a being at a point long before it is a fully-developed adult. There's just no plausible argument that this 100% point is reached before the point where virtually all abortions occur.
Given that we still know virtually nothing about how the brain functions, as its a mindbogglingly complex organ we will likely never understand, saying that we have to have certain levels of brain function to be human is asinine.
I admit no such thing. Science, by analyzing brain function, tells us that the brain-dead person on life support is no longer "alive" in any meaningful sense.
"Brain dead" people have woken up and continued to live. If they were truly dead then that wouldn't be possible. I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of taking someone off life support actually.
Why are you assuming that "finish developing" and "become a person" must be the same point? The fetus becomes 100% of a being at a point long before it is a fully-developed adult. There's just no plausible argument that this 100% point is reached before the point where virtually all abortions occur.
You are the one who stated that because a fetus isn't finished developing that its perfectly ok to kill it. Humans don't finish developing for almost 20 years after birth, so using development as a yardstick is a terrible one.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that we still know virtually nothing about how the brain functions, as its a mindbogglingly complex organ we will likely never understand, saying that we have to have certain levels of brain function to be human is asinine.
Complexity is not a significant issue here because we're dealing with cases well outside of any gray areas and uncertainty. We might not know exactly how the brain works, but we know that if you don't have a brain at all then you aren't "you" in any meaningful sense. There's no doubt that if you shoot someone in the head and destroy their entire brain they are dead, even if you can hook their body up to some machines and keep up the illusion of life.
"Brain dead" people have woken up and continued to live. If they were truly dead then that wouldn't be possible. I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of taking someone off life support actually.
Well, at least you're consistent about this. Wrong, but consistent.
You are the one who stated that because a fetus isn't finished developing that its perfectly ok to kill it. Humans don't finish developing for almost 20 years after birth, so using development as a yardstick is a terrible one.
No, that's your straw man version of what I said. I disputed your claim that a developing fetus is 100% of a particular human being, I never claimed that it's ok to kill anything that falls short of 100%. My actual position is that a fetus becomes a "person" before that 100% point, but the vast majority of abortions (and virtually all voluntary abortions) happen so early in the development process that it's safe to say that they aren't a "person" yet.
Lets fixate on this brain issue you seem to have. The first neural tissue develops only 16 days after conception. Most abortions occur well after that happens, you probably won't even know you are pregnant yet. So unless you are catching it perfectly before that occurs you are killing the baby after it has developed identifiable nervous tissue.
And since we still don't have much idea of how consciousness actually works, if it even has a physical manifestation, we cannot say that its not a conscious being.
d-usa wrote: Why are you guys letting the thread get dragged off topic by the guy who claims that its okay to kill innocent people for the greater good?
If I had to guess, it's because there's nothing to actually discuss regarding the actual thread topic. You summed the situation up pretty succinctly.
If "brain death" has been correctly diagnosed, nobody is coming back from that. It is, by definition, irreversible. If someone came back from it, then someone don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n up in declaring them brain-dead. Simple as that. If you're classified as actually brain dead (i.e. complete cerebral and stem death), you're dead enough that your other organs can be harvested for transplant.
I think its more that we know so very very little about the brain, so any sort of declaration one way or the other is very much up in the air. Outside of some physical destruction or necrosis you can never say for sure.
“If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't.”
Grey Templar wrote: Lets fixate on this brain issue you seem to have. The first neural tissue develops only 16 days after conception. Most abortions occur well after that happens, you probably won't even know you are pregnant yet. So unless you are catching it perfectly before that occurs you are killing the baby after it has developed identifiable nervous tissue.
Identifiable nervous tissue =/= functioning brain. It doesn't have anything even remotely resembling a human brain until much, much later.
And since we still don't have much idea of how consciousness actually works, if it even has a physical manifestation, we cannot say that its not a conscious being.
The claim that consciousness is not a physical thing is completely unsupported and has no value here. It's nothing more than "because I said so".
What we do know is that consciousness is tied to the physical state of the brain. No brain, no consciousness. It is completely unreasonable to suggest that a blob of "identifiable nervous tissue" with less complexity and development than a cockroach (which you'd squish without hesitation) is able to support human consciousness. We can't prove beyond any possible doubt that it doesn't work that way, but by that standard we can't prove that "Peregrine" is a person and not some kind of advanced AI that is posting here to distract you and prevent you from interfering with its plans to take over the world.
It seems to me that the shooter is a nutjob whose behaviour has been actuated and enabled by an array of personal circumstances (and inadequacies, if you like) and the mixture of anti-abortion rhetoric and actions that in American social and political discourse commonly but certainly not exclusively comes from the right wing.
