CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 01, 2009 04:24 AM UTC

Terrorist strike in Kansas open thread

  • by: DavidThi808

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

I figure we can use an open thread of the terrorist murder of a citizen in Kansas.

President Obama said it very well:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Best sources for more info The Wichita Eagle and DailyKOS (which lists some basic googling showing this guy to be a complete nut case).

And we may face a terrorist attempt here in Boulder. From the Colorado Independent

Hours after the Sunday morning shooting death of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller in Wichita, Kan., a Boulder physician – who says he could be the only doctor in the world still performing the procedure – said Tiller’s assassination was the “absolutely inevitable consequence” of decades of anti-abortion fanaticism.

“Every doctor that does abortions has been under an assassination threat for decades,” Hern said. “The anti-abortion movement message is, ‘Do what we tell you to do or we will kill you,’ and they do. This is a fascist movement.”

Hern laid blame for Tiller’s death at the feet of the anti-abortion movement’s encouragement of violence against abortion providers and the Republican Party’s “exploitation” of the extremist rhetoric.


126 thoughts on “Terrorist strike in Kansas open thread

  1. the guy who shot him was one of his deceased “patients” fathers.  Losing a child to a murderer can also do alot of damage to the psyche.  We should grieve for them both.

    1. First – the mother is the patient.  Look up some of the stories of the life-saving care Dr. Tiller provided.  Second, calling the doctor a “murderer” is exactly the kind of vile rhetoric that triggers this kind of outburst.

      Outlawing this speech is not the answer, but pinning the outcomes on the speakers is reasonable.  I hold you partially responsible for this act of terror.

      1. Apparently you can’t read.  I applaud his (Dr. Tiller’s) efforts for the good of America.  To defend Dr. Tiller’s sick practice – maybe you should be held partially responsible for his acts of murder.

        BTW I would never condone any person acting as judge and jury and killing another person.  That guy (Tiller’s murderer) should be tried in a court of law and sentenced to die.  Even if Tiller’s murderer was the father of one of Tiller’s patients.

        Is that clear enough for ya?

        1. and cannot remember what you wrote 40 minutes ago. You called Dr. Tiler a murderer.

          Losing a child to a murderer can also do alot of damage to the psyche.

          1. Dr. Tiller was a murderer.  I just happen to think the murdering the children of people who think that murdering children is good may have a silver lining.

            Let me explain:

            52% of American’s consider themselves pro-life (and believe that abortion is wrong).

            The people on this blog are in the minority.

            It only makes sense that people who think abortion is OK are more likely to kill their offspring.  As pro-aborts kill their own children, the more likely the law of numbers will be in favor of the pro-life crowd.

            Not only do the stupidist of people kill their own children and thereby eliminate stupid genes from the gene pool (to Paraphrase Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood) but over time as they kill kids that are more likely to vote for pro-abortion policies it ultimately will result in their defeat at the ballot box too.

            It would be better if pro-abortion people just volunteer to be sterilized, thereby illiminating the need for abortion in the first place.  Since by definition stupid people are too stupid to get sterilized then Dr. Tiller was performing a great service to them and to America.

              1. in the sense that they’d never personally have an abortion. But a lot of those people don’t actually want the laws changed. That’s why people use the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice”: because they’re somewhat ambiguous as far as policy conclusions go.

                If you polled people asking whether they wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, they’d probably overwhelmingly say no.

                Oh wait, they already did. 68% don’t want it overturned.

        2. It’s o.k. for us to condemn abortion as murder, yet it’s o.k. to do a state-sanctioned killing of his murderer?

          Never got that double-standard…

          1. I wouldn’t expect you to understand the difference between innocent life and the life of a person who deliberately takes another life.  

            You see, the baby in the womb is not guilty of anything (yet Dr. Tiller takes their life) The man who killed Dr. Tiller is guilty of planning and carrying out murder.  That is why the state should give the man a fair trial and carry out justice.

            It is common sense – which you apparently lack.

            1. Since when is it common sense to characterize a zygote as a baby? Or to value the MOTHER’S life just a little bit?

              I’m just dying for you to come to the next get together. Not that you would.

              1. Dr. Tiller didn’t kill Zygotes Ari.  He performed late term abortions.  You apparently don’t understand the terms you throw around.  By any stretch, even you at least should clasify what Dr. Tiller killed as a fetus.  

                The mother’s life is not at issue.  Dr. Tiller didn’t save mothers.  He killed babies.  Don’t confuse the issue.

                If you like, we can meet in the ally at your next meeting.  I’ll even let you throw the first punch.  It would be my pleasure.

                1. He only performed the function to save the lives of the mothers who needed it. But since you’re a typically misogynistic “pro-lifer,” why let that concern get in the way of your twisted mind?

                  Don’t let your mouth write checks that your ass can’t cash, “MD.”

                  1. Clever response Ari.  Somebody should use that quote in a movie or something.  Oh wait… did you write the script for Top Gun?  Wow.  Now I’m impressed.

                    Save the lives of mothers…  LOL that is hilarious.  Nobody ever had their life saved by killing their baby.  You apparently don’t understand pregnancy.  At that late term it is more dangerous for the mother to kill the baby.

