Julius Streicher didn't kill anyone, either.

Neither did he fund or train anyone.

So there.

the hate mongers who are washing their hands of Roeder & von Brunn...

Streicher incited people to specific acts of violence against jews. I can't think of those others doing something comparable, otherwise they would have been charged.

Could you be more specific please?

"...For his 25 years of speaking, writing, and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as ‘Jew-Baiter Number One.’ In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution... Streicher's incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a crime against humanity.”

I think he went above and beyond Oreilly. Saying they should both be considered the same, and presumably treated the same (ie hanged) smacks of censorship.

I was curious about that assertion. I've read the Wiki entry already, thanks.

because they are more familiar with his work than I am. I'm assuming he did more than merely say he wasn't fond of the jews, but didn't wish them any ill.

Oreilly, for his part, did denounce the murder of tiller and said violence was not acceptable. I don't think striecher ever did the same for the murder of jews.

a murderer and the world would be better off with him DEAD.

That is not equivalent?

he had been murdered? Shocking. Why didn't he use his ability to see in to the future to tell call Roeder up on June 1st and tell him to chill?

predict that someone was going to be killed because of this hate speech?

We saw it coming, miles off and years away. But WE were just 'conspiracy theorists' who were spouting paranoid lunacies.

I PREDICT!!! There WILL be more such murders, sooner than later, and the murderers will have 1) Free Republic accounts, 2) bookshelves of RW hate literature, 3) radio dials set for the hate-speech mongers.

Now, don't say you weren't warned.

(It doesn't take a weatherman...)

would kill an abortion doctor? Umm. . . there's no polite way to say this but "duh".

Yes, radicals do radical things. How is this any different than predicting at some point there will be a muslim who goes off the deep end and kills someone. And he may have ties to various mosques, anti-war and leftwing organizations. And as such anyone associated with those groups is directly responsible for murder and should be hanged a la Streicher

You are either pretending you don't get what we are saying, or you are just too stupid to get the connection.

And YES, if someone is INCITING PEOPLE TO MURDER, THEY DESERVE LEGAL PUNISHMENT. Not that you are likely to find anti-war peaceniks advocating violence as it is at odds with their core principles. It isn't 'anyone associated' - it is those DIRECTLY associated - Oreilly's sound man might be more of a hatemonger than he is, but it is Oreilly putting his words out there.

You are trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Or maybe you're ok with releasing Charlie Manson?

and criminal speech inciting people to violence all those people you mention are NOT guilty.

This is coming across as an attempt to use a national tragedy to silence ideological opponents. Which is rather fascist in and of itself.

And comparing Manson to Oreilly is just crazy.

in California history, he was never accused of himself killing anyone. Why's he in prison?

Can't we have some JUSTICE here! FREE CHARLIE!!!

The day that Manson is let out of prison is the day I will stop saying that OReily should be IN prison.

had oreilly been there, spotting for Roeder as he aimed at Dr. Tiller then I'd agree, you have a valid comparison.

But he didn't do that. He didn't advocate violence at all. He actually condemned the murder. Not a valid comparison.

More like, is al gore personally responsible for any crimes committed by environmentalist extremists? He did say there was a major problem, they probably listened to him and believed what he had to say. And perhaps his rhetoric was what stirred them to finally do something, rather than sit around talking.

There you go, that is a valid analogy.

I trust you will be advocating Mr Gore and Mr Oreilly share a cell together?

http://www.fightingliberals.com/2009/06/stupid.html

:banghead:

rather quickly.

imperialist storm troopers, racists out to kill muslims, whatever. Are they to blame for inciting Abdulhakim Muhammad to kill army recruiters because he probably listened to them and repeated similiar slogans?

Hal did cross the line, so what can I say? Have fun in the Grey-Bar Hotel, asshole!

And, Hitler technically didn't.

Early on, Goebbels never called for extermination of the Jews or other enemies of the Reich. There was subtle, coded language, much like the RW here uses today, to dehumanize perceived enemies, making it easier to commit violence against or kill them. Hate radio in Rwanda was directly implicated in the genocide of 800,000 people:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3257748.stm

Serb-controlled TV in Yugoslavia served to dehumanize the Muslim population and instigate violence. They never called for outright extermination either. Tell that to the Bosnian Muslims.

Human nature is the same regardless of country.

But the two of them sure poisoned a lot of minds.
Millions died as a result.

AFAIK, Goebbels was never directly responsible for ordering the deaths of anyone; he was primarily in charge of the Nazi propaganda machine, vilifying those the Nazis wanted to exterminate.