Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eric Rudolph Captured
CNN | May 31,2003 | Vinnie

Posted on 05/31/2003 5:02:27 AM PDT by Vinnie

CNN is reporting that Eric Rudolph has been captured in Murphy, North Carolina


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Alabama; US: Georgia; US: North Carolina; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: abolition; abortion; atlanta; atlanta1996; captured; domesticterrorism; ericrudolph; fbi; gay; homosexual; jewell; northcarolina; oldnorthstate; olympicpark; olympicparkbombing; olympics; turass
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 1,121-1,123 next last
To: LanPB01
These are the kinds of threads many people avoid in revulsion ... but, I think these are the threads that need to be engaged.

If this guy is convicted ... he caused a lot of destruction, devestation and lifelong harm to innocent Americans. He's as bad as they come.

I have no "conflict avoidance" issues with the kind of people who would rationalize this murder and mayhem. Terrorism, ambush murder and flight. I want to know where he was and why the FBI couldn't find him all these years. Louis Freeh needs to account for his unit.

Remember the effect that Malvo and Muhammed had those two weeks? They paralyzed our American capital, they shot and killed our fathers and mothers and neighbors in ambush. We can't live that way and be rockin' Americans as we have been blessed by God to be.

The goofballs need to be neutralized here. Just in principle.

701 posted on 05/31/2003 7:59:25 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Thank you, 'Cut. It's just interesting to see some of the more radical among us poking their head out of the closet on this one. It makes me wonder what they say when they're surrounded by the like-minded, rather than here where they will be challenged.

Kind of scary to think about it.
702 posted on 05/31/2003 8:26:02 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
I don't think it's right for us to perform our own justice; how can we justify killing these people when what we are trying to stop is killing?

Good post, Cathryn. You have captured the irony of all this in a single question.

People who condone killing in this way are not pro-life, although they seem to think they are the purest and strongest of the pro-life cause. What a bizarre distortion.

703 posted on 05/31/2003 8:35:13 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford; Long Cut
P.S. I'm not leaving. I just get a little weirded out on threads like this, even though the really frightening posts seem to be coming out of a very small number of people. Thanks for caring - both of you.
704 posted on 05/31/2003 8:36:39 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

Comment #705 Removed by Moderator

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
You are welcome. Caring is what we do best, which explains, I think, why we even bother to get involved. We care. ;-)
706 posted on 05/31/2003 8:44:29 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Apathy kills us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
"I don't think it's right for us to perform our own justice; how can we justify killing these people when what we are trying to stop is killing?"

You could also say that it depends a lot on perspective. We all have the ability to view things in different light and vantage points.

While my perspective is that killing murderers the way Eric is alleged to have done is wrong, the wrong form of justice - from Eric's perspective, who knows, he may truly believe that by killing murderers and their accomplices, he was performing in an act of high civil disobedience that he believed worthwhile his potential loss of liberty - and his life itself.

It doesn't help a single unborn person, from my perspective, but maybe from Eric's perspective, he saved someone innocent by killing a murderer that from many perspectives might not be so innocent.

What I truly don't understand on any level is his alleged involvement in the Atlanta (Olympics) bombing. What purpose could he have tried to perform in doing that?

Or, could it be that the ex-TRIMPOTUS Clinton's feds couldn't nail anyone else, Eric by default was the natural suspect??
707 posted on 05/31/2003 8:47:21 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: cgk; Kevin Curry; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback; Remedy; wardaddy; WarSlut
I'll say, "Bless their unborn souls, but I supported the right of women to choose. I erred on the side of people that were actually born and in existence, and if they felt they weren't ready to give birth, they knew better than I did. I chose not to punish women that made the mistake of getting pregnant by forcing them to carry an unwanted child to full term. These women were encouraged to consider having the child, then giving it up for adoption, but since it was their body, they had the final say." This line of thinking, according to the Rudloph apologists, is going to cause me to burn. #685 posted by LanPB01

This post might be instructive on several levels, but we'll address the pro-abortion perspective.

