Conclusive evidence?

The media worldwide has been struck by the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. In trying to find out the reasoning behind the shooting, it has been suggested that militant language used by the Tea-party and the Republican party inspired the assassin. At first I wasn’t sure whether we could legitimately blame the use of harsh language, clearly the shooter perverted the words of these people.

Well have a watch of the video below, if you watch the whole video, the presenter gives a pretty good argument, but, if you don’t want to watch the whole video, skip to about 5 minutes, 45 seconds, where quotes are shown. The evidence feels pretty convincing. What do you think? How far are politicians responsible for the words and language they use?

One bit of food for thought: how would America and the rest of the world respond if an Islamic group used these words? In fact, if any popular party in another country used these words? Surely most leaders would at least be concerned, if not take action.

I’m not sure whether I really believe that right-wing politicians actually meant for democrats and liberals to be shot. Yes their militant language is inappropriate, perhaps they realize that now. America, is a country where politicians are sold, rhetoric makes such a difference and they are, famously, very passionate. Perhaps this will be a tragic lesson to be learnt by all politicians, perhaps they will now realize that they must be accountable for their words.

The Republican chief whip has said:

“We value life and we saw a friend get terribly injured in this process. People are going to look to one another very differently,” he told reporters.”It doesn’t matter what we debate on the floor, I think the floor will change. The tone will be different, but the challenges will be greater. We still have philosophical differences.” (source: BBC website)

What do you think? I’d love to hear your views.