It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

“WikiLeaks: treat incitement seriously or expect more Gabrielle Gifford killing sprees.”

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
As of yet, NO POLITICAL MOTIVATION has been found in regard to Loughner's case and NO evidence has been found, anecdotal or otherwise, to suggest that rhetoric from either side of the American body politic had anything to do with this.


This is true. No political motivation has been found. Loughner seems to be quite non-political, in fact, in the normal sense of the word. He clearly had a personal issue with Giffords and he is also quite insane, by all appearances.

HOWEVER, when this first happened, for me, the natural thought process was to think that it may have been political (because she's a politician), and then search for possible motivations. The vast majority of us thought it probably had to do with the political atmosphere today. Why? Because it makes logical sense. And we all found it VERY easy to believe that this might be driven by the hateful political rhetoric we hear every day, and warned about months ago. Because that's how it happens.

Then we found out we were wrong (or I did, anyway). It wasn't Sarah Palin's cross hairs that motivated JLL. It was something entirely different that I don't understand (insanity). But the fact that so many people are willing to attribute it to politics tells us something and I believe it's important to listen to it: We all recognize that it's REASONABLE to think that a person who attempts to kill a politician in a shooting spree would be motivated by the horrible political hatred, division and rhetoric we see in the country today. Just because it didn't happen here doesn't mean it won't. And shall we wait until a 9-year-old girl IS killed by someone motivated by the political rhetoric before we decide to tone it down? This should be a lesson to us all. We should be holding our political employees to a higher standard. We shouldn't accept them talking about killing each other or inciting the crazy among us to take things into their hands.

This event is a warning and should be taken as such. No, JLL didn't kill for political reasons (as far as we know), but are we really willing to wait till someone IS killed by incitement before we tone it down? I am NOT! There's no reason for people to be talking about reloading and targeting their opponents with cross hairs. There's NO reason for them to be talking about Second Amendment Remedies, executing or neutralizing those with whom they disagree. And there's ABSOLUTELY no reason for our government officials and news commentators to be pushing this idea, metaphorically or otherwise.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



We all recognize that it's REASONABLE to think that a person who attempts to kill a politician in a shooting spree would be motivated by the horrible political hatred, division and rhetoric we see in the country today.


I don't believe it is reasonable. I believe it is a product of rah, rah'ing political zealotry. The people on the left like Krugman wanted it to be someone from the Tea Party SO BAD that they couldn't even contain themselves long enough to get any of their facts in first.

I found myself actually changing the channel from CNN to FOX effing News to get away from the anti-TP hyperbole, and you know what I found out? FOX was the ONLY channel that wasn't injecting political dribble into the situation only minutes and hours after the shots were fired.

I know this doesn't describe you. I know that not everyone on the left thinks this way...But some big players seriously stepped in it, and in the same breath they used to demonize people like me, Tea Party PATRIOTS, they urged a ratcheting down in rhetoric...Well, not their rhetoric just that of Fox and the TP people, neither of which, in my experience, has advocated political killings against the left...The Left, however, had these going during the Bush admin. Now I'm not Bush defender, I want to see that dude rot in jail for lying us into war, erecting a National Security Paranoia State and, to a free-marketeer like me, saying these words "I had to abandon my free-market principles in order to save the free-market"...Yeah, but having him killed? Never.

Unlike my friends on the right and left, I have no vested interest in defending democrats or republicans when they are violating the Constitution, or when they lie and obfuscate ANY issues to suit there agenda. If you can't win in the free-market of ideas then it is time to revisit your ideas, not lash out with gun in hand...But I stress, THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL RHETORIC in this country. We're only having this discussion because the HuffPo, and Krugman, and that dumb as rocks Sheriff thought it appropriate to drag ideology into a situation without having any facts to support it...Now they disguise it as a genuine concern for the tone of the politics in the country when they realized the narrative they were trying to create didn't pan out. How utterly transparent.

I've never, other than policy disagreements, had such a bad taste in my mouth with respect to the left, but today, I find myself more and more disgusted with them. I used to be right there next to them going to the anti-war protests, signing petitions, supporting democratic candidates, all the while thinking these people actually care about the Constitution.

There are very few Democrats left that aren't really socialists or progressives, and it is those two groups that have poisoned the political atmosphere calling racism when it isn't there, and now pointing an accusatory finger at Palin, the Tea Party, or anything they deem to "right" as the culprits in a murderous spree that had nothing to do with me, my weapons, my hi-cap magazines, or my politics. It is disgusting and anyone with a brain can see it.

edit on 11-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
I don't believe it is reasonable.


I know there were some who didn't jump to conclusions. But most of us did. That's why I say it was a reasonable assumption. I'm saying that it's understandable, in the politically charged atmosphere we find ourselves in, to look at political motivation when a politician gets shot. I don't see how you can disagree with that.

Now once the facts start coming out, we need to drop our previous suspicions and go with the facts, but people's attachments to their politics prevents them from admitting that they were wrong and they just look harder for evidence that proves their initial suspicion.


I saw a segment on Keith Olbermann last night that was so OBVIOUSLY aimed at blaming the right, all the while he was acting like he was being fair and impartial... I laughed so hard! People want SO BADLY for this to be Sarah Palin's fault that they're falling all over themselves trying to make it sound like it is. But that's sensational news. Maybe FOX was more rational about THIS subject, but had it been death panels or some anti-left fantasy being discussed, they'd be in it up to their necks as well. Both sides are guilty of capitalizing on the story of the day.


FOX was the ONLY channel that wasn't injecting political dribble into the situation only minutes and hours after the shots were fired.


Of course they weren't! They were probably just as suspicious as the rest of us were, but they're not going to after their golden girl as the cause! FOX supports Sarah. Of course they're not going to, in ANY way, come across as blaming political rhetoric, because their 'team' is famous for it and their girl would be the number one suspect. Of course they avoided it like the plague. But had someone on the left been suspected of inciting this, you can bet FOX would have been all over it like stink on poop.



I know this doesn't describe you. I know that not everyone on the left thinks this way...


I hate it that people think I'm "on the left". Stand up for equal treatment under the law for gay people and everybody labels you as a leftie.



The Left, however, had these going during the Bush admin.


I agree that this current climate (I think it goes in waves) started with the Bush administration. And I happen to think that his presidency started the division and hatred we're seeing today. So what? Does it really matter? Here we are here. We need to go forth from here. My feeling is that the left AND the right are guilty and they BOTH need to straighten up their acts.



Unlike my friends on the right and left, I have no vested interest in defending democrats or republicans when they are violating the Constitution, or when they lie and obfuscate ANY issues to suit there agenda.


Ummm. Neither do I .




We're only having this discussion because the HuffPo, and Krugman, and that dumb as rocks Sheriff thought it appropriate to drag ideology into a situation without having any facts to support it.


Not true in my case (and I'll bet I'm not the only one). When I heard that a Congresswoman had been shot, I immediately thought it was probably political. I had to look her up to see which party she belonged to. When I saw she was a democrat, I suspected someone anti-left, whether it be someone claiming the label of Tea Party or Republican, I automatically suspected them. Why? Because of the politically-charged atmosphere I've been witnessing for months now. Back in March, when bullets and rocks were going through windows and racial slurs were being thrown around, I became concerned that something bad would happen if we didn't reign it in. And I thought this was a result. That's before I even looked at or heard a news story about it. So HuffPo and Krugman (whomever he is) had nothing to do with it for me.



I've never, other than policy disagreements, had such a bad taste in my mouth with respect to the left, but today, I find myself more and more disgusted with them.


Well, I am disgusted, too, but not surprised. Likewise with the right. But that is nothing new. I've never been a fan of political parties. Yeah, the right is in defense mode now, but give it a month for the subject to change and the right will be on the attack just like the left is now. The point is that no one is innocent here. And whether or not we let this event further the divide among us is our responsibility. I refuse to let the MSM games make me feel one way or another. They are worthless and don't deserve my serious consideration.



There are very few Democrats left that aren't really socialists or progressives,


And there are very few Republicans left that aren't really neocons or oligarchist. What's the point? That our government is filled with extremists? Yes, you're right.



and it is those two groups that have poisoned the political atmosphere


It's looking dangerously like your perspective isn't as neutral as I thought it was.
In THIS particular event, yes, the left is losing its marbles, but to blame the poisonous political atmosphere on the left alone is, IMO, to ignore the HUGE part the right has played in this little drama. I could list a bunch of examples, but I won't. I'll just suggest that you step back and look at the whole picture (not just the past 4 days) to gain a little perspective.
edit on 1/11/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


No, my perspective is not neutral and I never claimed it to be.

