Rush Limbaugh's Tucson Billboard & Right Wing Massacre Culpability

are people personally responsible for being brainwashed from childhood. if you were born in palestine theres a good chance youd be a suicide bomber right now.

 

You're seeing that equation from a western perspective though. If you grew up over there (palestine) that would be normal for you, but because you didn't you call it wrong.

They also look at us and call us wrong because we are different from them. All life is perspective. No one is right, they are just different from one another.

One from Palestine could argue that you've been brainwashed from birth by the media and your school systems.

 

I am not sure what the comparison of apples and oranges is about with regards to the topic.

If they are brainwashed because of being raised from infants to believe in that then those who are responsible for that are just a guilty as the bomber. You are also speaking of an area that is based upon a belief system that is taught and handed down generation to generation. Regardless, that someone becomes a suicide bomber is their choice as well. To blame others for the choice of strapping on explosives and walking into civilians and killing them is not acceptable either.


That is not this situation. There is free will involved in that you make a choice to either believe what you are being told or read or not. If you believe it then you make a further choice if you act out and kill others. But each of those is free will. That is making the leap that the issue that was his point of no return is actually what everyone is assuming it was based upon his interest in these sites and political views. That is also some what interpretive of information.

He was not asked to do this by some right wing nut, he did it of his own choice.

 

I believe there are over 2500 hours (average) of right wing talk radio availible daily in the U.S. as opposed to 250 hours (average) of progressive talk radio.

Thanks for bringing up the "Fairness Doctrine" Skip.

 

but i dont kill people

 

Neither do all Islamic people.

Terrorists kill people. Not all Islamic people kill people. Not all Islamic people are terrorists. In fact an extremely small percent are.

It is no different than Christians who fight wars, Jewish people who fight wars, etc. All religions fight/ have fought wars.

Islam is not some generic hook you can hang your hat on, nor some ring to throw your hat in.

The west is greatly confused about what exactly Islam is and the beliefs they hold. It is a very peaceful and brotherly religion. It is not a terrorist organization. Do not let Fox news or CNN tell you otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people

 

doesnt your statement just prove my point. if someone is indulged in right wing conspiracy garbage their whole life and commits an atrocity because they think theyre doing it on behalf of the american people its partly the fault of the right wing conspiracy garbage. its the right that consistantly spews this violent rhetoric and some people are bound to take it to far.

the right wing nut doesnt need to give him a gun and say go kill this woman, he just needs to convince paranoid schizos that 1.they want to take your rights. 2.they want to take your religion. 3.they want to dissolve your country. 4. theres no possibility for peaceful coexistence with these people and 5.if it wasnt for these people we'd be living in a utopia. all off which is a bunch of paranoid BS that doesnt deserve a second on the air.

i posted quotes a few pages ago giving clear examples of this kind of rhetoric.

 

Since Palestine came up, everyone watch Occupation 101, it's terrific albeit terrible in showing the plight in Palestine.

 

i know most islamic people are not terrorists, thats not the point i was trying to make. islamic people compared to the west a largely uneducated and uneducated people can be easily indoctrinated. terrorists become terrorists because they are indoctrinated, not because they rationally weighed all other options. thats the point i wanted to make. even in the US country of prosperity and education some people manage to grow up very sheltered from reality. i could have used a number of examples(if you were born in nazi germany you would probably be a nazi)etc. i would never dare stereotype a muslim as a terrorist.

christianity and islam can be peaceful religions depending on how the followers interpet the holy texts, but i would argue that the bible and koran are full of god sanctioned atrocities which were considered good in the eyes of god and can just as easily be interpeted into violence.

 

No. The responsibility lies with the person.

We are talking about public statements, web sites, speeches,media that are heard or read by hundreds of thousands of people. One chose to react on his own merit.

This is not a country where information is not available regarding other points of view.

You label this as a paranoid schizophrenic reaction. That is the issue. The actions of a paraniod schizophrenic only need to make sense to them. This might of been this persons own demon but it was his. Which also makes it his choice to react to as he did.

People may read into anything as they wish but that does not necessarily mean that they are correct in what they perceive.

 

I think circumstances, generally when you feel it's the last way to right a great injustice is what drives people to terrorism more than indoctrination. For example, The Troubles, more than 3,600 people died in and out of Ireland because the Irish and English still can't get along, and this was in a well developed country with modern education.

 

but when people think the 'great injustice' is obama trying to take away their country, religion, and freedoms....due to being homeschooled by mcarthyites their whole lives, that is a product of indoctrination.

beautifully stated as your post is...i think indoctrination has a lot to do with it.

im not trying to say these people dont have a right to say what they say and think what they think, we cant force people to educate themselves i just wish coulter, beck, savage and others would be ridiculed off the air so they didnt have such a detrimental influence on society.

 

i think most people would agree that people who preached racist doctrines that led to the lynching of balck people are partially responsible for inciting the violence even though all they did was preach and write.

 

i dont know about that one but i have watched a few documentaries on the brutality of the palestine occupation. john pilger made one i forget what it was called but it really changed my perspective and tugged on my heartstrings

 

Also when I meant terrible, I meant it does such a great job at showing it it makes you feel terrible.

 

Skip,

I know this is your forum, but I strongly disagree with you on this. I hope you'll respect your statement that this is a platform for "Free Speech."