This is not to say that Republicans argue for violent suppression of abortion. The term Republican can't be defined with any proper relations to people who are Republicans - i.e. two Republicans can easily have very different views on all sorts of topics.
Similarly, although Democrats are seen as left-wing and generally supportive of womens' rights, there is a Democrats For Life organisation that is against abortion (and the death sentence too.)
The whole issue is too complicated to blame "Republicans", but it's nice to have a scapegoat because we can point the finger of blame and ignore the much deeper and more difficult variety of problems that feed into the headline.
We see the same behaviour in the railing against US and UK muslims for not condemning the actions of Wahhabist Saudis in Syia and Iraq.
A more accurate term would be pro-birth. They don't give two gaks about what happens after birth. All they care about is "punishing da dirty wimmins for having sex". It's all control. More unwanted children equals more crime. More crime equals more profit for prisons and other exploitive corporations. Why make money once by providing state abortions, when you could exploit the unwanted child for the rest of it's life?
We should meet up for a soy latte later and I'll give you some useful literature for the Revolution.
When it occurs we will make the Artist Formerly Known as Prince into the the TRUE EARTH SOVEREIGN simply known as "KING"
Please, no. Caffeine still alters the mind, and I don't enjoy having ny mind tampered with.
Also, you never go full Communist.
Doing exercise alters the mind, by generating endorphins.
I think one of the most important aspects of modern psychology is the realisation that humans have a surprising amount of difficulty in perceiving and dealing with certain aspects of reality. This has massive implications for social and political policy.
Verviedi wrote: With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.
Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.
You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.
Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.
Fetuses cannot self sustain, unfortunately.
By that definition, any toddler or younger doesn't qualify as a human. And all those grown adults mooching off their parents and living in their basements. And anybody with debilitating mental or physical deformities.
Its a running question whether what comes down the stairs every morning will be our sweet little Genghis Connie, or whether it will be an angry bloodletter who didn't get enough sleep.
Grey Templar wrote: Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life". If we are only allowed to use "science" here. To say that its not alive requires you to ditch the scientific definition of life completely and go for a metaphysical concept of human life or sentience.
Why does being "alive" matter so much? The brain-dead person on life support is still "alive", yet we acknowledge that their "life" has no meaning and allow the removal of life support. Being alive is certainly necessary for "personhood", but it is not sufficient.
Mmm but trying doing that when that person had not expressed a desire to end life beforehand. That person still has the full rights of protection from the state.
Used car salesmen may however, be hunted on sight. Hey don't blame me, its the law (about the car salesmen).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Why are you guys letting the thread get dragged off topic by the guy who claims that its okay to kill innocent people for the greater good?
Focus on the fact that s violent guy shot up PP and killed a cop, and not about the sanctity of life except when it isn't sacred or isn't life.
Indeed. Appears his current residence was an RV with an attached shack in the middle of nowhere.
So far no note I can find on any network of help, nor of how he managed to buy firearms.
Its all coming down to
Republican Nutjob
Democrat Nutjob
Surprise that the 2nd Amendment hasn't made a appearance in this thread yet....
There's only one thing that riles the American electorate up more than gun control (can you guess what it is )
chocolate cake control. Its such a terrifying topic, no politician dare ever bring it up, for fear of a Robespierre like response.
"where'd they get the guillotine so fast? Run!"
Seeing how this thread bounce to Life vs non life(?)
Intelligent life
Pro life pro choice
Politics
Figure I throw in another "gotcha" hook with 2nd Amendment and since we're a bunch of Nerds....yes Nerds...even Mods are Nerds to...
"Some day, my people are gonna come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that says what we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do. But until someone tells me that they've drafted that...directive, I'm gonna have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God."
skyth wrote: Now Cruz is trying to claim the shooter was a transexual liberal.
Cruz's grasp of reality is so tennuous that he really should be locked up in an institution before he hurts more people.
It helps if you read what he actually said.
NEWTON, Iowa — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is condemning the fatal shooting of three people at a Planned Parenthood location in Colorado but also aggressively pushing back on suggestions the shooter was part of the anti-abortion movement.
Speaking to reporters after a stop here Sunday afternoon, Cruz rejected a potential connection between anti-abortion activism and the shooting, instead taking issue with "some vicious rhetoric on the left blaming those who are pro-life.” The shooting, which happened Friday in Colorado Springs, left a police officer and two civilians dead, and a suspect, Robert Dear, has been taken into custody.
"The media promptly wants to blame him on the pro-life movement when at this point there’s very little evidence to indicate that," Cruz said.
When a reporter reminded Cruz it has been reported Dear made a comment about "baby parts" while being apprehended, Cruz retorted, "It’s also been reported that he was registered as an independent and a woman and a transgendered leftist activist. If that’s what he is, I don’t think it’s fair to blame on the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer.”
skyth wrote: Now Cruz is trying to claim the shooter was a transexual liberal.
Cruz's grasp of reality is so tennuous that he really should be locked up in an institution before he hurts more people.
Just got done seeing a interview he gave about it. I didn't hear that mention...have video? Same interview? Interview with who? Taking out of context? Sarcasm?
Seeing how this thread bounce to Life vs non life(?)
Intelligent life
Pro life pro choice
Politics
Figure I throw in another "gotcha" hook with 2nd Amendment and since we're a bunch of Nerds....yes Nerds...even Mods are Nerds to...
"Some day, my people are gonna come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that says what we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do. But until someone tells me that they've drafted that...directive, I'm gonna have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God."
Seeing how this thread bounce to Life vs non life(?)
Intelligent life
Pro life pro choice
Politics
Figure I throw in another "gotcha" hook with 2nd Amendment and since we're a bunch of Nerds....yes Nerds...even Mods are Nerds to...
"Some day, my people are gonna come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that says what we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do. But until someone tells me that they've drafted that...directive, I'm gonna have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God."
skyth wrote: Now Cruz is trying to claim the shooter was a transexual liberal.
Cruz's grasp of reality is so tennuous that he really should be locked up in an institution before he hurts more people.
It helps if you read what he actually said.
When a reporter reminded Cruz it has been reported Dear made a comment about "baby parts" while being apprehended, Cruz retorted, "It’s also been reported that he was registered as an independent and a woman and a transgendered leftist activist.”
Seems it is turning into mental illness and owning firearm issue now.
Colorado gun laws came up
Colorado recall came up (?), Lady was quite motivated (Democrat) to bring that up
Guy has a mental illness record
Guy lived in a trailer in the middle of nowhere it seems.
No mention yet if the weapon was illegally owned...or legal owner...
First guy to die was a Army Vet with one deployment under his belt to Iraq who got back in to warn people of shooter (outside to make a cell call)
transsexual liberal, or transgendered leftist. what's the difference? It's not so much a paraphrase as a quote.
No no it was all about context which you seem to have intentionally skipped over.
Having said that, Captain nutso (the shooter. I'd rate Cruz is a lieutenant nutzo at best) appears to have at various times ranted about body parts and identifiying as a woman. I think its clear he's crazy as a gak rat. The PoPo need to carefully investigate to see if there were others supporting him, however, in this. I also want to see the interactions he had with the PoPo and mental health previously and how he got a hold of firearms.
For the record, there are nutcases supportive of this guy. I've seen their rants on another board with more sane people attempting to argue with them. Regardless of your position on PP, we are governed by the rule of law, and anything else is unacceptable be it called terrorism, organized violence, or just simple murder.
transsexual liberal, or transgendered leftist. what's the difference? It's not so much a paraphrase as a quote.
No no it was all about context which you seem to have intentionally skipped over.
Having said that, Captain nutso (the shooter. I'd rate Cruz is a lieutenant nutzo at best) appears to have at various times ranted about body parts and identifiying as a woman. I think its clear he's crazy as a gak rat. The PoPo need to carefully investigate to see if there were others supporting him, however, in this. I also want to see the interactions he had with the PoPo and mental health previously and how he got a hold of firearms.
For the record, there are nutcases supportive of this guy. I've seen their rants on another board with more sane people attempting to argue with them. Regardless of your position on PP, we are governed by the rule of law, and anything else is unacceptable be it called terrorism, organized violence, or just simple murder.
Where has the shooter stated he identified as a woman? I've only seen LT Nutzo suggest that. I saw a quote Captain Nutso was giving "anti obama" literature. It's america, he probably got his gun with a happy meal. Yes I agree there are nutcases who support this guy, who in your opinion, are these people supporting him? I've seen A group that has rallied to support him, even in this very thread. *cough* pro lifers *cough*
I didn't skip over it, his whole quote was him trying to shift blame.
pushing back on suggestions the shooter was part of the anti-abortion movement. It wasn't us
rejected a potential connection between anti-abortion activism and the shooting, it wasn't us
The media promptly wants to blame him on the pro-life movement, it wasn't us
"It’s also been reported that he was registered as an independent and a woman and a transgendered leftist activist. provide a different target with no proof of any kind, I just made up it up, I say it could be them.
can't we just agree it was murder and not look into why it happened, because it wasn't us.
