Hard News: Swine flu, terror and Susan Boyle
613 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
"Afterwards, we discussed our plans for moidering Mother..."
Now I know why she changed the spelling.
-
Really, I'm tired of this.
then stop with the last wordism and move on.
so someone disagrees with you, big deal. you're old enough to handle it and either debunk it or avoid it.
if I'm all it takes to undo you bring on the real terrorists.
I disagree with you on some things. only some. not everything.
get back to your chat with Brickley, it was interesting. -
I just don't see what Rob's point was with that 'it should be acknowledged' comment.
You get used to it. Anyway, must go make a television programme. I presume one of our guests will have interesting gossip.
-
get back to your chat with Brickley, it was interesting.
For you maybe. Not so much for the rest of us, perhaps.
-
Isn't terrorism supposed to be organised by a group?
I/S listed all the violence since 1977, and whilst I deplore every act of violence, it's not a lot for a country of _millions_ of people. If this is a concerted terrorist effort, frankly, it sucks.
Compare it with actual agreed terrorist organisations, say the IRA. In the "Troubles" hundreds died, in the worst year, 1972, 476 people were killed and this in a country tiny by comparison to America.
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/deaths_by_year.html
The man who murdered Tiller wasn't acting as part of a group as far as we know. No pro-life group has stepped forward and claimed responsibility, in fact so far they have all distanced themselves from the action.
-
Last wordism? That's rich.
-
Tess, there's a difference between an organisation and a movement. Individuals count, as discussed upthread. The whole thing is just a red herring.
-
Isn't terrorism supposed to be organised by a group?
Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh. And of course Russell's point stands. He was one of the few doctors prepared to perform abortions after the twentieth week not because it's illegal, or because his profession has ethical problems with the practice, but because of the intimidation. The most compelling reason why it makes sense to say that this was an act of terrorism is precisely that it is consistent with the campaign of violence against doctors who perform abortions, of which Tiller was one of the most visible.
-
You get used to it.
I haven't followed a lot of his posting. Is he just a bit dim, then? Feeling the need to point out what is obvious to everyone else?
-
The man who murdered Tiller wasn't acting as part of a group as far as we know.
Neither were Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph, but they all had associations with similar groups (Rudolph both before and after he bombed a clinic). It seems to be a "lone wolf" style. But that doesn't make it not terrorism.
Compare it with actual agreed terrorist organisations, say the IRA. In the "Troubles" hundreds died, in the worst year, 1972, 476 people were killed and this in a country tiny by comparison to America.
Or you could bundle up all the people killed in attacks by people from the Freemen/militia/extreme-pro-life world. There are many hundreds there.
If this is a concerted terrorist effort, frankly, it sucks.
Well, clearly, it works pretty well if there are only two doctors in America prepared to carry out a legal procedure.
-
it's not a lot for a country of _millions_ of people
It's a lot when abortion providers number below 2000 (I found numbers: Between 1996 and 2000, the number of U.S. abortion providers declined by 11 percent -- from 2,042 to 1,819. In the year 2000, 87 percent of U.S. counties did not have an abortion provider). The low death toll can be attributed to the small number of targets, not the tender beauty of all the rosary-praying people at the clinic entrance.
Also: pray at home, people. Hovering outside the gate with beads is just a fake-assed way of intimidating women and their families and friends.
-
I just don't see what Rob's point was with that 'it should be acknowledged' comment.
my point was Brickley was going at it like this was a court of law and its an opinion site. Brickley had a point, but the point didn't really matter to this forum, it would have mattered in a court of law, but not here.
You get used to it.
really?, and you have a go at me with what you perceive to be loaded insult comments. that one was straight up and to the point.
-
Why the terrorism label, but not assassination? I think that is a better term for what happened to Tiller.
It's a shame that people use such violent rhetoric, it's highly unhelpful. Whilst I think that what Tiller did professionally was morally wrong, the protests need to be directed at government level in order to change the law.
I'd also be keen for hand guns to be generally got rid of too. Not that one needs a hand gun to kill, but it is a very specific weapon designed for shooting people.
-
Tess, the actions of that movement are violent, deliberate and well beyond "unhelpful". Your discomfort about a spade being called a spade is your problem.
-
Is he just a bit dim, then?
yeah, thats it steve, well spotted.
can I step out of this one now so you can get on with your beat up of the next guy?
I did say leave me out of this, and I don't know why some don't learn, just don't mention me in your posts that I have no interest in and I'm not here, simple as that, you'd think, -
I did say leave me out of this
So stop going on about it. Christ, I think I just figured out how the copyright thread got to 100 pages.
-
"Well, clearly, it works pretty well if there are only two doctors in America prepared to carry out a legal procedure."
I'm suspicious of this statistic because late term abortion are done several different ways. I'd be highly surprised if there weren't more clinics and hospitals offering early induction to terminate the fetus. That's how most late term abortions are done in New Zealand.
-
my point was Brickley was going at it like this was a court of law and its an opinion site. Brickley had a point, but the point didn't really matter to this forum, it would have mattered in a court of law, but not here.
You're kidding, right? That's your explanation for:
personally I like my journalism as close to fact as possible, but maybe what russell does isn't journalism, its opinion piece, and if so it should be acknowledged as such.
You weren't making a distinction between a court of law and a blog forum, you were making a distinction between journalism and 'opinion piece'. And putting aside the obvious snark,the opinion aspect of the blog is obvious: how does it need "acknowledging"?
Or maybe you just worded that really, really poorly, and you think Brickley is a bit dense. With those two assumptions, I can see why you wrote it.
-
So stop going on about it. Christ, I think I just figured out how the copyright thread got to 100 pages.
Oh Giovanni, stop with your last wordism.
-
So stop going on about it. Christ, I think I just figured out how the copyright thread got to 100 pages.
Yep. Every second post. It's a case study in confused narcisism.
-
how does it need "acknowledging"?
it needs to be remembered
and yeah, it was poorly worded,
I should have specifically said in PA or in articles where it is specifically from Russell's personal point of view.
its got nothing to do with dense, its got to do with continually challenging the information we get, what we read hear and see.
Is there a problem with that? -
Tess, the actions of that movement are violent, deliberate and well beyond "unhelpful". Your discomfort about a spade being called a spade is your problem.
I'm not discomforted, I am just unsure of how appropriate the term is. The vast majority of pro-life protests are legal and non-violent.
Certainly in New Zealand the last piece of violent rhetoric about abortion would have been the youtube video about Ken Orr which showed a gun being pointed at his head.
Suppose the situation was reversed and someone murdered Ken Orr, what would you have to say about that?
-
I think I just figured out how the copyright thread got to 100 pages.
come on tiso, you filled a lot of those pages with your continual harping on at poor old mark and his 'word'. I'm not taking the blame for that. and its 104 pages thank you very much.
-
I'm not discomforted, I am just unsure of how appropriate the term is. The vast majority of pro-life protests are legal and non-violent.
I think what we're discussing is one particular pro-life 'protest', not all of them.
(For some reason I feel like 20 people have made this point before me).
-
Not one isolated event either. To be fair, it is part of a particular movement that is a small subset of anti-abortion protest.
However, the sensitivity upthread seemed to arise at the slightest suggesion that such protest could be associated in any way with deliberate initimidatory violence. It is, just like Catholic church remains tainted by not taking action over many years against its paedophile priests.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.