Thoughts On The Arizona Terrorist

The young 22 year-old man pictured above is a terrorist.   He went to a peaceful political meeting and shot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona).   Then he kept shooting.   He wound up killing six people, including a 9 year-old girl, a congressional aide, and a federal judge, and wounded at least a dozen others.   At least six of the wounded are in critical condition (including the congresswoman).

I'm sure there are going to be some who will take umbrage at my calling this man (his name is Jared Loughner) a terrorist.   But I think it's an apt description of him because:
* He targeted a member of government (this is verified by the Pima County sheriff).
* He tried to kill as many people as possible (in order to make his vile action more "newsworthy").
* He is known to have anti-government feelings (with his You-Tubes calling the government treasonous and accusing the government of mind control).
* He was trying to make some kind of right-wing political statement with his actions (his views on currency being supported by gold and silver, conscious dreaming [although he mislabels it as conscience dreaming], government mind control, and loss of property rights are known beliefs of the far fringe right-wing).
* He calls himself a terrorist.

Many Americans want to believe that all terrorism comes at the hands of muslims, but that is not even close to true.   Timothy McVeigh showed us that with his bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.   The sad fact is that terrorism can spring from the fringe elements of either the right or the left (as with the Weathermen in the 1960s), and from any religious extreme.

Many will want to brand Loughner as just an insane person who wanted to kill someone.   But that is not true.   He targeted the congresswoman because of his political beliefs (however confused they might have been).   And the Pima County sheriff said he would not characterize him as unstable or insane (although he obviously did not think like most mainstream Americans).

There has been much talk about him possibly being influenced by the violent rhetoric and imagery of the far right-wing, and I think there is probably some truth in that.   Too often in the recent past, right-wing extremist politicians have used this kind of talk to get themselves some media exposure and appeal to their base.   We have heard Sharron Angle talking about a "second amendment solution", heard Sarah Palin tell her supporters to reload instead of retreating and saw her draw targets on some congressional districts, heard Michele Bachmann call her political opponents un-American, socialists, and traitors, and that doesn't even take into account the vitriol of right-wing radio and TV (Rush Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher, Glenn Beck, etc.).

Do I think these people were trying to intentionally incite their followers to violence?   No, but sometimes words can have consequences -- especially when heard by someone on the edge of sanity.   This is not the first time that a personality's words have encouraged violence from someone of the fringe of society.

My point is that those in power need to tone down the rhetoric a bit.   Just because someone disagrees with you politically doesn't make them an enemy of the country.   There's no reason why people can't disagree and still remain friends (believe it or not I do have some right-wing friends myself).

I'm not trying to say that anyone on the right or left should not forcefully or robustly defend their political views.   I certainly do, and I expect those who disagree with me to do the same.   But that does not make us enemies, and it certainly doesn't justify violence in either word or deed.

I am a leftist.   I am also a patriot who loves my country.   I believe that those on the right who disagree with my politics are also patriots who love their country.   They are simply wrong about how to make this a better country.   I certainly would never condone any violence toward them -- not even the racists, misogynists, and bigots.   These beliefs must be fought -- but with ideas and the law, not violence.

No matter where we are on the political spectrum we must agree, violence is never a solution (just the way to even more problems).   And speech that subtly incites people to violence is also wrong.   We may have the right to such speech (since we live in a country that honors free speech), but we also have a responsibility to keep our speech and actions within appropriate bounds.

------------------------------

The chairman of the Texas Republican Party, Steve Munisteri, issued the following statement, and in the interest of fairness I decided to post it:

"On behalf of the entire RPT, and all Republicans in Texas, I would like to extend our condolences to the families of the victims, and all those who have suffered as a result of today's events.  I am personally asking all Republicans to pray for the speedy recovery of all who were injured or wounded in today's events, including Congresswoman Giffords.  I also condemn in the strongest terms possible, not only this act, but any act of violence toward those who serve in elected office.  At a grievous time such as this, we are reminded that whether we are Republicans or Democrats - we are all, first and foremost, Americans.  Today, all Americans should be unified in their prayers for the victims and their families, and unified in condemning this terrible tragedy in our country."