I've seen their rants on another board with more sane people attempting to argue with them.
Well, obviously, he is just a victim of the all-white patriarchy zombie nazi conspiracy that oppresses his sexuality. He was just checking their privilege, raising awareness to this very big and very serious problem.
I see where Cruz said it, but no other sources for it.
I cannot find where the link was posted earlier either, so working on the assumption that it was removed by a Moderator I am not going to repost it but the link was to the Colorado voter registration site which showed that the shooter reported his gender as female.
sirlynchmob wrote: Where has the shooter stated he identified as a woman? I've only seen LT Nutzo suggest that. I saw a quote Captain Nutso was giving "anti obama" literature. It's america, he probably got his gun with a happy meal. Yes I agree there are nutcases who support this guy, who in your opinion, are these people supporting him? I've seen A group that has rallied to support him, even in this very thread. *cough* pro lifers *cough*
1) Ad hominems do not help you make your point
2) What McDonald's is giving out guns with Happy Meals because I would support that venture. Do you know if they have the 4473 forms on hand, or do you pick up the gun from an FFL?
I didn't skip over it, his whole quote was him trying to shift blame.
Why can't you blame the shooter?
Why can't you admit there's a terrorist organization in the US, who routinely attacks clinics? that this guy is another in their long line of jihadists. If Cruz really believed it was just this one guy, just another american shooter shooting up people, why try so hard to distance the guy from pro life terrorist groups? to protect the terrorist group so they can continue to terrorize would be my conclusion.
I see where Cruz said it, but no other sources for it.
I cannot find where the link was posted earlier either, so working on the assumption that it was removed by a Moderator I am not going to repost it but the link was to the Colorado voter registration site which showed that the shooter reported his gender as female.
sirlynchmob wrote: Where has the shooter stated he identified as a woman? I've only seen LT Nutzo suggest that. I saw a quote Captain Nutso was giving "anti obama" literature. It's america, he probably got his gun with a happy meal. Yes I agree there are nutcases who support this guy, who in your opinion, are these people supporting him? I've seen A group that has rallied to support him, even in this very thread. *cough* pro lifers *cough*
1) Ad hominems do not help you make your point
2) What McDonald's is giving out guns with Happy Meals because I would support that venture. Do you know if they have the 4473 forms on hand, or do you pick up the gun from an FFL?
Seriously man, when you've got a guy posting stuff like this, you shouldn't even bother engaging. "It's america, he probably got his gun with a happy meal" makes it pretty clear he's not here for actual reasoned discussion.
sirlynchmob wrote: Why can't you admit there's a terrorist organization in the US, who routinely attacks clinics? that this guy is another in their long line of jihadists. If Cruz really believed it was just this one guy, just another american shooter shooting up people, why try so hard to distance the guy from pro life terrorist groups? to protect the terrorist group so they can continue to terrorize would be my conclusion.
Which terrorist organization is that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Seriously man, when you've got a guy posting stuff like this, you shouldn't even bother engaging. "It's america, he probably got his gun with a happy meal" makes it pretty clear he's not here for actual reasoned discussion.
True, but I'm hoping that a little humour would help him understand why his point may not be well received and open the door to actual discussion. I believe in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt once.
djones520 wrote: --
Seriously man, when you've got a guy posting stuff like this, you shouldn't even bother engaging. "It's america, he probably got his gun with a happy meal" makes it pretty clear he's not here for actual reasoned discussion.
I was just pointing out that it is incredibly easy to get guns in the US. I bet you could get quite the arsenal from craigs list.
I didn't skip over it, his whole quote was him trying to shift blame.
Why can't you blame the shooter?
Why can't you admit there's a terrorist organization in the US, who routinely attacks clinics? that this guy is another in their long line of jihadists. If Cruz really believed it was just this one guy, just another american shooter shooting up people, why try so hard to distance the guy from pro life terrorist groups? to protect the terrorist group so they can continue to terrorize would be my conclusion.
Please cite some evidence to support there's a terrorist organization in the US attacking clinics. You can then forward this information to the FBI, which can use RICO, The Civil Rights Act of 1964,and the Patriot Act to pursue them with vigor and vim.
Which terrorist organization is that?
Taco Bell. DO you ever wonder there are no cats around when you go to a Taco Bell? The Truth Is Out There!
CptJake wrote: Allegedly grabbed from some voter info site:
Spoiler:
spoilered for size.
thanks for that, I never would have believed it if I didn't see it. But you also said allegedly, why is that? does it look faked or can you really just get all that personal information on anybody?
I didn't skip over it, his whole quote was him trying to shift blame.
Why can't you blame the shooter?
Why can't you admit there's a terrorist organization in the US, who routinely attacks clinics? that this guy is another in their long line of jihadists. If Cruz really believed it was just this one guy, just another american shooter shooting up people, why try so hard to distance the guy from pro life terrorist groups? to protect the terrorist group so they can continue to terrorize would be my conclusion.
Please cite some evidence to support there's a terrorist organization in the US attacking clinics. You can then forward this information to the FBI, which can use RICO, The Civil Rights Act of 1964,and the Patriot Act to pursue them with vigor and vim.
the fbi reduced the manning to investigate domestic terrorists to just 1 man.
Every clinic bombed or burned, and every clinician assaulted or killed, had been previously picketed, targeted or assailed by antiabortion groups like Operation Rescue and the Army of God. Operation Rescue issued “Wanted” posters of abortion providers, often listing their home addresses. Several of the doctors listed on the posters, including David Gunn, George Patterson, John Britton and George Tiller, were killed by antiabortion zealots.
But that's just some odd coincidence I'm sure, not at all worth investigating.
sirlynchmob wrote: I was just pointing out that it is incredibly easy to get guns in the US. I bet you could get quite the arsenal from craigs list.
You can also get drugs and prostitutes from Craig's List too, those are also illegal. Guns are highly regulated when going through legal channels, and when a gun is purchased from a dealer a background check must be performed with the FBI. Failure to do so is a Federal offense. Lying on the form is a Federal offense.
You cannot legally own a firearm if;
- you are a disqualified person
- you are indicted for a felony, or any crime where you may serve a sentence of more than a year
- if you have been convicted of a felony, or any crime where you may serve a sentence of more than a year
- you are a fugitive
- you have a history of abusing substances
- you have mental health issues
- you are an illegal alien
- you have been the subject of a restraining/protective order
- you are no competent to handle your own affairs
And that is before we get into state specific laws like waiting periods, illegal features, magazine limits, etc.
sirlynchmob wrote: I was just pointing out that it is incredibly easy to get guns in the US. I bet you could get quite the arsenal from craigs list.
You can also get drugs and prostitutes from Craig's List too, those are also illegal. Guns are highly regulated when going through legal channels, and when a gun is purchased from a dealer a background check must be performed with the FBI. Failure to do so is a Federal offense. Lying on the form is a Federal offense.
You cannot legally own a firearm if;
- you are a disqualified person
- you are indicted for a felony, or any crime where you may serve a sentence of more than a year
- if you have been convicted of a felony, or any crime where you may serve a sentence of more than a year
- you are a fugitive
- you have a history of abusing substances
- you have mental health issues
- you are an illegal alien
- you have been the subject of a restraining/protective order
- you are no competent to handle your own affairs
And that is before we get into state specific laws like waiting periods, illegal features, magazine limits, etc.
from what I've seen of the shooter so far, he might not of triggered any of those flags.
but you can get them at a gunshow and without ID as seen here:
You can buy firearms from an individual with no paperwork technically required, depending on state laws, though it's still often best to document the transaction. This is true whether it is done at a gun show, garage sale or a guy you know from work. Any face-to-face transaction between two individuals.
Any time an FFL holder is involved, be it at a store, gun show, whatever, there must be paperwork as Dreadclaw outlined. If a FFL conducts sales without paperwork, they are in deep gak.
In some states and jurisdictions even sales between individuals must go through an FFL, and certain types of firearms still have to be registered in some cases. E.g. here in Michigan individuals can buy and sell long guns between themselves freely, but handguns must still be registered at the Sheriff's office.
The "gun show loophole" is utter horse gak, because there's nothing special about a gun show that skirts any laws, all transactions still fall under private or FFL transactions, and these can take place anywhere.
I didn't skip over it, his whole quote was him trying to shift blame.
Why can't you blame the shooter?
Why can't you admit there's a terrorist organization in the US, who routinely attacks clinics? that this guy is another in their long line of jihadists. If Cruz really believed it was just this one guy, just another american shooter shooting up people, why try so hard to distance the guy from pro life terrorist groups? to protect the terrorist group so they can continue to terrorize would be my conclusion.
sirlynchmob wrote: I was just pointing out that it is incredibly easy to get guns in the US. I bet you could get quite the arsenal from craigs list.