I find it inconceivable that (as of the time I write this) the majority of the folks who answer your poll think that the utterly reprehensible acts of a madman can be blamed, even in part, on the opinions put forth in one sector of the media.

What ever happened to taking personal responsibility for what you do with your own life? Isn't it part of the "hippie ethic" to do your own thing and seek your own truth, regardless of what the rest of society may be socially pressuring you to do? Isn't that also a very "American" thing to do? Isn't that the responsibility of every thinking person who seeks enlightenment? So, are you now saying that "we" are so superior that "we" are immune to that influence, but that the great "they" are helpless automatons who mindlessly follow marching orders from some "Evil, Right-Wing Conspiracy?"

I am unaware of ANY right-wing or left-wing extremists that have called for physical violence. Yes, the rhetoric is heated, but as I see it, the debate is not about who to hurt or kill, but it's a debate over who gets to stay in office and wield power and what ideals are used to guide our country.

If the "right wing" was calling for violence, then yes, I would support your case. There are many cases world-wide where leaders sit safely in their warm rooms and call for their followers to do violence. Much innocent blood is shed by the followers of those who do call for violence. If a leader does call for violence, I would definitely assign some blame to the leaders for the acts of their followers.


The madman who committed these atrocious crimes apparently had a long history of making death threats, and generally creeping folks out when he didn't directly threaten violence. He was rejected from military service, and was expelled from the local junior college based on behavioral problems.

I definitely blame the individual in this case.

If my current understanding of the situation is correct, he should never have been able to legally buy a firearm. From the reports I've read, he had been reported often to the local law-enforcement as a potential threat. This is exactly the sort of information that is supposed to show up on the Federal database that everyone is checked against when they buy a firearm. This Federal check must happen in all states. It is not optional anywhere in the U.S.

Again, from what I have read, this individual had a long obsession with the particular Congresswoman that he tried to kill.

So, yes, you can point to flawed operation of "the system," but I still cannot assign blame for causing the violence to anyone except the one who decided to commit the heinous act.

Also, why are we blaming just the "right-wing?" Even though the Congresswoman was somewhat left-leaning, the attacker has also been reported as being very left-leaning. How does that fit in with your ideology that the "left" is enlightened and wonderful, and that everyone on the "right" is an evil hatemonger who wants to hurt people. There are also plenty of examples of folks on the "left" spewing forth hatred and intolerance and images of violence against the right wing. If you must blame, there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides.

Another thought... even though there are gun-related references in the words and images used by the right-wing media, did it ever occur to you that these might be there because they resonate with the intended audience, many of whom are hunters or law-enforcement or military? The English language is full of gun-related phrases: "lock, stock, and barrel," being "on target," going around "half cocked," "shooting from the hip," "a flash in the pan," "bite the bullet," having "shot your wad," "riding shotgun," and even the "straight shooter" that you quoted from the billboard. I don't think it's normal for folks to be incited to violence by the casual use of one of these in a sentence.


I don't know... some recent personal interactions I've had have made me believe that there are issues that it is not possible to discuss logically and change minds. This is almost certainly one of them. Other issues include politics, religion (or the lack thereof), gun rights, privacy, and our beloved freedom of speech. We all seem to have our precious positions etched in stone, and we cling to them fiercely and emotionally, without any possibility of reason or even acknowledging that the other side might have a right to their opinion. I'm now afraid that the best we can do is agree to disagree and "coexist."


Speaking of Freedom of Speech, what would you propose, Mr. Skip? Would you suggest that we legally bind the right-wing and take away their right to express their opinions? Doesn't that open the door for one of them to do the same things to you??? Be very wary of that slippery slope!

As far as your beloved "Fairness Doctrine," let me ask you this: Who gets to decide what is "fair"??? What if you don't agree with their assessment of what is "fair"? Suppose they declared that Mr. Limbaugh was "left" and got that part of the "fair time?" How could you complain about that? The government would have declared it to be "fair." My point is that any government-imposed regulations are just as flawed as whoever administers them, and by imposing them you have eliminated the possibility of letting folks every work things out for themselves.


I seriously doubt I've changed anyone's mind, but at least I've said my piece.

Y'all try to be nice to each other, please.

------
edit: added the word "some" to paragraph 5 of my long, rambling post... for clarity.

 

I think that free speech is important, and even if I think rush is a fear/hate-mongering profiteer of the american political failure, there's no way he can be held responsible... If he said "I think all democrats should have a bullet between their eyes", I would still not hold him responsible... He may be a reprehensible person, but he's still not responsible for what other people choose to do.

*edit* mighty thor, I don't think what you're saying it totally fair about federal registers. I'd be happier if there was less federal registration, and simply more common fucking sense... Every place I've ever been that sells firearms or any part or tool or ammunition for firearms also has a clearly worded sign saying that they can and will refuse anyone service or sales for any reason they feel like... If the clerk thinks you look like a serial killing psychopath (like this guy does) then they can tell you to fuck off. You have a right to have a gun, and they have a right to choose who to sell a gun to.

 

I just wanna know why someone cant go on a shooting spree on the set of jersey shore..

whats really wrong with this country isnt the politicians. its the reality tv bullshit that is put on tv, that is no way fucking reality..

 

So who are you rightwingers going to kill next? You people still seem to have a lot anger problems.



Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

tap talk .. is that like semi auto? ..


some nerve though, future weapon of mass destruction where you dont even need to leave the house , and youre asking us. Who we want to kill?..