                    But why let the facts get in the way of your twisted mind.

                    1. because your second paragraph is as ill-informed and factually false as they come.

  2. Whether one likes it or not, abortion is legal.  This fact seems to escape the apoligists.  When media personalities sidestep responsibility for  others’ actions they are supporting the violent act.  Case in point, Bill O’Reilly referred to Tiller as a baby killer many times.  See the clips on DailyKos.  If I go around calling someone in the community a murderer, repeatedly, to an audience of millions, have I incited a crime?  Many Americans want to hold responsible Muslim leaders in Iraq for saying that they should resist the occupation.  I think you have to get out a pretty fine wedge if you want to drive daylight between those positions.

    Legally, I don’t know that there is any kind of criminal case to be made here – same as with figures like Sadr in Iraq.  The moral case is clear though.  Incitement to murder is bad.  I don’t hold Tiller up as some kind of good guy, I just know that murder is a crime.  If we take the law into our own hands, good people will die, and that is unacceptable.

    I would hope that we could move to a world where abortion is unnecessary.  But, I also know that it has been outlawed throughout periods of history and abortions still occur and go unpunished.  I would discuss abortion and its reduction in a setting that reflects this historical reality, but acceptance of this fact is challenging for its opponents.  I truly wonder how we can go forward on this subject.

    1. That implies that the murdering terrorist was somehow “done wrong” by Dr. Tiller. The only thing he suffered at the good doctor’s hands was the defiance of his sick belief system.

      1. Terrorism is an act that detroys life or property when performed by Republican sympathizers.

        9/11 was NOT Terrorism for it was performed by Freedom Fighters who were oppressed by Capitalist Pigs in America.  George Bush brought 9/11 upon us for not playing nice with the people who want to kill us.

        1. Find one American liberal who characterized 9/11 like that. (Note: If you’re thinking of Ward Churchill, he was beyond the pale and not a liberal by any logical definition of the word.)

          I won’t hold my breath because you won’t find such a characterization from any American liberal.


            How about Obama’s best friend William Ayers.  

            There is two.  Both of which are very, very close to your president.

              1. Old tactic of declaring victory when you clearly were bested.  Like the Iraqi minister of truth declaring they have America on the Run when we invaded Iraq.

        2. There is a difference between understanding the motivations for a terrorist act (Roeder thought Dr. Tiller was murdering babies, the 9/11 terrorists thought their countries were being taken over by the West through economics) and condoning the act itself.

          Even Churchill stated in a clarification to his essay that he didn’t condone the act, only that the attack was understandable when viewed in terms of the actions of the U.S. and the Islamic world’s view of those actions.

          Roeder’s acts are similarly understandable; he believed that abortion was murder and that by assassinating Dr. Tiller he was saving lives.  Considering his other habits, it’s not really much of a surprise that he acted on his beliefs.

  3. Let’s have wars that kill Muslims. Cause we all know they are dangerous and can not be trusted.

    Let’s call Latina’s that dare to sit on the Supreme Court racist.

    Let’s hire people that follow women and call them niggers.

    The rightwing has such warm people in their ranks I can now see why God loves them more than the socialist loving, baby hating, gay loving, pot smoking liberals.

    Long Live hatred, fear, stupidity, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter!!

    I really was a moderate independent before moving to Colorado.

    1. Just about everyone (even most pro-choicers) would agree that every late-term abortion is a tragedy.  O’Reilly was right to speak out against the practice.

      Tiller’s murder is also a tragedy.  

      Speaking out against an awful and disgusting procedure does not make someone an “accomplice to murder” whatsoever.  You appear to be trying to make a linkage in order to score political points.

      We should mourn the loss of Tiller’s life but also the lives lost at Tiller’s hand.

      In the meantime, why don’t you give O’Reilly a chance to address the issue tonight?  

      1. That is exactly what “hate crimes” legislation does.  It links people who speak out against something with radical people who carry out crimes.  We should mourn the loss of our 1st Amendment more so then anything.

      2. ‘cept that I don’t have cable. Guess I’ll have to see what ends up on the tubes.

        In the meantime, I stand by my comments. O’Reilly did his best to keep Dr. Tiller in the crosshairs of the most radical anti-abortionists in the nation. And he mischaracterized what Dr. Tiller did in order to throw red meat to people such as yourself. As I told our very own M.D. MD, O’Reilly is as complicit in this as if he had provided the gun, ammo, and layout of Dr. Tiller’s church to the murderer. That’s not scoring political points; that’s calling a spade a spade.

        Like it or not, abortion is legal, and so were the late-term procedures Dr. Tiller undertook. It is reckless to call this “murder;” murder is illegal, abortion is not. You can hold that opinion, naturally, but O’Reilly was going beyond that with his repeated targeting of a man who had already been shot for what he did. Your agreement with O’Reilly doesn’t excuse him.

        1. He spoke out often and was very politically active.  Challenging his views and shaming him for his despicable practice was appropriate and in no way constitutes being an “accomplice” to murder.  (To be clear, Tiller’s killer was wrong and should be brought to justice.)

