Pvt. William A. Long: Comment from the Whitehouse?

[mheslep]

Seven days ago on May 31 Dr Tiller was murdered; the motivation was clearly Tiller's occupation. The Whitehouse http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-From-The-President-On-The-Murder-Of-DR-George-Tiller/" an appropriate statement of shock and outrage within hours on the same day. Press Secretary Gibbs has also subsequently mentioned the Tiller killing.

Six days ago http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02recruit.html" . Since the murder the Commander-in-Chief has made the following statement about the loss of one his own simply because he wore the uniform: nothing. I find that more than disappointing. There is still no mention of Long anywhere on the Whitehouse web site.

 

[Cyrus]

Can you really not see the difference here?

One is a professional soldier, the other is a doctor. I'm disappointed that you're disappointed.

 

[mheslep]

Can you really not see the difference here?

One is a professional soldier, the other is a doctor. I'm disappointed that you're disappointed.

Why can't you be bothered to go past the smug hand waiving and explain or argue why? Long was a member of the US armed forced standing on a corner in the middle of his own country. President Obama is also a member of the US armed forces. He should bother himself to make a statement.

 

[kyleb]

The obvious difference is that we have a rather large faction of our population which condones violence against abortion providers compared to the few nutcases who support attacking our troops.

 

[mheslep]

This is not only about US troops, though it warrants special attention from the President because of that fact. It is also about radical Islamic or jihadist based violence in this country.

Regarding the obviousness of who condones what:
Before the Tiller tragedy, the last anti-abortion murder or attempted murder was apparently
-1998, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Slepian"

In the last few years for Islamic/jihadist related violence in the US we have:
-May 2009. Four arrested attempting to http://www.nypost.com/seven/05202009/news/regionalnews/bronx/ny_terror_plot_foiled_170221.htm"
-May 2007. Eight men arrested for Ft. Dix massacre plan.
-July 2006. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003159826_webbelltown28.html" .
-Sept 2005. Indictment of four Muslim men for planning a massacre at an LA synagogue.
and so on.

 

[russ_watters]

Can you really not see the difference here?

One is a professional soldier, the other is a doctor. I'm disappointed that you're disappointed.

So what are you saying? That people don't care if soldiers get killed because they are soldiers?

I agree with mheslep - yeah, they are different, but that difference doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the point of the OP -- or maybe that's the whole point of the OP! Either way, you didn't address the point at all!

 

[russ_watters]

The obvious difference is that we have a rather large faction of our population which condones violence against abortion providers compared to the few nutcases who support attacking our troops.

That's not quite how I see it.

There are a lot of murders in the US - some get a lot of attention and some don't. The ones that get attention are the ones that are particularly gruesome, unusual, or connected to popular political causes. Abortion is a popular political cause, so the murder of an abortion doctor gets attention.

Now it is a little surprising to me that in this day an age an act of domestic terrorism is so ignored (and I'm partly guilty of forgetting it too - I saw a brief news story about it and then forgot about it).

The response from the White House was purely political: abortion is a hot issue so he needs to address it or it might hurt him politically.

 

[Astronuc]

Seven days ago on May 31 Dr Tiller was murdered; the motivation was clearly Tiller's occupation. The Whitehouse issued an appropriate statement of shock and outrage within hours on the same day. Press Secretary Gibbs has also subsequently mentioned the Tiller killing.

Six days ago two US soldiers were shot while idling outside a recruiting station in Arkansas and Pvt. William A. Long was killed. This murder was also certainly only connected to Long's occupation: US soldier. The assailant, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam, was "upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

. . . . Since the murder the Commander-in-Chief has made the following statement about the loss of one his own simply because he wore the uniform: nothing. I find that more than disappointing. There is still no mention of Long anywhere on the Whitehouse web site.

That's a glaring inconsistency, especially for a Commander-in-Chief.

One does not express disagreement by murdering those with who one disagrees!

This shooting closely follows the arrest of several Muslim men for planning to blow up two NY synagogues.

I believe these guys were converts, and they had prior criminal records. Their actions should not taint those who faithfully practice their religion.

 

[Astronuc]

One is a professional soldier, the other is a doctor.

Both were unarmed, both were doing their calling, and both were human beings.

Murder is murder.

 

[kyleb]

This is not only about US troops, though it warrants special attention from the President because of that fact. It is also about radical Islamic or jihadist based violence in this country.

How did you come to your conclusion that the murderer is a radical Islamist? I've not seen much details on him, but from what I have seen I get the impression he was some misanthrope that snapped, and who is Muslim to some extent or another. I've seen nothing to suggest he was some jihadist bent on killing unbelievers and ushering in a global Caliphate or anything of the sort.