First, we have this comment : " ... I supported the right of women to choose. I erred on the side of people that were actually born and in existence ..." This is evidence that the poster does not consider the unborn to be people, to be alive, fully human, beings. Such a dehumanization is convenient for the omissions it affords to the mind of the poster. If the thing in the womb is not fully human, not yet a fellow human being, then the right of a woman's liberty obviously trumps the right to Life. It the thing in the womb is not yet a human being worthy of protection from arbitrary serial killing, then the people who would raise the specter of the children being slaughtered in abortuaries --and the generations never born because of the serial killings-- well, these people must be dismissable as irrational fanatics.

Then we have the following : "I chose not to punish women that made the mistake of getting pregnant by forcing them to carry an unwanted child to full term." Well, which is it? Are the things in the womb children or are they less than human beings? If they're human beings, children, then this poster is four-square for killing the innocent as an expedient method of ridding society of unwanteds. If the things in the womb are not human beings, then why refer to them as children? There is a confusion of belief that has surfaced even in this casual setting.

Then there is this : "These women were encouraged to consider having the child, then giving it up for adoption, but since it was their body, they had the final say." To which body do we suppose the poster is referring and which body is being dehumanized as not even worthy of Life already up and running for several months? It is biologically absurd to say the unborn child's body is the woman's body ... the conceptus has instituted the life support from the woman's body, built its own placental sac, filled it with amniotic fluid, built its own organs, and will trigger its own birth day contractions by the woman's body. In short, the ORGANISM has been a separate individual human life from the very first cell division the ORGANISM accomplished, and has been drawing life support from the woman. It is evident the poster doesn't mistake the baby's body for the woman's body, so what is the poster inferring?... The poster is affirming the pro-abortion mantra that the woman's liberty is the only fact to be considered regarding a pregnancy, the alive, individual child is to be no more valued than the woman wishes when juxtaposed with her liberty. Even Al Goreghoul stands for this belief as he counted it a condemned woman's right to take her unborn, alive child to the death chamber with her if she was under a capital crime death sentence.

And finally, the poster wants to accomplish argumentum absurdum, claiming anyone not condemning Ruloph before his trial, of being ... well, I'll let the specious poster's words speak for it : This line of thinking, according to the Rudloph apologists, is going to cause me to burn. posted by LanPB01 I've seen not one person acting as an apologist for Eric Rudolph if he is convicted of the crimes for which he is accused. I've seen a few jumping to unwarranted conclusions, based on their emotional responses to phrasing of other posters, but not one defending Eric Rudolph's crimes if convicted. [There's even been a few posters trying to bait Christians and sling homosexual innuendo, trying to divert the thread from the issue of Rudolph's capture and the speciousness of painting the pro-life people as 'cut from the same cloth as the murdering Rudolph --if he's convicted of the crimes for which he's accused.

Is Eric Rudolph guilty of all four bombings? I have no idea and the dissimilarities of the bombings lead one to conclude that if he is guilty of at least one of these atrocities it is also likely that someone else, perhaps in cahoots with Rudolph or some organization to which he belongs, was also a guilty bomber.

It has been instructive to read along on this thread, to see which posters were so ready to jump to unwarranted conclusions, and some repeatedly! It is also interesting to note that Physicist, to whom I addressed my first post on this thread has seen fit to avoid further posting, no doubt because he doesn't jump to unwarranted conclusions ... and I appreciate his remaining neutral, to allow folks their opportunities to expose what agendas may be driving them. [One last note: it is proper for pro-life people to be aghast at what I posted first, if they were under the mistaken notion that I would protect an FBI fugitive accusewd of bombing and killing fellow Americans; I chose my wording very carefully, to allow some ambiguity, to allow certain posters to expose their agenda ... I've made a few enemies during my time at FR. I'll leave anytime Jim tells me to and hold no grudge toward Mister Robinson. But I suspect the thread has been instructional for our fearless leader, also.]

708 posted on 05/31/2003 8:50:40 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; Cathryn Crawford
.
709 posted on 05/31/2003 8:51:30 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
FTR, the original Hebrew is "Thou shall not MURDER".
710 posted on 05/31/2003 8:51:46 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
"What I truly don't understand on any level is his alleged involvement in the Atlanta (Olympics) bombing. What purpose could he have tried to perform in doing that?"

See post #696. Again, it's not about abortion, or any OTHER "cause". He and his ilk are psycho killers, period. They just plain like to kill. They are, however, sophisticated enough to choose victims that SOME people will actually laud them for killing. And whom some will actually encourage the killing of.