You can also get drugs and prostitutes from Craig's List too, those are also illegal. Guns are highly regulated when going through legal channels, and when a gun is purchased from a dealer a background check must be performed with the FBI. Failure to do so is a Federal offense. Lying on the form is a Federal offense.
You cannot legally own a firearm if; - you are a disqualified person - you are indicted for a felony, or any crime where you may serve a sentence of more than a year - if you have been convicted of a felony, or any crime where you may serve a sentence of more than a year - you are a fugitive - you have a history of abusing substances - you have mental health issues - you are an illegal alien - you have been the subject of a restraining/protective order - you are no competent to handle your own affairs
And that is before we get into state specific laws like waiting periods, illegal features, magazine limits, etc.
from what I've seen of the shooter so far, he might not of triggered any of those flags. but you can get them at a gunshow and without ID as seen here:
Then the purchaser/seller broke the law.
EDIT: Alex C. previous' post explained it better...
Every clinic bombed or burned, and every clinician assaulted or killed, had been previously picketed, targeted or assailed by antiabortion groups like Operation Rescue and the Army of God. Operation Rescue issued “Wanted” posters of abortion providers, often listing their home addresses. Several of the doctors listed on the posters, including David Gunn, George Patterson, John Britton and George Tiller, were killed by antiabortion zealots.
Thats supposition, not linkage. if you really want to play the libel game, you have to do better if you want to avoid losing a lawsuit.
djones520 wrote: --
Seriously man, when you've got a guy posting stuff like this, you shouldn't even bother engaging. "It's america, he probably got his gun with a happy meal" makes it pretty clear he's not here for actual reasoned discussion.
I was just pointing out that it is incredibly easy to get guns in the US. I bet you could get quite the arsenal from craigs list.
I would happily take that bet and take your money if I thought there was a real chance of you paying up.
I didn't skip over it, his whole quote was him trying to shift blame.
Why can't you blame the shooter?
Why can't you admit there's a terrorist organization in the US, who routinely attacks clinics? that this guy is another in their long line of jihadists. If Cruz really believed it was just this one guy, just another american shooter shooting up people, why try so hard to distance the guy from pro life terrorist groups? to protect the terrorist group so they can continue to terrorize would be my conclusion.
Colorado Springs, Colorado (CNN)What moved a man to kill three people and wound nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado has not been disclosed. But the suspect accused of carrying out the shooting spree, Robert Lewis Dear, made remarks about "baby parts" to investigators after his surrender, a law enforcement official told CNN.
Dear, 57, told them he has anti-abortion and anti-government views, but that doesn't mean those opinions were his motive for allegedly shooting up the Colorado Springs clinic on Friday, the official said. It's too early to tell, as investigators are still processing evidence.
So your contention is that there is a nationwide conspiracy to hide a concerted organized effort of a Pro Life Christian terrorist group that is frequently committing arson, murder and acts of terrorism against Planned Parenthood from the public? You accept the local police statement that the gunman said the phrase "no more baby parts" but you don' t believe the local police department when they state that there isn't enough evidence yet to declare a clear motive. Furthermore you believe that the police department, that lost an officer and had multiple other officers wounded by the gunman is so dedicated to preserving the cover up of the existence of anti abortion Christian terrorists that they deliberately lie to protect them even when they kill and maim their officers? That is some serious dedication to the cause on their part.
For an anti-abortionist he really didn't do much to the place. Not a single member of the staff or patients were injured. More likely he simply holed up there. Obviously this dude was mental and I am patiently waiting to hear how he obtained his weapon given his record. It should have brought up flags even if there were no outright convictions.
So your contention is that there is a nationwide conspiracy to hide a concerted organized effort of a Pro Life Christian terrorist group that is frequently committing arson, murder and acts of terrorism against Planned Parenthood from the public? You accept the local police statement that the gunman said the phrase "no more baby parts" but you don' t believe the local police department when they state that there isn't enough evidence yet to declare a clear motive. Furthermore you believe that the police department, that lost an officer and had multiple other officers wounded by the gunman is so dedicated to preserving the cover up of the existence of anti abortion Christian terrorists that they deliberately lie to protect them even when they kill and maim their officers? That is some serious dedication to the cause on their part.
No. My contention is whatterrorist group is he part of?
I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So there's no group then. Please identify the movement. Saying "Christians" is not going to cut it. You're just playing politics because there are people who don't agree with you.
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So, really, you say that there's a terrorist group in the USA based on...your opinion. I'll try to get the president on the line right now.
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So, really, you say that there's a terrorist group in the USA based on...your opinion. I'll try to get the president on the line right now.
