With all the attention given to the killing of the Wichita abortion doctor, I thought that by comparison this act of domestic terrorism was hardly getting noticed.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/

As I said in the Tiller thread, you can't rationalize away the Tiller murder as "he got what was coming" and not do the same here.

Wonder why?

As I said in the Tiller thread, you can't rationalize away the Tiller murder as "he got what was coming" and not do the same here.

 

No, but you can care the less about one and have the other one bother you a great deal. As far as being rational, I don't think the concept of being rational can ever be associated with killing someone!

No, but you can care the less about one and have the other one bother you a great deal. As far as being rational, I don't think the concept of being rational can ever be associated with killing someone!

 

To be clear when I say "you cannot rationalize..." I am talking about people who react to the murder and not the actual murderer.

 

You're either OK with someone murdering in the name of "saving others" or you're not. It can't be rationalized away by making distinctions between the victims.

To be clear when I say "you cannot rationalize..." I am talking about people who react to the murder and not the actual murderer.

 

You're either OK with someone murdering in the name of "saving others" or you're not. It can't be rationalized away by making distinctions between the victims.

 

That is exactly what everyone of our wars has been about. Killing people to save other people. Like I said earlier I believe killing is wrong but I also believe that sometimes it is a necessary evil. There were a lot less killings when people lived by the "an eye for an eye" theory. I think it is a subject that most people have mixed feelings about. You seem to think you have a one track thought process on it but let me ask you, if someone brutally killed someone you loved and you had a chance to kill that person would you? if you answer yes could you rationalize the justice of the act? Just some questions for thought!

The shooter was under investigation/being watched due to a trip to Yemen , him converting to Islam, and using a fake passport.

The courier journal devoted less than three column inches to the murder and wounding of two Soldiers by a muslim terrorist and over half a page to the abortionist killing. This is on page A3 of June 2 edition.

 

I find this to be an outrage and at the same time expect this from the liberal media.

The shooter was under investigation/being watched due to a trip to Yemen , him converting to Islam, and using a fake passport.

 

I’m sure the ACLU is working on a racial profiling lawsuit as we type. :ohbrother:

I’m sure the ACLU is working on a racial profiling lawsuit as we type. :ohbrother:

 

Thank God for profiling.

To be clear when I say "you cannot rationalize..." I am talking about people who react to the murder and not the actual murderer.

 

You're either OK with someone murdering in the name of "saving others" or you're not. It can't be rationalized away by making distinctions between the victims.

 

Why not?

 

Killing a person because they killed a baby-murderer doesn't make me feel so bad. Killing a person because they recruit soldiers to kill terrorists doesn't sit well with me.

 

Why can I not make distinctions between victims?

Both Killers are terrorists and are guilty of hate crimes, and terrorism, I hope they both get the death penalty. I would like to see more attention to the one who killed the soldiers this is an attack while we are at war with people like this. I am not a big enough fool to think this guy is alone.

Why not?

 

Killing a person because they killed a baby-murderer doesn't make me feel so bad. Killing a person because they recruit soldiers to kill terrorists doesn't sit well with me.

 

Why can I not make distinctions between victims?

 

Before I answer, tell me what the distinctions are that you are making.

 

Why is it OK to kill the doctor when he did nothing illegal and the women came to him ?

I don't recall anyone here saying it was OK to kill the doctor but maybe I missed something. I don't think it was OK and I believe that the killer should be punished to the fullest extent of the law but I feel a whole lot less angst about the murder of the doctor then I do over these soldiers and I see no double standard at all.

Before I answer, tell me what the distinctions are that you are making.

 

Why is it OK to kill the doctor when he did nothing illegal and the women came to him ?

 

You like to use the Socratic method and that is fine, but first you need to tell me what you mean by "OK." If by "OK," you refer to the written law, then I did not say it was "OK." I think that the killers in both instances will probably be convicted of some level of homicide.

 

If by "OK," you simply refer to my own moral code, then the answer to me is obvious. Dr. Tiller (who incidentally, was a late-term abortionist, the last of the line, who would do what almost no other doctor would do) spent his time murdering unborn human beings. I could give a flying flip whether the law says that happens to be legal, I happen to believe the law to be wrong and the actions to be grossly morally repugnant. Therefore, the killing of him is "OK," in that I am glad that he is dead and will not be committing those actions anymore. He needed killing.

 

There is nothing obtuse about a person's differentiated "logic" (to use your term) in equating moral law with written law.

 

Both killers are going to jail. However, my moral law is outraged at the shooting of the soldier, and not at the shooting of Dr. Tiller. Since my moral code is my own (and the feeling is probably shared by many, many other people), it simply is what it is.

 

Now, your turn.