Such people, with little mental variation, are cultivated by terrorist and extremist organizations around the world.

Do NOT make excuses for these jackals, nor find sympathy for them, just because you happen to be prolife. In truth, they couldn't care less about that cause, outside of all the marks they seem to get because of it.

Oh, and by continually (and legally inaccurately) calling abortion providers "murderers", you provide encouragement for these maniacs. You might consider this when the urge to use the inflammatory rhetoric strikes.

711 posted on 05/31/2003 9:00:23 PM PDT by Long Cut (ORION Naval Aircrewman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"One is performing a legal medical procedure, and the other is a cold blooded, ambush murderer."

Legal=Lethal. Laws are passed in many cases to make unlawful acts legal.
712 posted on 05/31/2003 9:00:39 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution; DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
I agree with you that this debate depends a lot on perspective. However (and this is a big however) I simply cannot agree with his actions. Yes, as I said, I could justify it. I could argue that perhaps his view was that he was saving innocents by killing the guilty. As some pro-lifers say, this is a war, and everything is fair game. There are several problems with this view.

1) You cannot confirm that you will not be harming innocents by your actions. There will always be the possibility that someone that you "didn't mean to be there" will be there.

2) Your moral high ground is lost by the killing of another human being. How can you stand up and say that you are pro-life, when you use that platform to kill? Doesn't that make you no better than the people that you are saving?

3) By taking the law into their own hands, they are negating their own cause, which is to have the laws concerning abortion changed. This shows that they don't believe the law always applies, so what right do they have to lobby for a law to be changed? Just a thought.

Despite the fact that I understand the rage, I can't agree with this. I just can't.
713 posted on 05/31/2003 9:00:45 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Apathy kills us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
"Oh, and by continually (and legally inaccurately) calling abortion providers "murderers", you provide encouragement for these maniacs. You might consider this when the urge to use the inflammatory rhetoric strikes."

Post #712. While I don't agree in what some might view as a 'fair-play' form of justice, make no mistake: there are no 'innocents' in the aborticide industry. If stating that truth provides encouragement, it doesn't promote civil disobedience. The act itself is that of the individual's, just as guns don't take life. People do. Truth shouldn't be the victim here either.
714 posted on 05/31/2003 9:05:03 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Oh, and by continually (and legally inaccurately) calling abortion providers "murderers", you provide encouragement for these maniacs.

They intentionally and brutally snuff out the lives of the most innocent and helpless among us without providing them even the slightest semblance of due process. If you don't like calling them what they are, what antiseptic mealy-mouthed euphemism do you prefer?

715 posted on 05/31/2003 9:09:08 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I've made a few enemies during my time at FR.

You're not making them. You're just meeting them.

716 posted on 05/31/2003 9:09:11 PM PDT by WarSlut (Absence of proof is not proof of absence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

Comment #717 Removed by Moderator

To: ArneFufkin
I have no "conflict avoidance" issues with the kind of people who would rationalize this murder and mayhem.

Which murder and mayhem? That which takes place by the millions each year in the abortion mills of America, or that which took place by the devious hand of terrorist Rudolph?

Make your point clear, man.

718 posted on 05/31/2003 9:12:25 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
"If you don't like calling them what they are, what antiseptic mealy-mouthed euphemism do you prefer?"

Temper, temper. Wild emotionalism is not becoming to thinking folk. The FACT is that those who provide abortions, as much as you wish it were not so, are acting within the law, which does NOT define murder thusly.

All the wishing and ranting in the world will not change that. And continually referring to it so, and also by calling providers "serial killers" (again, without ANY regard for the true definitions of the term) only encourages REAL psycho killers...like Rudolph, Kopp, and their heirs and assigns.

719 posted on 05/31/2003 9:13:53 PM PDT by Long Cut (ORION Naval Aircrewman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
If you don't like calling them what they are, what antiseptic mealy-mouthed euphemism do you prefer?

They're doctors, don'tcha know...

And the Nazis who turned on the gas at Auschwitz were anethesiologists.

720 posted on 05/31/2003 9:14:35 PM PDT by WarSlut (Absence of proof is not proof of absence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 1,121-1,123 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson