But it wasn’t until the 1960s (when Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Ho Chi Minh became idols of the American Left) that the Left really ramped up the violence. Who can forget Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam? Or Eldridge “rape is an insurrectionary act” Cleaver and his Black Panthers? What about the bombings perpetrated by the Weathermen? Former Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers is, of course, a close associate of President Barack Obama. Ayers managed to escape prosecution (and proclaimed himself “Guilty as hell, free as a bird”) but his wife Bernadine Dohrn served jail time for her part in the violence. Black radicals seized Cornell University at gunpoint in 1969, the same year the SDS and the Weathermen staged the “Days of Rage” riots. Race riots took place in Watts in 1965 and nationwide in 1968; leftists rioted at the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968. John Kennedy was murdered by a communist, and Robert Kennedy was shot by a Palestinian – hardly men of the Right.
The 1970s weren’t much calmer. The Army Math Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was bombed by Leftist radicals in 1970. Heiress Patty Hearst was kidnapped and took part in and a series of armed bank robberies by the left-wing Symbionese Liberation Army. The SLA inspired Sarah Jane Moore to try to assassinate Gerald Ford –less than three weeks after Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a disciple of Charles Manson, tried to kill Ford also. And what about the shooting of FBI agents at Wounded Knee by the American Indian Movement in 1975?
Since we’re taking about violence against members of Congress, how can we possibly fail to mention the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan and the mass suicide of 900 people by the Leftist/Marxist Jonestown cult in 1978?
Does anyone recall that President Clinton pardoned members of the Marxist-Leninist inspired Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN? Clinton also pardoned left-wing radical Susan Rosenberg, who was imprisoned for her role in the murder of two police officers and a security guard in a robbery in 1981. She was offered a teaching job at Hamilton College, but public outcry forced her to decline the position.
More recently, we’ve seen anarchist and communist riots against the WTO in Seattle in 1999, and violent anti-Bush and anti-war protests. In 2007 Leftist playwrights in New York created a stage performance about killing president Bush.
:shock:The Left, Not the Right, Owns Political Violence « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
I'll be awaiting the outrage.
The Left, Not the Right, Owns Political Violence « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
I'll be awaiting the outrage.
If their contribution is nothing but theoretical there's nothing to excuse.Defending yourself from every theoretical direction undermines credibility.
The sheer numbers of people and psychological profiles involved, plus the long periods of time the list covers, make it almost impossible for any human movement not to incite violence. This doesn't excuse any theoretical contribution of contemporary commentators to recent events.
Actually with the "fairness doctrine" in place, wouldn't that mean there would actually be more left wing punditry at the time? Holy cow, we just found the root cause. Silence left wing speech and instances of violence actually go down.:shock:
Amazing that so many of those things could happen while the "fairness doctrine" was in effect and there was no Conservative talk radio.
If their contribution is nothing but theoretical there's nothing to excuse.
Supporting our ally, Israel, is a right wing ideal (at least now), so if someone was shot for that reason, it would more likely be by someone on the left (again, that's IF someone was shot for that reason).:lol: "Robert Kennedy was shot by a Palestinian – hardly men of the Right" As though a Christian Palestinian was motivated by left wing ideals, rather than Kennedy's support of Israel.
Supporting our ally, Israel, is a right wing ideal (at least now), so if someone was shot for that reason, it would more likely be by someone on the left (again, that's IF someone was shot for that reason).
Supporting our ally, Israel, is a right wing ideal (at least now), so if someone was shot for that reason, it would more likely be by someone on the left (again, that's IF someone was shot for that reason).
If Kennedy was killed because the US supports Israel, wouldn't that actually be a terrorist act?Is it? Damn, I've been on the wrong side of the issue all this time.
But you're looking at it from the wrong angle, he didn't kill Kennedy because Israel is an ally of America, he killed Kennedy because America is an ally of Israel, if he was motivated by anything, it was nationalism, which, to play the partisan game, is right-wing.
If Kennedy was killed because the US supports Israel, wouldn't that actually be a terrorist act?
Most Christians are not Anti-Isreal. It's a religious thing. Therefor it would be more accurate to say he was an anti-Israel terrorist.Yes, so I suppose you could say that the guy who killed him was a Christian Terrorist.
Most Christians are not Anti-Isreal. It's a religious thing. Therefor it would be more accurate to say he was an anti-Israel terrorist.
But that would not be the motivating factor, therefor irrelevant to his act of terrorism.But he's still a Christian.
But that would not be the motivating factor, therefor irrelevant to his act of terrorism.
But that would not be the motivating factor, therefor irrelevant to his act of terrorism.
Supporting our ally, Israel, is a right wing ideal (at least now), so if someone was shot for that reason, it would more likely be by someone on the left (again, that's IF someone was shot for that reason).
Actually with the "fairness doctrine" in place, wouldn't that mean there would actually be more left wing punditry at the time? Holy cow, we just found the root cause. Silence left wing speech and instances of violence actually go down.
As opposed to what? Sorry, Spud, I'm not quite sure what you're asking me.Could the same not be said of, say, the Black Panthers? Whose main motivation was race.
I posted a thread awhile back which had a quote from JFK about cutting taxes so people could keep more of their money and grow the economy. Ad to that, JFK's speech about doing for your country instead of the reverse, and I've come to the conclusion that JFK, if he held those same beliefs today, would not be a Democrat. I think the same holds true for RFK, especially if he supported Israel, so I have no trouble saying those Kennedys are right wing. It's probably the liberals on here that will have a problem with that conclusion.Imagine if the 'left' and the 'right' switched political ideals, except on Israel. Would RFK still been shot? Yes because the guy only cared about one thing and it wasn't our left vs right politics. Also RFK is a Dem, and if he was killed for supporting Israel wouldnt that make him right wing in your guys?
The author should have expanded on his reasoning. There's no way to tell, really, if he meant the way you say it, or more followed my line of reasoning.What really gets me about the article is that the author doesn't use your logic. He doesn't say "RFK was shot for supporting Israel and the left didn't like that." He says, this man was a Palestinian therefore he's a leftist. He's reason for concluding the man's political viewpoints is entirely based on his race.
Not must be, but would more likely be someone on the left. In the US anyway. Left/Right mean different things in other parts of the world.This is one of the most absurd conclusions that I have heard. Because supporting Israel is a right wing ideal, if a Palestinian shoots an Israeli supporter he must be a lefty? I'm not sure whether this demonstrates you lack of logic or your partisan hackery on this issue. My guess is both.
Not must be, but would more likely be someone on the left. In the US anyway. Left/Right mean different things in other parts of the world.
Given the left is less likely to be supportive of Israel, and if RFK was killed because he supported Israel, it would more likely be by someone on the left. What's faulty about this logical conclusion?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?