          It’s truly troubling that a number of folks on this blog actually cheer on the practice of abortion.  Very few Americans — whether pro-life or pro-choice — fall into that category.

          1. Just one.

            BTW, are you ever going to comment on the waterboarding video I posted just for you? Or can I write you off as too cowardly to accept a direct challenge?

              1. “Dorsett” is on your side. And RedGreen appropriately points out that Tiller SAVED the lives of women. Hardly “rah rah abortion” as you imply.

                Fail. (That goes for you too, Dorsett.)

                1. When they are, it’s a valid choice.

                  Typically, late term abortions are a matter of convenience for the mother.  

                  RedGreen provided no evidence that any woman’s life was saved as a result of conducting a late-term abortion.

                  1. to back up your assertion:

                    Typically, late term abortions are a matter of convenience for the mother.  

                    So, please do. Provide links, studies, research to validate your point. Thank you.

                    1. Everyone uses it in their discussions, but it has severe flaws when it comes to useful analysis.  It surveys women who have carried to 16+ week and lumps them all in to “late term”, for example; this distorts the survey results that show most of the women were apparently painfully ignorant of the mysterious ways of storks…

                      As for KK’s request, the Journal of the American Medical Association says:

                      Illnesses of women and fetal anomalies lead to requests for late abortions. Late abortion can be lifesaving for women with medical disorders aggravated by pregnancy. Conditions such as Eisenmenger syndrome carry a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, the latter ranging from 20% to 30%. In recent years, I have performed late abortions for a Kampuchean refugee with craniopagus conjoined twins and a 25-year-old woman with a 9 x 15-cm thoracic aortic aneurysm from newly diagnosed Marfan syndrome. Cancer sometimes makes late abortion necessary. For example, either radical hysterectomy or radiation therapy for cervical cancer before fetal viability involves abortion.

                      It also notes that, while Intact Dialation and Extraction (IDX, or “partial-birth”) abortion is not usually recommended, there are cases where it is preferred because it carries a lower risk to the mother.  So, not only are there real medical conditions that require late-term abortion, but there are also valid medical diagnoses which indicate an IDX procedure…

                    2. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, “420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks.” These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said “a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy,” compared to 71% who responded “did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation,” 48% who said “found it hard to make arrangements,” and 33% who said “was afraid to tell her partner or parents.” The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. [“Why Do Women Have Abortions?,” Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

                      Also illuminating is an 1993 internal memo by Barbara Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion Federation:

                      There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc.” (emphasis added)

                      It’s interesting to note that Phoenix Rising’s attempted defense does not address the question at hand: why are late-term abortions performed?  

                    3. Are you fucking serious? That’s the most relevant and up to date information you could find to support your theory? Wow. You should really quit while you are only marginally behind at this point.  

                    4. Thanks for playing! We have some lovely party gifts for you. Feel free to exit stage left.

                    5. And about the best you can muster in an argument. As is par for the level of your rebuttal skills.  

                    6. I don’t need to watch your video. I’m sure it’s funny. But I’ve never lost an argument with the likes of you because, unlike you, my arguments are all based on fact and not flawed, old studies.

                      In addition to Phoenix Rising’s critiques, let me point out that the culture has changed quite a bit over 22 years. Thanks largely to the intimidation and terrorism of the anti-choicers, there are far fewer abortion providers throughout the land, let alone those who would do it late term, and many women are much less likely to choose abortion today.

                      I’ll close with this: Why do women choose late term abortions at all? Answer: It’s none of our fucking business. It’s her body and her privacy. A nanny stater like you probably won’t accept that, but it’s the law.

                    7. 16 weeks isn’t “late term” even by modern definitions with newer technology.  The data isn’t granular enough to support the claims you make of it.  If other statistics I’ve seen are right, there probably weren’t enough people in the study to make a reasonable analysis of the 21+ week (or 24+ week) late abortion cases – perhaps 20 people total in the study.  That translates to less than 5% of the total in the “reasons” statistics.  Since there was an 11% “other” answer to the survey, which might include assorted maternal complications, this study doesn’t really say anything statistically about the reasons for late-term abortions.

                      I can’t find anything (in this country, anyway) that is more recent or authoritative than the Guttmacher study.

                    8. “Why are late-term abortions performed”, you asked.  The AMA answered that question in part with the block-quoted text I posted.  You conveniently missed it when restating your question.

                  2. You know, you and all the other anti-choicers and nanny staters could gain a little respect if you didn’t lie.

                    Here’s the link to the video I brought to your attention earlier. (Now you can’t claim not to see it.) Note that someone DID reply to it – with a link that includes a video of a waterboarding that no one claims to be a publicity stunt. Watch them both, then tell me why it’s not torture.

                    1. I stand by my view.  This is an appropriate tactic to use in a very few cases against the worst of the worst IF it might lead to information that saves lives.  It was used against only 3 of the worst individuals.  I believe the Bush Administration and the CIA handled it appropriately.

                      Answer me this, Aristotle:  If you captured someone who had information about a nuclear bomb that was set to explode in Los Angeles in the next 48 hours and millions of lives were at stake, wouldn’t you do everything possible (including waterboarding) to get the information?

                    2. Well, that’s par for the course with you.

                      Let me tell you this. IF I were an officer sworn to uphold the law, I would not engage in illegal torture, no matter how high-minded the alleged purpose was. As Benjamin Franklin said, those who trade their freedom for security deserve neither.

                      And let me ask you this: If this is so legal, why don’t we use it on American soil? You asked about saving lives; why didn’t the FBI waterboard Nichols and McVeigh to find out if there wasn’t a larger conspiracy and more targets?

                      Because it is torture, and torture is illegal and is abhorred by all freedom-loving individuals.

                    3. So you’d sacrifice millions of Americans in order to abide by some subjective guiding liberal principal?

                      All I’m saying is it is defensible in extreme circumstances.  It was used on 3 of the worst enemy combatants at a time when it seemed they might be able to reveal information to save lives.  (It may have.  We don’t know because Mr. Transparency President won’t declassify the memos.)  Given the circumstances, that seems appropriate.  I would not want to preclude using it in the most extreme circumstances at some point in the future.

                      People have conflicting positions on this issue.  A majority believe waterboarding is torture, but a plurality also believe it can be justified in certain circumstances.


                      Public opinion shouldn’t necessarily dictate decisions on this debate.  The point I’m making is that reasonable people can disagree on whether waterboarding is torture and whether it is justified.  This is a policy difference of opinion.  To make emphatic statements that it is indeed torture and Bush officials should be prosecuted is nonsense.  

                      In 3 1/2 years, Obama might (hopefully!) be out of office.  Should his GOP successor then prosecute Obama for turning America into a 3rd World country fiscally and waging war on the American way?

                      If you start prosecuting Bush officials for differences over policy, then who says Obama won’t fall victim to this same nonsense?

                    4. How would I know if “millions of lives are at stake?” At this point in time it still takes a well-armed nuclear power to threaten the lives of millions. The lives of thousands is more realistic.

                      And good to know that you view our liberties as “subjective liberal principle.” I can think of a few founding fathers (including ones you’d likely cite under different circumstances) who’d take issue with that.

                      And if Obama or his administration officials BROKE THE LAW in the execution of their “policy,” then yes, throw the book at them. I feel that way about ALL lawbreakers, most especially at the highest levels of government and society. We’re hardly a nation of laws not men if we don’t.

                      Finally, you’re moving the goalposts. You said on that other thread that waterboarding was NOT torture. My case is that it IS. You can argue whether it’s justified under the dubious hypothetical situation you raise, but you’re engaging in a different debate when you do.

                    5. They think a zygote is a baby. Now, if you would ask 1,000,000 people to describe a baby, it would be described in terms like “wrapped in swaddling clothes”…..not attached to the mother….who ultimately has the right to control HER body. Isn’t there some data that somewhere that puts into stark contrast the feelings of women on this subject, as opposed to males?

                      This phenomena is fascinating.

                      Anyone care to elaborate?

                  3. Just 11 percent of all abortions in this country happen after the twelfth week of pregnancy and only 1 percent occur after twenty-one weeks. Yet we seem to spend 99 percent of our time talking about “late-term” abortion, which almost never gets defined. The reason, as far as I see it, is because abortion-rights opponents have no incentive to give up such a powerful tool in their fight to criminalize all abortions.

                    Jessica Arons, the Director of the Women’s Health & Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.


            1. Where Aristotle was cheering on abortion.

              He only performed the function to save the lives of the mothers

              Sounds pretty cheerful to me Ari.  It isn’t true.  But it is celebrating the taking of Zygotes as you call them.

          2. Dr. Tiller’s practice was perfectly legal. If you think that “Tiller the Baby Killer” is appropriate, then it says a lot about where your sympathies lay, which is to say, not with the good and righteous.

                1. The grand jury failed to promote the charges, IIRC.  This was, also IIRC, the same AG who, when he lost to a Democrat, took the Democrat’s job as a county DA and spent most of his time in the DA’s office trying to continue his crusades…

    2. While I am not sure any talk show host would do time over something like this…It would be an interesting turn of events if you were actually held responsible for your words.

      Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh et al at some point COULD be held responsible for this type crime.  I am not a lawyer; however, i do remember some cases of people that were charged (not sure if they were convicted) for inciting people to act in criminal ways.

      The church and the wing nuts have made Black Presidential candidates, Latino Supreme Court nominees and doctors that are acting within the scope of the law somewhat less human by their ranting.  Images of monkeys and murders make it easy for those who are not playing with a full deck act on their hatred.

      Throughout history, people have acted on the word of the church and its leaders.  If my minister yells “murderer” enough times,   as a good Christian, do I have a God’s blessing to stop the killing of his innocent children or protect a Christian country from the rule of godless monkeys?

      Are they responsible?  Don’t know.  But to see Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have to defend a charge would at least make all the hate mongers think twice before voicing empty threats.

      Please do not throw free speech at me.  Yes, you have that right to free speech.  But having the right, does not free you from the consequences.


        The Southern Poverty Law Center pioneered a tactic of suing hate groups whose members committed crimes.