I'm discussing the left in this because THEY were the ones who decided to leech on to the bodies of the dead and use the blood they sucked out of the corpses for political gain....And in this instance that fault falls squarely on the left.

(My apologies if I assumed too much of your political leanings.)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Here is someone's opinion who was directly impacted by the shootings in a way unimaginable for me...



I am profoundly humbled by this father's ability to separate the tragedy of his daughter's murder and the politics.

Simply amazing.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
(My apologies if I assumed too much of your political leanings.)


Likewise.



Originally posted by loam
I am profoundly humbled by this father's ability to separate the tragedy of his daughter's murder and the politics.


Something we can all aspire to. What a difficult situation he's facing. As, of course, are all the families of the victims of this tragedy. But his ability to be rational about preserving the freedoms that are so important to us is really amazing!



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Something we can all aspire to. What a difficult situation he's facing. As, of course, are all the families of the victims of this tragedy. But his ability to be rational about preserving the freedoms that are so important to us is really amazing!


Indeed. THAT is a true display of selflessness.

I can't help but wonder if I would measure up under similar circumstances?
edit on 11-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


There are very few Democrats left that aren't really socialists or progressives, and it is those two groups that have poisoned the political atmosphere calling racism when it isn't there, and now pointing an accusatory finger at Palin, the Tea Party, or anything they deem to "right" as the culprits in a murderous spree that had nothing to do with me, my weapons, my hi-cap magazines, or my politics. It is disgusting and anyone with a brain can see it.:flame


This is quite similar to someone saying that there are very few Republicans who aren't really fascists or theocracists. Then throwing out some random example that helps hide the real issues the country is facing. It's very typical of the hate and good versus evil type politics that is destroying this country. Everyone one that slightly disagrees with a persons political views must be painted as the opposite extreme on that persons political stance.

I can understand why such rhetoric is used. It's far easier to paint your enemy as bad/evil than it is to run on issues and solutions. It's also it's far easier and profitable to make a political show when you simply spew forth hate and stereotypes instead of discussing real solutions to problems. So we end up with cries of socialism, they want to take our guns, terrorist lovers, corporate shills, abortionist, racist, fascists, religious nuts, communist, they hate our freedoms, bible thumpers and so forth while the real issues are ignored.

I have to agree that if the country doesn't start coming together to some degree and instead continues down the road of division politics, we will see violence. A lot of other countries that has gone down this road has either seen constant violence over the years or destroyed the political party with fewer resources by force.


edit on 11-1-2011 by Kaploink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


Indeed, there aren't very many Republicans left that aren't fascists...But republicans didn't use a mass killing for political gain. This would make it the SECOND time that the left has done this...The first being the OK city bombings in '95. That was attributable to right wing extremism, but even so, how many other right wingers left their house that day to bomb a building full of children?

It sucks to be painted with wide brush strokes...but it is very easy to see who's doing the painting and for what reasons...What I have witnessed out of the left over the last few days has me very angry, very sad, and very depressed.

I can deal with being called a racist, I can deal with being called an extremist, I can deal with a lot of things because of my affiliation with the TP. I'm expecting to get called all kinds of things. But what I can't deal with, is using death for political opportunism.

Bush did this in the aftermath of 9/11. Before 9/11 the man was seen as a complete douche, in the two years following 9/11 that bastard milked the event for every drop of blood to advance an agenda that has created the environment and bitterness we see today.

I learned back then that the ends don't justify the means.
edit on 11-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange said: "No organisation anywhere in the world is a more devoted advocate of free speech than Wikileaks but when senior politicians and attention seeking media commentators call for specific individuals or groups of people to be killed they should be charged with incitement -- to murder. Those who call for an act of murder deserve as significant share of the guilt as those raising a gun to pull the trigger."


"Those who call for an act of murder deserve as significant share of the guilt as those raising a gun to pull the trigger."

I will go a step further and say that all those who support a system that would approve and allow such a thing also has blood on their hands. Those who even support those who are calling for blood, whether they voted them in, contribute financially to their causes, or even by apathy of not standing up against it....are ALL blood guilty in their participation of supporting an evil regime that would allow and promote such things. This would apply to all---great and small---who uphold a system that allows these things to be said or worse, done.

Those who call for the blood of Assange are those who love wickedness. They are creatures of the darkness. These are the ones who find advantage and gain in this evil system and butter their bread with innocent lives. Those who call for strangling the voice of truth are the ones who fear the exposure of their own dark evil deeds. The devils are showing their horns. Take your stand.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
But republicans didn't use a mass killing for political gain.


Not in the past few days, but as you said later in your post, Bush (AND the Republicans) used 9/11 for ALL it was worth. Rudy Giuliani - anyone? They milked that sucker dry! And they still are! The whole terrorism fear campaign is the direct result of the fear mongering of the right.

Perspective...


Originally posted by Alethea
"Those who call for an act of murder deserve as significant share of the guilt as those raising a gun to pull the trigger."


I completely disagree! No matter what the motivation, the person who raises the gun is 100% responsible.


Take your stand.


I just did.

edit on 1/11/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Very true.

Giuliani will probably be feeding off of 9/11 until he's dead.

I'm not saying there's no guilt at all for republicans.
But I'm focusing on the last few days because that's
what we're all talking about here.


________________________________

Just remember that some people do NOT believe in the individual at all. They believe in collectivism...Everything is about the overall community, including punishment.
edit on 11-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
There was rhetoric and opportunism here...that's undeniable and probably unavoidable despite our best efforts at calmly and logically calling attention to it. Our best efforts fall miserably short when we're up against hypocrisy such as this stellar example from our too powerful mainstream media and pundits, who do their best to incite even if they have to speak out of both sides of their mouths to do it.

A Tale of Two Sheriffs: Right-Wing Media Assails One AZ Sheriff For Condemning Vitriol; Praises Another Who Attacks Left ***

With leadership and reporting (and I use both terms loosely) like this, no wonder people are dazed and confused and spinning.

*** If I were assigning a headline to this article, I would not have said "Right-Wing Media" at all but just "Media." I believe that terms such as right wing and left wing have become inciteful in and of themselves for many people and that simply seeing "Right-Wing" in that headline will prevent an intelligent discussion of this from many people.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
*** If I were assigning a headline to this article, I would not have said "Right-Wing Media" at all but just "Media." I believe that terms such as right wing and left wing have become inciteful in and of themselves for many people and that simply seeing "Right-Wing" in that headline will prevent an intelligent discussion of this from many people.


LOVE this! That's what I'm trying to point out. When we choose a side to condemn, it implies that "our side" is a little better and can be somewhat excused. That's NOT the case! Don't be fooled into thinking that most Democrats or most Republicans are not as guilty as the other side. It's a fool's game. They're both completely guilty because they're both the same people! The intention is for us to use things like this to divide ourselves and cement our positions on "our side" even more. The division is a little more concrete every time we decide to point fingers at ONE side or the other. It's a mind game. Don't play!



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Thanks and you're so right. It's a mind game. And I don't think most people have any idea of just how powerful a game it is either...simple words can so lead us...and the thing is many people in power know this and use it.

Innocuous seeming headlines like this are so widespread that even someone who is hyperaware and makes a concerted and conscious effort to avoid the game can still fall into the trap in day-to-day discussions. Or has to make the choice to either point it out (not usually an easy or popular thing to do) or avoid discussion entirely (not something I'd encourage but sometimes that's the seems the only sane choice). For examples of the latter, see almost anything posted in Political Madness.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by projectvxn


I disagree that it is a false comparison. The comments made against Wikileaks, the violent rhetoric used by Obama (examples of this are on other threads in other contexts, that of Bush befor him and of other politicians and violent rhetoric used by Kerry and Palin with regard to Gabrielle Giffords specifically - all these have an EFFECT. In fact, they glorify violence and assassination.

There is NO place for violence in a democracy, yet people accept that the CIA kills people, so much so that it has become the norm and has become accepted as a practice and an aspect of rhetoric used by many in positions of power and influence. It is frankly outrageous, barbaric and totally unacceptable and cannot be justified. It is this kind of 'acceptance' which now allows the President to have a secret 'hit list' of people to be assassinated.