I'll start up the Batsignal. Where's Adam West when you need him?
Inversely, if there is an actual group advocating criminal activities to shut down abortion clinics, they should of course be heavily investigated, in compliance with all Constitutional rights and privileges of course.
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So there's no group then. Please identify the movement. Saying "Christians" is not going to cut it. You're just playing politics because there are people who don't agree with you.
so we're just going to ignore the "army of god" then? That group I keep bringing up, the group responsible for all the attacks on clinics. Just assume the shooter was a lone wolf, and let this terrorist group attack again without ever bother to ask if there's a connection.
http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/army-god-aog-united-states The Army of God is an underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and acceptable as a means to end abortion. Army of God members have been involved in highly publicized incidents of terrorism including the Atlanta Olympic bombing, and the bombings of an abortion clinic and a gay bar in Atlanta. VideoVideo: HBO Documentary
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So, really, you say that there's a terrorist group in the USA based on...your opinion. I'll try to get the president on the line right now.
Funny how I said it wasn't an organized group. Just there are Conservative Christians who engage in terrorist behavior.
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So there's no group then. Please identify the movement. Saying "Christians" is not going to cut it. You're just playing politics because there are people who don't agree with you.
so we're just going to ignore the "army of god" then? That group I keep bringing up, the group responsible for all the attacks on clinics. Just assume the shooter was a lone wolf, and let this terrorist group attack again without ever bother to ask if there's a connection.
http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/army-god-aog-united-states The Army of God is an underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and acceptable as a means to end abortion. Army of God members have been involved in highly publicized incidents of terrorism including the Atlanta Olympic bombing, and the bombings of an abortion clinic and a gay bar in Atlanta. VideoVideo: HBO Documentary
Pretty wide brush there buddy... here, ask this guy for his:
So your contention is that there is a nationwide conspiracy to hide a concerted organized effort of a Pro Life Christian terrorist group that is frequently committing arson, murder and acts of terrorism against Planned Parenthood from the public? You accept the local police statement that the gunman said the phrase "no more baby parts" but you don' t believe the local police department when they state that there isn't enough evidence yet to declare a clear motive. Furthermore you believe that the police department, that lost an officer and had multiple other officers wounded by the gunman is so dedicated to preserving the cover up of the existence of anti abortion Christian terrorists that they deliberately lie to protect them even when they kill and maim their officers? That is some serious dedication to the cause on their part.
No. My contention is whatterrorist group is he part of?
What is their name?
EDIT: not picking on you, just clarifying.
None of my post was directed at you. I do appreciate the response to clarify. I don't anticipate much response from the poster it was directed at but lynch mobs aren't known for their desire for rational discourse.
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So, really, you say that there's a terrorist group in the USA based on...your opinion. I'll try to get the president on the line right now.
Funny how I said it wasn't an organized group. Just there are Conservative Christians who engage in terrorist behavior.
So... depicting the pro-life community as one giant radicalized group of Robert Lewis Dears???
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So, really, you say that there's a terrorist group in the USA based on...your opinion. I'll try to get the president on the line right now.
Funny how I said it wasn't an organized group. Just there are Conservative Christians who engage in terrorist behavior.
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So there's no group then. Please identify the movement. Saying "Christians" is not going to cut it. You're just playing politics because there are people who don't agree with you.
so we're just going to ignore the "army of god" then? That group I keep bringing up, the group responsible for all the attacks on clinics. Just assume the shooter was a lone wolf, and let this terrorist group attack again without ever bother to ask if there's a connection.
http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/army-god-aog-united-states The Army of God is an underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and acceptable as a means to end abortion. Army of God members have been involved in highly publicized incidents of terrorism including the Atlanta Olympic bombing, and the bombings of an abortion clinic and a gay bar in Atlanta. VideoVideo: HBO Documentary
Nobody in this thread has denied the existence of the Army of God group, that's a straw man of your own fabrication.
You have also failed to put forward any evidence whatsoever that this particular crime is linked to Army of God in any way. You have only put forth your subjective opinion that any and all crimes against PP clinics must be attributable to Army of God or an associated group.
So your contention is that there is a nationwide conspiracy to hide a concerted organized effort of a Pro Life Christian terrorist group that is frequently committing arson, murder and acts of terrorism against Planned Parenthood from the public? You accept the local police statement that the gunman said the phrase "no more baby parts" but you don' t believe the local police department when they state that there isn't enough evidence yet to declare a clear motive. Furthermore you believe that the police department, that lost an officer and had multiple other officers wounded by the gunman is so dedicated to preserving the cover up of the existence of anti abortion Christian terrorists that they deliberately lie to protect them even when they kill and maim their officers? That is some serious dedication to the cause on their part.