        The various KKK groups and their neo-nazi cousins hid behind “we never told them to do it” to protect the organizations from criminal conspiracy charges.

        However, the SPLC has brought suits against many purveyors of hate speech and proved in court that the speech led to wrongful deaths of minorities. The victim’s families were awarded money damages and the assets of these organizations were then seized.

        The SPLC contribution to the breaking of the Klan and the neo-nazi movement can not be overstated.

        Today’s white supremacists are divided and underfunded.  

        There will always be wackos, but the focus needs to be on the terrorist funding.  


    During the entire Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders.

    During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were 6 abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers. There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.

    During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.

    Bush policies resulted in a surge in abortions. That has failed to inspire introspection from anti-abortion groups. That Clinton presided over the most dramatic decline in abortion rates in the recorded history of our country left them unmoved. That Obama has assigned his senior-most staff to the task of finding ways to reduce the need for abortion has not protected clinics nor providers nor Obama.

    1. I was commenting about that too.  Why is it that more killings took place during Clinton and none during Bush?  I predict that even more will happen under Obama.  But, I am not sure why.  

      Any ideas?  Are you suggesting that Bush did a better job of protecting people then Clinton or Obama?

      1. Maybe the answer is that when our leaders don’t respect the law neither do the people.  Bush respected the rule of law.  Obama just talks about it to get his opposition in line.

        Bush protected people – Obama exposes them to terrorism.

        1. I believe that radical righties are inherently violent people. They act out their aggression when dems are in power because they feel helpless when their party is out of power.

          That’s certainly more logical than your absurd trolling.

      2. The main thrust of the article is that when anti-abortion activist had a place at the table, so to speak, virulent language went down and so did violence. Now that Dems are in charge, a Dem I might add who is actively seeking solutions to lower the need for abortion, extremist language is going way up and there is direct cause and effect between language advocating violence and the violence itself.  


          You guys are dangerous to America.  Yikes.  The First Amendment is Dead.

    1. Dr. Tiller was providing a legal service within the bounds of the law. Someone took it upon himself to kill Dr. Tiller, not only to take him out of the picture but also to scare anyone else who would be so daring as to practice a legal medical procedure within the bounds of the law from doing so.

      How’s that?

      1. but it works for me.

        Let’s ask a question in response–if this isn’t terrorism, why did the Department of Justice immediately take measures to beef up security at Planned Parenthood clinics, etc.? I mean, if this is just a simple case of murder and not an act of terroism, why would the D of J get involved? The highest levels of government, under Obama’s direct command, are on alert.

        If that doesn’t qualify this as an act of terrorism, I’d like to hear from Barron X what does.  

    2. Random murder of civilians in order to coerce political concessions doesn’t have a great track-record. But direct action terrorist violence against abortion providers has, I think, proven to be a fairly successful tactic. Every time you murder a doctor, you create a disincentive for other medical professionals to provide these services. What’s more, you create a need for additional security at facilities around the country. In addition, the anti-abortion protestors who frequently gather near clinics are made to seem much more intimidating by the fact that the occurrence of these sorts of acts of violence.


      1. .

        I mistakenly thought that it meant that the folks in the church who witnessed the murder were being terrorized, and that would not be a usage of the term that I would agree with.


    3. Calling it such is a troll, and invites counter-trolls.  Scroll up for multiple cases-in-point.  

      This was an assassination.  Pure and simple.  

      That word still means something, too, doesn’t it?

      I can’t say that I grieve for Tiller, nor can I say that I’ll grieve should the killer get the chair.  

      I do grieve for America.  Like John Brown on Harper’s Ferry, or Gavrilo Princip against the Archduke, I have a strong feeling that this will not go well.  

      1. albeit with the encouragement of Bill O’Reilly, Operation Rescue, and all the other radicals who simply can’t abide women controlling their bodies, then yes, that’s atypical for terrorism.

        But assassins don’t intimidate others from stepping forward to do the work of the fallen. They don’t prevent those that would have sought the council of the fallen from seeking it elsewhere.

        For someone who spent time in Iraq, and doubtless heard if not seen the terrorists at work there, with their killings of politicians and police trainees, you’re letting your personal prejudices blind you to the facts here.

        This WAS a terrorist attack. That’s not trolling, that’s speaking the plain, unvarnished truth.

        1. Is this guy going to release a viral video threatening all the other abortion doctors?  Or is everyone just assuming they’re next?

          This guy was the poster-figure for late-term and partial-birth abortions and was extremely well connected with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  

          Anyone who fears that they’re next has an overinflated opinion of their importance.  

          Terrorism only works when it’s a campaign.  This was an assassination.  Lay off the hyperbole.  

          Or else the terrorists win.

          1. Probably because you’re uncomfortable having the terrorist on your side.

            And, as usual, you’re disingenuous. No two terrorists campaigns are conducted the same way. O’Reilly and Operation Rescue, for all their backpedalling now, encourage these acts. Read the column I linked below.

            I won’t waste any time “debating” with you. I know from past experience that you’re a dishonest and ill-informed opponent, incapable of logical discussion, and always needing to have the last word. Here, I’ll be generous as I’ve been in the past and let you have it now. Just know that I know that whatever you say is likely to be false.

