ABORTION-SLAY REV EXECUTED

New York Post ^ | 9/04/03 | GERSH KUNTZMAN

[kattracks]

September 4, 2003 -- As a violent thunderstorm flickered and dimmed the lights in Florida's execution chamber, a former minister was put to death last night for murdering an abortion doctor.

Paul Hill used his last breaths to call upon right-to-lifers to continue the fight - by any means necessary.

[Long Cut]

No matter WHAT the end result was, it would not change the fact that they would still be guilty of rioting and murdering people who had comitted no crime at all.

It's called "lynching" in most circles, and regardless of the purported "goal" or "outcome", such mindless slaughter hastens the destruction of us all.

The comparison to the American Revolution, in which Soldiers fought Soldiers in battle, is lightyears from an angry mob killing people in the street. In fact, it's nonsense, no matter how many times it and comparisons to the Holocaust are bandied about on these threads.

Mob action of the type you hypothesize does NOTHING but destroy and opress innocents. That is what it is designed to do. Such a mob would rightly be stopped by all necessary lethal force, and I would cheer its end. People who would do that to my country and its Constitution are my enemies, noo matter WHAT mask they happen to put on to cover and excuse their bloodlust.

[MEG33]

Your post nailed it.We seem to tear into each other instead of the liberal,left,Dims.I stay off threads generally where Christians of different denominations or churches act anything but like brothers in Christ.

The calls for killing are just plain wrong.The pro life movement has been dealt a disservice by the extremists.I know most pro lifers would not approve of Hill's actions.

[Long Cut]

"IMO they are more interested in preserving the "consequences" of sex they don't approve of than they are about human life."

I think you're onto something here. Certainly, much of the rhetoric appears to go in this direction. Food for thought and debate, certainly.

[strela]

I don't support the "law of the jungle", whatever that is.

Then how do you know you don't support it?

As for Vigilantism, in certain situations, absent a functioning court/legal system, yes I believe it is sometimes appropriate.

Then by your own words you condemn vigilanteism in 21st Century America. Good.

The real problem here is that you, and others of your ilk can't just pussyfoot around this issue much longer.

I reject your accusation that I am "pussyfooting" around about anything. I have my beliefs, some relevant to this thread and some not.

Lines are being drawn, and sides are being chosen. Your own concience will have to dictate where you come down on this. It is apparent however, that working within the "system" ain't goin' nowhere.

Nothing of the sort is apparent, as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of your stance on abortion, it is NEVER EVER OK for anyone to take the law into their own hands and murder.

Socialists in this country have been making up the rules as they go for some 60 years, and literally getting away with murder due to conservative cowards scared shitless of being called names by a bunch of lowlife scumbags who are taking our entire civilization down the toilet.

The ballot box and the courts, not the trigger of a rifle, are the proper venues from which to battle socialism. The best venue to conduct the battle is in the hearts and minds of the people of this country. But, when the people of this country hear about nutjobs like Hill who try to shield their bloody hands behind a cross and the enablers who defend him, they have a perfectly valid reason to think that the entire pro-life movement is nothing but a bunch of troglodyte gun kooks who are a bottle of Mad Dog 20-20 and a pack of Marlboros away from pulling another 9/11.

If I were active in the pro-life movement, my first raging impulse would be to tell you to "Stay the hell off my side."

[strela]

re your Post 220, well said.

[Long Cut]

Thanks. SOMEONE needed to point those things out.

[Modernman]

Note that I specifically said they were "successful" in achieving their goals in the U.S., which means the end result of their hypothetical action was that abortion was illegal in this country.

Your argument comes down to "might makes right." Following your logic, any group that can overthrow the government and impose its view on what this Republic should be on the rest of us should go ahead and do so.

[Alberta's Child]

But, when the people of this country hear about nutjobs like Hill who try to shield their bloody hands behind a cross and the enablers who defend him, they have a perfectly valid reason to think that the entire pro-life movement is nothing but a bunch of troglodyte gun kooks who are a bottle of Mad Dog 20-20 and a pack of Marlboros away from pulling another 9/11.

I've got news for you. The pro-life movement was being portrayed as "a bunch of troglodyte gun kooks who are a bottle of Mad Dog 20-20 and a pack of Marlboros away from pulling another 9/11" long before anyone even knew who Paul Hill was.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, I was specifically talking about how our perception of the "worthiness" of a fight for a certain cause is always done in restrospect, and is a function of how successful the fight for the cause is.

Hence, the colonist who overthrew the British government are called "freedom fighters," while the people who foulght for the Confederacy are called "rebels."

If the Confederate states had won the civil war, our history books would be filled with stories of a second generation of "freedom fighters" who were no different than their colonial predecessors.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." --- Mark Twain

[Modernman]

Actually, I was specifically talking about how our perception of the "worthiness" of a fight for a certain cause is always done in restrospect, and is a function of how successful the fight for the cause is.

The victors write history? You're probably right, to a certain extent, since any group that overthrew the government would then control the media, education etc. However, in the long run, I think history looks back and judges people for what they really were.

If the Confederate states had won the civil war, our history books would be filled with stories of a second generation of "freedom fighters" who were no different than their colonial predecessors.

The history books of the Confederate States of America would say that. The history books of the USA would still call the CSA a bunch of rebels and traitors, which they were.

[Alberta's Child]

The history books of the USA would still call the CSA a bunch of rebels and traitors, which they were.

And I'm sure the history books of Great Britain still call George Washington a rebel and traitor, too.

[Buckeye Bomber]

No, not really, you're completely wrong. British textbooks are pretty ambivalent about the "War of American Independence."

[Buckeye Bomber]

You know why the British textbooks don't dwell on the "War for American Independence"? They freaking GOT OVER IT! Unlike some regions of the world which shall remain nameless.

[hchutch]

An excellent post, Long Cut.

I am becoming more and more concerned about the increased number of circular firing squads - as well as the claims that some people who do not toe a certain line on certain issues are RINOs or worse. Even tactical disagreements are now becoming cause to form up the circular firing squads. The result: No problems get solved, and we end up worse than before, because now feelings have been hurt, and egos bruised - creating new obstacles to overcome and barriers of distrust among people who should be allies.

The self-appointed "commissars" on the right have done a lot to turn me off, and I have found myself becoming a mix of the Weekly Standard's foreign policy positions, and in very strong agreement with the "Leave Us Alone" coalition on the domestic issues.

[Poohbah]

I'm still trying to find who conservatism's officially-designated counterpart to Mikhail Suslov is...

[Buckeye Bomber]

I've always found the RINO insult amusing. Is there such a thing as a Republican in blood? Is there a ceremony for this? Aren't all party designations merely names? Do the other Republicans have a deep indelible mark on their souls or something?

And the Crevo thread are a hoot. They're my favorite part of this whole bulletin board.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I wish f.Christian were here. :-)

[Poohbah]

Is there such a thing as a Republican in blood? Is there a ceremony for this?

Only if you're a member of the "neo-conservative cabal" and have a sufficiently "non-Gentile" surname :o)

[Buckeye Bomber]

You know what, I'm going to use the term "RIB" from now on. Whenever someone accuses me of being a RINO, I'll say they must be a "RIB" then. I've gotten real tired of pointing out the stupidity of RINO, and I'm glad someone agrees with me on this.

[rdb3]

The result: No problems get solved, and we end up worse than before, because now feelings have been hurt, and egos bruised - creating new obstacles to overcome and barriers of distrust among people who should be allies.

It's time to graduate.