Regarding the obviousness of who condones what:

If you'd like to address my comment about who condones what, then please do so rather than abstracting to a list of who planed and carried out what. Also, if you insist on making such a list, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Incidents_in_the_United_States".

The response from the White House was purely political: abortion is a hot issue so he needs to address it or it might hurt him politically.

I agree with your comments up until here, but I don't see where there would have been any concern of political fallout for not commenting on the assassination. Seems more likely to me that Obama rather felt it important to put a reality check on the many who marked Dr. Tiller as worthy of death. And again, in the case of the murder of Pvt. Long, the minuscule number of nutcases who praise that don't rightly merritt any such attention.

 

[LowlyPion]

Honestly, you are really reaching to find a grievance against Obama.

What are there 10,000 deaths from firearms in the US yearly? Is Obama supposed to issue a press release for every one? Does anyone here know for a fact that he made no comment about the death of this Private? Or more to the point, explicitly refused to comment about his death? Expressed no concern about the senseless loss of a Private's life?

Or is the real issue that Obama's comment and the doctor's murder has been highly reported in the media because it was sensational. It's a horror that a broad number of church going and not church going people can relate to. It was the slaying of a Doctor in church. It was the slaying of a man targeted by those that do not want to lawfully find common ground, but rather prefer to take the Law in their own hands.

There is a reported response maybe because he was asked, and it deserved an answer, and he did. Maybe because it was a crime so symbolically abhorrent as to what it says about the Country as a whole, about the conduct of discussions of domestic policy - that a man would be targeted and hounded and branded and attacked - in ideologically repugnant rhetoric - until some weak brained individual succumbed to the mean spirited propaganda - and acted to make a martyr of the Doctor, and exposed this hypocritical so called "reverence for life" of those that had hounded him until he was slain.

 

[mheslep]

...Now it is a little surprising to me that in this day an age an act of domestic terrorism is so ignored (and I'm partly guilty of forgetting it too - I saw a brief news story about it and then forgot about it). ..

That's understandable as there has been little mention of the event in the media, relative to the Tiller murder.

 

[skippy1729]

The obvious difference is that we have a rather large faction of our population which condones violence against abortion providers compared to the few nutcases who support attacking our troops.

"large faction" ? This is an extreme exaggeration. There may be few religious zealots who might say he got what he deserved. They in no way represent the overwhelming majority or pro-life Americans who are committed to non-violence.

"few nutcases" ? 5 or 10 percent of 1.5 billion Muslims, let's see, that is 75 million, minimum.

As far as the White House is concerned, they seem to be on a mission to insult our allies and not offend our enemies.

Cheers, Skippy

 

[Cyrus]

Seven days ago on May 31 Dr Tiller was murdered; the motivation was clearly Tiller's occupation. The Whitehouse http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-From-The-President-On-The-Murder-Of-DR-George-Tiller/" an appropriate statement of shock and outrage within hours on the same day. Press Secretary Gibbs has also subsequently mentioned the Tiller killing.

Six days ago http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02recruit.html" . Since the murder the Commander-in-Chief has made the following statement about the loss of one his own simply because he wore the uniform: nothing. I find that more than disappointing. There is still no mention of Long anywhere on the Whitehouse web site.

Oh, I misread the post! I thought you said they were shot at a station in Afghanistan by terrorists! (That changes things drastically)

In which case, I agree with you.

 

[kyleb]

"large faction" ?

Context is key:

The obvious difference is that we have a rather large faction of our population which condones violence against abortion providers compared to the few nutcases who support attacking our troops.

Understood?

 

[drankin]

The obvious difference is that we have a rather large faction of our population which condones violence against abortion providers compared to the few nutcases who support attacking our troops.

Source? I don't know of any large faction that condones violence against abortion providers. This is a completely false allegation.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd also like to know what that fraction is...

[edit - it was pointed out that I missed that word: it is "faction" not "fraction". Still, substantiation required]

 

[mheslep]

Oh, I misread the post! I thought you said they were shot at a station in Afghanistan by terrorists! (That changes things drastically)

In which case, I agree with you.

I expect that's a frequent oversight -'soldier shot ... must be Iraq/Afgan.' - enabled by the slight coverage of Pvt Long's murder in the media. Lexus Nexus shows 10:1, Dr Tiller: Pvt Long. TV is probably worse yet.

 

[kyleb]

Source? I don't know of any large faction that condones violence against abortion providers. This is a completely false allegation.