            1. Classy.

              This is a terrorist campaign, not because it resembles terror campaigns from the past, but because it doesn’t; and because you say so.  More the latter.

              You’re portraying this as a vast terror conspiracy because it’s the most politically-advantageous for you to portray the meme of evil right-wingers killing and bombing; a meme that was only marginally true over a decade ago, and is not founded in truth at all now.  And yet you accuse me of distorting the truth?  

              When pro-life arguments are taken to the extreme by people who are unstable in the first place, bad things happen.  But that doesn’t make the arguments irrelevant, no matter how hard you spin.

              If it did, the fact that your arguments that all pro-life right-wingers are terror threats could lead someone to retaliate in kind must mean your side of the issue is corrupt, as well.  

              Now we can paint extremely unstable extremists as exemplars of the whole movement and demonize each other until we’re starting another civil war (a possibility I’m not convinced is absurd at this point), or we can all condemn this violence and stop trying to score political points over demonizing each other.

              Which road will you take?  

              (Frankly, I find the instinct for the Left to pull out the “terror” straw dog after fully and repeatedly criticizing its use by the Right in the wake of an actual terrorist attack a little harmful to the former’s credibility on the issue.  But that’s just me)

              1. Keep spinning.

                Anyway, I’m posting mostly so that you see this article. Remember the DHS report on right-wing (NOTE: NOT conservative) terror activity that got you guys up in a huff? This assassination (which IS terrorism – come to think of it, any assassination is terrorism, dontcha think?) shows that DHS was on to something.

                And thanks, Danny, for the well-informed response. The truth is always the best response to disinformation.


                1. any assassination is terrorism, dontcha think?

                  No, dude.  Words mean things.  And, sorry no.  Not equivalent.

                  But you get what you want – anyone who disagrees with your enlightened points of view is branded at “terrorist,” and marginalized from the political discussion.  That’s going to work out well, don’t you think?

                  I seem to remember a lot of (rightful) criticism, and even more caricature, of the “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” mentality a few years back.  And, lo and behold, here it is again, and yet it’s used without the slightest hint of irony.

                  1. I won’t label the casual anti-choicer as a terrorist. Those are the ones who won’t have anything to do with the clinic protesters and their fetish pictures of aborted fetuses. But the protesters themselves engage in tactics of intimidation, and the culture of the radicals, where life-savers like Dr. Tiller are routinely labelled as “murderers” is most certainly terrorism. REAL murders and bombings are the icing on the cake that make it undeniable, and makes people like you heinous accomplices, just as those who stood by while the KKK murdered Civil Rights workers and black citizens were heinous accomplices to those acts.

                    This is all my honest judgment. Not a single ad hominem to be found here.  

                    1. “…They’re just terrorists.”

                      You stay classy.  Keep accusing “The Other” of every heinous thing you can think of (calling them the equivalent of the KKK was a nice touch), while buffing up your own cause (singing the praises of late-term abortions that very few find anything better than distasteful necessary evils as “lifesaving wonders of medical excellence” or whatever you want).  

                      It shows how moderate you are.

                      Intimidation won’t reduce the rhetoric.  It will probably make it worse.  I’m being very patient with your mischaracterizations, name-calling, and petty attempts to score political points.  Others might not be so patient.  (That’s not a threat, that’s an honest warning – I don’t want to see this escalate into a cultural civil war.  And I feel that’s increasingly likely)

                    2. shows who the true radical is. (Hint: it ain’t me.)

                      Sorry the truth is tough to swallow. But that’s your problem.

                      You’re right about one thing: it is escalating into something worse. But remember who fired the first shot. That’s the side that bears the responsibility for this mess.

                    3. The phrase “distasteful necessary evil” is really radical, huh?  

                      He who shoots bears responsibility, not just he who shoots first.  Yes, that includes calling everyone remotely related to anti-abortion stances an accomplice to terrorism.  

                    4. Because it’s untrue. Just as your claim that I’m calling “everyone remotely related to anti-abortion stances” a terrorist and not just the radicals is untrue. You obviously take issue because you’re really such a radical but believe yourself to be mainstream. Sorry, charlie, but mainstream abortion opponents dislike your protests and your bloody fetus signs. They just tend to vote Republican instead.

                      I like your inherent admission that rhetoric is responsible for violence. That is behind my denunciations Bill O’Reilly and the radical anti-choice movement and my indictment of them for their responsibility in Dr. Tiller’s murder. If you can’t see that, then you’re blind. But I’ve tangled with you before and concluded that already. This is just one more tidbit on the mountain of evidence proving your shortcomings in understanding how things are.

                    5. Just as your claim that I’m calling “everyone remotely related to anti-abortion stances” a terrorist and not just the radicals is untrue.


                      makes people like you heinous accomplices, just as those who stood by while the KKK murdered Civil Rights workers and black citizens were heinous accomplices to those acts.

                      “Heinous accomplice.”  But you never said that.  Because you also said it’s untrue.  Which is it?

                      The rhetoric is responsible for sending half-cracked people to violence.  But the rhetoric can be reasonable.  