No. My contention is whatterrorist group is he part of?
What is their name?
EDIT: not picking on you, just clarifying.
None of my post was directed at you. I do appreciate the response to clarify. I don't anticipate much response from the poster it was directed at but lynch mobs aren't known for their desire for rational discourse.
I know... sorry for giving you that impression.
I was jumping in... as I've never heard of (or maybe forgotten) the Army of God. That should tell you something.
skyth wrote: I'm not sure it's a 'group' but there is a terrorist movement involving conservative Christians. It's not organized or named but that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Just compare what happens with someone who is Muslim and does the same thing (relatively speaking) to a Christian. There is a worse outcry and blaming the entire religion for it when a Muslim commits an act of terror (Even if it isn't linked to a specific terrorist group).
Really, the thing that is the most common occurance in a terrorist attack is that the person doing it was a conservative.
So, really, you say that there's a terrorist group in the USA based on...your opinion. I'll try to get the president on the line right now.
Funny how I said it wasn't an organized group. Just there are Conservative Christians who engage in terrorist behavior.
You mean like liberal atheists?
Like Floyd Corkins? Who actually admitted to using Southern Poverty Law Center as the source of his anger and promptly walked into and opened fired in a Family Research Council office?
Frazzled wrote: it says I have to have a subscription. Do you have anything from the FBI on them?
Assuming this is a real organization, any evidence he is linked to them?
sorry frazz, they're real, and they're christians, don't let that stop your denials though. just circumstantial evidence so far, as long as he doesn't "mysteriously" die while in custody let's hope the lawyers bother to ask, let's hope the investigators bother to ask.
Between October 15 and October 17, 2001, Waagner allegedly mailed more than 300 anthrax threat letters to reproductive health clinics on the East Coast. The envelopes, marked “Time Sensitive” and “Urgent Security Notice Enclosed,” bore the return addresses of the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Secret Service. The letters, signed “Army of God-Virginia Dare Cell,” contained a white powdery substance that tested negative for anthrax. Between November 5 and November 8, 2001, a second wave of anthrax threat letters, again signed “Army of God - Virginia Dare Cell,” were mailed to reproductive health clinics. In addition, bomb threats were telephoned to businesses located in the buildings that house the national headquarters of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. After his arrest on December 5, 2001, Waagner indicated to investigators that he was in the process of preparing a third wave of fabricated anthrax threat letters to abortion providers. Waagner also stated that he intended to place the pipe bomb recovered from the vehicle in Memphis at a local Planned Parenthood office.
Waagner is believed to have committed several bank robberies to support his illegal anti-abortion activities and his fugitive status. By year’s end, he had been formally charged with two: the May 17, 2001 robbery of a bank in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the November 9, 2001 robbery of a bank in Morgantown, West Virginia. Each of these robberies has been designated as an act of domestic terrorism.
Nobody in this thread has denied the existence of the Army of God group, that's a straw man of your own fabrication.
You have also failed to put forward any evidence whatsoever that this particular crime is linked to Army of God in any way. You have only put forth your subjective opinion that any and all crimes against PP clinics must be attributable to Army of God or an associated group.
because every one to date has been. but feel free to ignore that and keep pretending he's a "lone wolf" who out of the blue left his cabin and decided to attack a PP clinic just for the giggles that day.
Nobody in this thread has denied the existence of the Army of God group, that's a straw man of your own fabrication.
You have also failed to put forward any evidence whatsoever that this particular crime is linked to Army of God in any way. You have only put forth your subjective opinion that any and all crimes against PP clinics must be attributable to Army of God or an associated group.
because every one to date has been. but feel free to ignore that and keep pretending he's a "lone wolf" who out of the blue left his cabin and decided to attack a PP clinic just for the giggles that day.
So you admit that you have nothing to support that claim other than your unsubstantiated personal opinion. Glad we can agree on something.
I think he probably is a lone wolf. It's the modern face of terrorism.
Instead of laboriously building a structure of command and control through cells, to filter money, training, equipment and plans to the front line attacker, while keeping the security serves away from you, you build up a body of propaganda that incites the disaffected and sometimes the plain loopy to take action by themselves.
Indeed. Thanks. Not very impressive though-they sent hoax letters out.
Any linkage to this guy?
EDIT: to be clear. If there is some organization doing such, my spirits would be lifted with great glee if the FBI found them and bashed their brains in like it did the KKK. Nuts like this make Christians look bad.
)
)
