The author of the Turner Diaries, William Pierce, calls for attacks against government institutions in order to remove Democrats from office and elect Republicans who, he says, would decrease civil liberties in the United States until a revolution begins in protest.
On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh took Turner’s theories to heart and bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma, killing 168 people.
Points to debate:
Is Pierce’s strategy reasonable? Unfortunately, I think it is. Following the acts of terrorists, Republicans have gained political ground, and have used it to further erode civil liberties.
Are anti-civil-liberties comments made by leading Republicans encouraging the murder of Americans in the United States? Evidently, the answer is yes, whether one likes it or not.
In view of this impact, should Republican leaders be more careful of what they say about civil liberties? I think Republican leaders would be well-advised to take a line saying that whatever their differences with Democrats, if elected they would fully committed to the Bill of Rights and its protections for individual civil rights.
If comments by Republican leaders are serving to encourage America’s enemies, do these comments constitute treason? Not at all IMHO. It’s an unfortunate side-effect of free speech.
Should Gingrich and others apologize to the families of slain Americans, since their comments encouraged the attacks against them? Yes.
Is it appropriate to note and debate whether anti-civil-liberties Republican statements serve to encourage some terrorists? Absolutely. These statements are protected free speech, but we needn’t be in denial about their adverse consequences.
7) Is it completely and utterly repulsive to make political hay out of murders?
8) Which would you find more insulting: to be called a fucking moron, or to be told you ought to be apologizing to McVeigh’s victims for encouraging him?
Daniel
feeling like scrubbing himself after writing the OP, even in satire
Daniel, I understand your motivation(and frustration!), but I’d just like to take a calm second to remind you that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
I don’t get what the big deal is about that other thread. The fact is, the terrorist advocated attacking to undermine Bush’s position so he could be voted out. Now, if that happens, who will be President? A Democrat.
Whether you like december and his partisan nonsense or not, the fact remains that the dude is advocating taking actions that directly benefit Democrats.
The terrorists want to help Democrats now as much as the 1979 Iranian hostage-takers wanted to help a Republican (President Reagan) by waiting until Jan. 20th to release the hostages.
That is, in each case the foreign opponents of the USA had precisely ZERO interest in “helping” either party.
They were both insensed by the current (at the time) administration, and are doing (did) what they can (could) to embarrass, inflame and generally fuck with the Administration.
The big deal is that december suggests that Dean is responsible for the deaths of Americans by opposing the war. Although he doesn’t say that I’m similarly responsible, he says Dean “and others” should apologize to the families of slain servicemen; what separates me from Dean, except that Dean’s microphone is now bigger than mine?
The only reason you apologize to someone is if you’re responsible for a wrong done to them. What wrong is december asking for apology for? For the deaths of servicemen. That means he thinks Dean “and others” (which I believe must include me) are responsible for these deaths.
Charging people with being responsible for murders is a really, really serious charge. It’s not one to be made lightly – either my twisting the facts to accuse Republicans of being responsible for the Oklahoma 168, or december accusing Dean “and others” of being responsible for deaths in Iraq.
Call me a fucking moron if you want. Call me a bleeding heart, an unreconstructed Marxist, a mushy-minded liberal, a frothing commie – I don’t give a shit about schoolyard taunts.
But when you tell me that I’m responsible for murders, that’s fucking pushing it.
And that’s what the big deal is. I hope you can see that, Airman – you’ve always struck me as one of the thoughtful conservatives of this board, not one to stoop to using foreign deaths for snide political jabs at people, not one to poison political discourse with outrageous accusations.
Isn’t this ironic? All the posturing I hear about how Bush is for Big Business and against the working man, and now you admit that either a) You’re lying when you say it, or b) You’re a hypocrite when you say it. I mean, “Bush is in bed with Halliburton and Eli Lilly and Enron and [name your favorite big company here] and makes the rich richer and puts such a heavy burden on the working class” argument disappears if you really believe what you said above.