                      You’re treating the two as one and the same – which happens to be a less-than-subtle way of assaulting a position with which you disagree by ad hominem, and creates a chilling effect on the open debate of the issue and upon free speech and assembly in the first place.

                      Illiberal liberals?  Whodathunk it?

                    6. You’re a radical who seems to believe he’s in the mainstream on this. Once you accept your radicalism it will all make sense.

                      No one is going to bring any violence to the antichoice movement. Pro choicers, like all liberals, are not violent people. For whatever reason, your side attracts all the goons. Hell, even the few “violent” leftists – not liberals – tend to focus their destruction on property and not people. [SEE: the complete lack of violence from the American left during the Bush years. It’s no coincidence that there were no prominent terrorist attacks against abortion practitioners during the Bush years but there is just months into President Obama’s administration.]

                      So rest easy. I’ll keep calling it like I see it and no one will suffer for it, unlike when your side goes around calling legitimate practitioners of a legal medical procedure “murderers.”

                      Now, if you feel like you have to keep up the falsehoods and distortions, I’ll keep coming back with corrections and clarifications. Do you want to keep dancing?

                    7. all liberals, are not violent people.

                      The Unibomber, the ELF, the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers…  Need I go on?

                    8. because some are not current, others aren’t liberals, and the current ones don’t target people. Targeting property is fucked up too, but demonstrably more moral than taking lives.

                      Keep in mind that I distinguish between “liberals” and “leftists,” just as I distinguish between “conservatives” and “hard right,” and mainstream pro-lifers and the prominent Operation Rescue/Bill O’Reilly fringe. Such distinctions seem to elude you. Why is that?

                    9. You make a blanket statement like I quoted, it gets shoved in your face with a half-dozen counter examples.  Admit it.  You fail.

                      Furthermore, your definition of “hard right” seems rather… broad.  Including anyone who’s pro-life (I would say “anti-abortion,” but since you’re going with incendiary language, why not) as a member is over the line.  (For example, what have I said here that’s so “hard right” and radical?  That we all need to simmer down?  Jeezum crow, if that’s “radical” around here, it’s no wonder this is little more than an extreme-left echo chamber.)

                      Then you downplay anyone who takes up arms in defense of liberal ideals as neither liberal enough, or too old to count.  (And, considering the two bosses of the WU are on the book circuit, the BP folks were involved in election shenanigans, and the ELF has been setting off firebombs more recently than clinic-bombers, the only one who’s “not current” is the Unibomber.  But that’s because he’s in jail for killing people with a reign of terror on behalf of neo-luddite extreme environmentalism that’s not too far removed from Al-Gorianism.)

                      Let’s look at the scoreboard:

                      Teddy Kz – Targeted People?  Check.  Current?  No.

                      WU – Targeted People? Check.  Current?  Yep.

                      BP – Targeted People?  Check.  Current?  Yep.

                      ELF – Targeted People?  Not really.  Current?  Yep.

                      And considering their politics are less than two degrees removed from the two figureheads of the DNC (BO and AG), calling them “not liberal” is a bit of a stretch, too.

                    10. is all anyone needs to dismiss your argument. He had no identifiable ideology at all. Even the extremists of the ELF aren’t against technology.

                      Weather Underground – so 40 years ago is “current?” Interesting. Whatever remains of that bunch of bozos hasn’t done anything at all in recent memory. Fail.

                      Black Panthers – same as WU, but also not liberal or left wing. Black nationalism doesn’t fit anywhere on the traditional left/right axis. When you’re enemy is whitey, that includes liberals.

                      ELF – well, I think we’re essentially in agreement there.

                      I’m glad you’re victorious in your own mind. Here in reality, you still have some work to do.

                      As for hard right, I don’t often have to make a distinction here because hard right people are the only cons who post and hard right cons are the only GOP pols in the news, except when the last remaining moderate conservatives change parties. If it seems a blanket statement, it’s because there are a lot of you – the anti-choice nanny staters who think sodomy laws and gay discrimination are good ideas, the no-tax-is-a-good-tax, guns uber alles folk. The deficits are bad now but I’ll be quiet about them when my people are in charge types. The more reasonable Republicans are a dying breed, so yeah, saying hard right is kind of a blanket statement for Republicans in general. It’s too bad; it didn’t use to be the case.

          2. Tiller’s clinic was bombed before and he was shot and wounded by an anti choice protester.

            They do have a video campaign.  Op Rescue used to post a list of healthcare providers that provided abortions and after one was assassinated they would draw a red line through the name of the assassinated doctor.

            You are correct that Dr. Tiller’s murder was an assassination, but it was an assassination as part of a terror campaign.

            Assassination is a tool of terrorists, just as bombing is a tool of terrorists.  Both assassinations and bombing have been used as tools of terrorism–Tiller was the subject of both.  Sounds like terrorism to me.

            2 sub points.

            1. If you do not call this terrorism–every person serving prison sentences for eco-terrorism needs to be let out of jail–they never killed anyone.