To say this kind of rhetoric has no effect is ridiculous. Collectively, this kind of rhetoric can and WILL influence those who are mentally ill and potentially dangerous, particularly when the rhetoric 'glorifies' assassination for political or other ends. Let's not get lost in semantics here, assassination is a word which puts a more acceptable gloss on criminal, cold blooded murder. That is what the President has become through his 'hit list' - a cold blooded murderer.

I disagree with those who are turning this into a R/L political issue. First, because the R/L dichotomy is a totally fabricated illusion, (and people on ATS at least should not be falling into this trap). Secondly because it is to distract from the core issue. Violent rhetoric has an effect, and directly or indirectly WILL and DOES lead to murder. Many politicians and media personnel are guilty of it, and it needs to stop.

The irony is that Congresswoman Giffords had actually made a statement less than a year ago specifically about this generally, and about the violent rhetoric which was being directed towards her personally. She made the statement in March 2009. It didn't stop, it continued. Who is to say that this rhetoric didn't influence the mind of someone mentally deranged, who bore some kind of grudge against Gabrielle Giffords and who saw assassination as some kind of heroic action. The comments by Kerry particularly, fall squarely within the 'incitement to murder' category. I don't care whether what political persuasion he is, his comments were incitement to murder and he should be permanently removed from politics.
edit on 11-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


In THIS CASE.

This one particular case that the media blew up and made it out to be about politics, turned out not to be so in any way shape or form...So you tell me, in as many words, how the rhetoric in this country relates to what happened with Mr. Loughner?

Where's the evidence that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Sarah Palin had a direct influence on this person? Where's the evidence that anything said by Tea Partiers lead this young man to go on a shooting spree?

Who are we to say he wasn't influenced by rhetoric? Really? Only everyone paying attention.

Furthermore, I am not a right winger per se. I'm a Constitutionalist Libertarian. The politics in this country are not about R/L to me. But THIS issue is about the presumptuous, preposterous, and vile accusatory posturing exemplified by the left wing media.
edit on 11-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Reading over those quotes -

With all the hatred coming from Fox News (and Ayers) aimed at Assange, it seems they are almost desperate to to discredit or destroy Wikileaks to prevent any further leaks. Are they afraid of something?

I can understand it if such sentiments came from those inside of government - but not a "news" network. From their perspective, it's newsworthy. Yet they want to bury the leaks as badly as those in the military do.

Looks like Fox News is as desperate to hide something as is the government...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by wcitizen
 


In THIS CASE.

This one particular case that the media blew up and made it out to be about politics, turned out not to be so in any way shape or form...So you tell me, in as many words, how the rhetoric in this country relates to what happened with Mr. Loughner?


As I said, the real issue isn't political, it's a social/cultural one, where across the board violent rhetoric has become widespread. As I also said, such violent rhetoric will and does have an effect, and could influence someone like Mr. Loughner who already had a grudge against Gabrielle Griffords and, from what I've read, seemed to see assassination as some kind of 'heroic' act. There is no evidence that I am aware of, of a direct link between Palin, Kerry's violent rhetoric - but both did specifically name Gabrielle Griffords as a 'target'.



Where's the evidence that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Sarah Palin had a direct influence on this person? Where's the evidence that anything said by Tea Partiers lead this young man to go on a shooting spree?


Look, I've already said I don't see this as political - the MSM is pedalling that line but it's not one I agree with. The whole political party thing is a red herring, it means nothing and I am constantly surprised when I see ATS'ters still using this line of argument.



Who are we to say he wasn't influenced by rhetoric? Really? Only everyone paying attention.

I see no evidence either way. I don't know what went through his mind, and neither do you. I believe it is a possibility given what I've already said above.

I am totally and absolutely opposed to the kind of violent rhetoric which has been and is being increasingly used by people in politics.



Furthermore, I am not a right winger per se. I'm a Constitutionalist Libertarian. The politics in this country are not about R/L to me. But THIS issue is about the presumptuous, preposterous, and vile accusatory posturing exemplified by the left wing media.
edit on 11-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Hey, there is much about the media which I disagree with and which is not just preposterous but imo verging on criminal - not least of all that they are a propaganda machine for TPTB and spew lies and disinfo. I'm not sure why you would expect them to behave any differently.... they are doing what they do so well, sensationalising, stirring up hatred and division. Why on earth would you expect them to be any different on this issue than they are on so many others?
edit on 11-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Gahhh!


You're right on a lot of points...Especially about the nature of media..

Thanks you.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join