I wasn't quoting anyone, and I really don't see how this can be honestly be denied by anyone paying even just the slightest bit of attention here. However, since you have insisted on a source, a bit of Googling turned up http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html" .

 

[drankin]

I wasn't quoting anyone, and I really don't see how this can be honestly be denied by anyone paying even just the slightest bit of attention here. However, since you have insisted on a source, a bit of Googling turned up http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html" .

In other words, you cannot provide any evidence of this "large faction" that condones violence you were referring to. Your allegation was complete BS. I'll take your post as an acknowledgment of this fact.

 

[LowlyPion]

Since the murder the Commander-in-Chief has made the following statement about the loss of one his own simply because he wore the uniform: nothing.

This is factually incorrect. Obama made a statement. You didn't find it.:

“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/04/obama.arkansas.shooting/index.html

He issued the statement several days before the OP here. This is simply a fake issue as far as I am concerned. It is the kind of deconstructed niggling and ankle biting that serves no purpose, but add to the amplification of rancor that the party not in power would hope to regain control by. Is the right wing so determined to return to power, even after their disastrous stewardship of the last 8 years, that they would tear the country down further, just to do it?

 

[kyleb]

In other words, you cannot provide any evidence of this "large faction" that condones violence you were referring to. Your allegation was complete BS. I'll take your post as an acknowledgment of this fact.

Can you provide any evidence of any faction of US citizens who condone attacking our troops even approaching the size of that which condones violence against abortion providers? Or should I take your post as an acknowledgment of your inability to understand the context of the phrase in question, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2234328&postcount=15"?

 

[drankin]

Can you provide any evidence of any faction of US citizens who condone attacking our troops even approaching the size of that which condones violence against abortion providers? Or should I take your post as an acknowledgment of your inability to understand the context of the phrase in question, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2234328&postcount=15"?

I'm not the one that suggested a "faction" of any kind was doing anything. You are the one that made the completely unfounded allegation. I simply called BS on it. And now you are caught trying to make a convincing argument. It's ok, it happens to me sometimes. Unlike yourself, I just shut up when it's obvious I'm wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

I wasn't quoting anyone, and I really don't see how this can be honestly be denied by anyone paying even just the slightest bit of attention here. However, since you have insisted on a source, a bit of Googling turned up http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html" .

Kyleb, your comment was that "a large fraction condones violence" [emphasis added]. The first link you gave is on point: the person did, in fact, advocate violence. The second link is not. Nowhere in the clip does OReilly say he condones violence against abortion doctors (Tiller).

Kyleb, you need to address this problem with your posts rapidly. You need to substantiate or retract these two (paraphrased) claims:

1. A large fraction of the US population advocates violence against abortion doctors.
2. Bill O'Reilly advocates violence against abortion doctors.

 

[Gokul43201]

Kyleb, you need to address this problem with your posts rapidly. You need to substantiate or retract these two (paraphrased) claims:

1. A large fraction of the US population advocates violence against abortion doctors.
2. Bill O'Reilly advocates violence against abortion doctors.

I haven't watched the video so can't comment on the second point, but if you go back and read the posts, you will find that kyleb never made the assertion that you have attributed to him in #1 above.

Here's what he did say: "The obvious difference is that we have a rather large faction of our population which condones violence against abortion providers compared to the few nutcases who support attacking our troops."

While that is obviously different from #1, it still needs to be substantiated for the comparison to be accepted as more than just an opinion.

But more importantly, this entire thread is moot, given post #21.

 

[BoomBoom]

Kyleb, your comment was that "a large fraction condones violence" [emphasis added].

I believe his original statement claimed a large faction (not fraction).

I'm sure there are a number of groups that support anti-abortion violence but maybe try looking up "Army of God" for starters. http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/army_god.html"


This thread is somewhat pointless anyways, as Lowly Pion just linked Obama's response to that attack a couple of posts above...thus rendering the OP's claim completely false anyways.


EDIT: ahhh Gokul kinda beat me to the punch there :)

 

[russ_watters]

I haven't watched the video so can't comment on the second point, but if you go back and read the posts, you will find that kyleb never made the assertion that you have attributed to him in #1 above.

Here's what he did say: "The obvious difference is that we have a rather large faction of our population which condones violence against abortion providers compared to the few nutcases who support attacking our troops."

While that is obviously different from #1, it still needs to be substantiated for the comparison to be accepted as more than just an opinion.

I believe his original statement claimed a large faction (not fraction).

Clarifications noted - you are correct.

 

[russ_watters]

This is factually incorrect. Obama made a statement. You didn't find it.

On that note, there is nothing left to discuss. Thread locked.