            2. If you are actually pro-life this is a disaster because it points out the hypocrisy of the movement.  

            1. I’m smelling a lot of “once upon a time” coming off your exaggerations.  

              The first event in a decade does not a campaign make.  You can try to paint it as part of a larger vast right wing conspiracy, if you wish.  You’ll just be as much of a nutjob as this guy was.

              This is a disaster because, like I said, you couldn’t pick a victim more likely to set off a civil culture war if you tried.  

              This will not end well.

              1. The first event in a decade does not a campaign make.

                As the article said, Dr. Tiller was a target for many years, many “events”.  Speak with Dr. Warren Hern in Boulder; he has a folder of “events”. As a matter of fact, he is being protected by police as we type.

                Once again, who are these people that think their way of life is so correct, that those that disagree should die or be imprisoned?

                What kind of country would we be if abortion becomes illegal and we start to imprison 17 year old cheerleaders?  Would the 17 year old boyfriends of girls that have “coat hanger abortions” be brought up on charges as well?

                Or do you assume that abortions will go away if they are made illegal?

              2. Bush was seen as an ally-why would you delegitimize the government if you think you have an ally.

                The PLO has gone in and out of terrorism for 40 years based on their perceived political advantage.

                The Republican AG charged Tiller with crimes why would the movement need to act extra-legally?

                The truth is when the anti choice movement feels like the legal/political system works for them, they operate within it: when the law or politics turns they rejected its legitimacy and engage in extra legal acts.

                My personal position on Choice/Life is complex and I rarely talk about it because it is so complex and conflicted.  However, my position on rule of law is firm (I’m for it) and my position on terrorism is visceral (I have seen it, I recognize it and I hate it).

                1. The point here is that this is not part of some grand right-wing conspiracy terror campaign to make us all have extra wire hangers on hand under threat of bus-bombing and sarin-gas-attack.  

                  That it’s being treated as such so immediately, and without any corroborating evidence, is not proof of terror, but proof of further escalation of a political debate that’s already gone a bit too far, don’t you think?  

                  This isn’t terrorism.  This is one unstable guy doing one really despicable thing.  Painting an entire philosophy with such broad brush strokes isn’t going to get us anywhere but closer to further bloodshed.  Folks can lay off the political-point-scoring and non-ironic terror-hyperbole anytime now.  

  5. The problem with statements like Obama’s [that we can’t resolve the abortion debate through violence] is that they presume each side is equally responsible for the contentiousness of the abortion “debate”-that the belief that women have a right to take part in a legal medical procedure without threats and intimidation is somehow equivalent to the belief that women should be forced to carry every child to term, even if it kills them. Or, put another way, that supporting judges and elected officials who are pro-choice is the moral equivalent of standing outside a clinic and screaming at every woman who enters. Killing doctors is only the logical conclusion of a movement whose primary currency is intimidation. No other activist movement in this nation relies so heavily on the implicit threat of physical violence to get its way. And if you believe, as anti-abortion extremists do, that abortion is “murder,” then murdering in retaliation makes perfect sense.  An eye for an eye.

    Read the whole thing here. The author explains why pro-choicers should not try to seek common ground with the terroristic pro-“life” movement.

  6. because one can only see so far from darkness. Thay are the American Taliban. They are terrorists. They want to force their BELIEFS on the rest of society the=rough VIOLENCE, even though SCIENCE, AND the MAJORITY of WOMEN whom abortion affects, does not support their position.

    And like the proverbial monkey who starves rather than let go of the apple in the small mouthed jar, they are doomed to extinction.

    1. You don’t get it. It’s a woman who gets pregnant. It’s a woman who makes the decision. It is not up to you, unless you’re the father and ready to deal with any and all consequences. And then you get a vote. Not the decision, mind you, but a vote.

      The guy who shot Tiller will get his. O’Reilly will still get his ratings. And women will still get pregnant.

      Yammer all you want. But as Pat Schroeder memorably said, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”

    2. I am always bothered by the right and their idea that we should all live their way. I see these people as uptight and dangerous. Like the Taliban.

      They would want to control what we read, what we learn in school, who we can marry, when we can sex and when i should have a family.  That is just craziness.

      Back out of my life people.  

  7. Bill O’reilly and Bernard Goldberg team up regularly for some of the most sophmoric drivel on television. Both live in a narrow, revenue driven world that caters to the most base, disgusting and clueless of the “conservative religious right”. You know, those goobers that even “Deliverance” failed to do justice to. The “I love America, I just hate 55% of the people that live here” gang.

    O’reilly cannot deny (although the cowardly blowhard already does) his relentless 29 segment assault on Dr. Tiller was a primary mover in his murder. Common sense tells us morons like Dr. Tiller’s killer not only listen to the baiting that trolls like O’Reilly spew on fox, but act on that baiting.

    Goldberg’s no different. His book about “the 100 people who screwed up America” (or whatever the title is) literally served as the jihad activator for that idiot in Tennessee. His note said as much.

    This world would be just as safe if all fox viewers were required to wear ancle bracelets as it would be if cunny bob newman’s call for Muslims to do the same was answered.

    I take that back. Better “fox viewer” stenciled on their heads. More easily recognized.


Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

187 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!