Are abortion clinic bombers terrorists?

jimed14

I'm sorry, how can someone who plants a bomb at an abortion clinic, aimed at stiking fear (or, you know, TERROR) into all people that work or go there NOT be called a terrorist?

I know she said she does not condone it, and I strongly believe she doesn't condone it ... but still ... how can you NOT call abortion clinic bombers 'terrorists'?

That is really fucking stupid.

saveuplife

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Terrorist: "A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

I understand it's about the definition of what is, is, but this is scary.

It's more than semantics. Either she's ignorant of the definition of a terrorist or she's making an exception for terrorists who share her views. Take your pick.

No, it's a semantical argument. She said "I don't know if I'd use the term terrorism". She never said it wasn't terrorism. Keep diggin.

NeilJam

scb wrote:

I don't think isolated events count as terrorism. Terrorism is more systematically used to change the behavior of a group. (Obviously that's not an exact definition.)

Those who bomb abortion clinics do so with the intention of stopping not just one abortion provider, but also with the intention of scaring others into not providing abortions for fear that they might get bombed too.

Isolated events can count as terrorism, otherwise Timothy McVeigh wouldn't be considered a terrorist. Other than that part, I agree with your statement.

PJ_Saluki

She can't stay off Ayers. Oh, "by his own admittance"? What was he trying to enter? This woman is DUMB and we can't have her close enough to the White House to give us four more years of dumb if McCain wins and he drops dead. She brings up the Ayers association, but she was speaking to Alaskan secessionists. I'll give her credit; she does know the definition of elitism. Nice job, Sarah. Now fill in the blank to spell this word: M_RON.

EDIT: She doesn't want to label herself a feminist because she's not into labels...unless it's implying that only small-town republicans are "real" Americans.

This woman just has me in a tizzy. She disgusts and enrages me, and yet like a moth to an electric zapper, I'm drawn to her. I know it's bad for me to listen to her speak; I just can't help it. She's turned me into a verbal rubbernecker.

_

NeilJam wrote:

Isolated events can count as terrorism, otherwise Timothy McVeigh wouldn't be considered a terrorist. Other than that part, I agree with your statement.

Good point.

Jeremy1012

saveuplife wrote:

No, it's a semantical argument. She said "I don't know if I'd use the term terrorism". She never said it wasn't terrorism. Keep diggin.

She didn't say it wasn't terrorism, this is true. Her uncertainty is disturbing though. If Bill Ayers is a terrorist, so are abortion clinic bombers. There is no difference. As someone said, either she doesn't understand the issue or she chooses not to call people terrorists if they share her views. I sincerely hope it's the former, really.

polaris

really ... at this stage - i feel real sorry for john mccain ... you suck it up and sell out to the powers to be so you can be president of the united states and those fockers saddle you with her!?? ...

i commend mccain for saying all people should be prosecuted by the letter of the law equally - why on earth could she not bring herself to say that?? ... she ducked it at best as it relates to abortion clinic bombers ...

PJ_Saluki

saveuplife wrote:

No, it's a semantical argument. She said "I don't know if I'd use the term terrorism". She never said it wasn't terrorism. Keep diggin.

No offense, but you're missing my point. If it has all the marks of terrorism, by definition it would be terrorism. If it's terrorism, then the perpetrators are terrorists. The followup question should have been: Governor, if you wouldn't label abortion clinic bombers as terrorists, what would you call them?"

saveuplife

Jeremy1012 wrote:

She didn't say it wasn't terrorism, this is true. Her uncertainty is disturbing though. If Bill Ayers is a terrorist, so are abortion clinic bombers. There is no difference. As someone said, either she doesn't understand the issue or she chooses not to call people terrorists if they share her views. I sincerely hope it's the former, really.

I still think this is 100% semantics. I don't see 1 aspect of what she said to be incorrect. IMHO you are all nitpicking.

digster

Of course it's terrorism. Saveup, you are reaching.

nothinghead

saveuplife wrote:

I still think this is 100% semantics. I don't see 1 aspect of what she said to be incorrect. IMHO you are all nitpicking.

It's what she didn't say. That's the point.

Any reasonable person on either side of the abortion debate understands that terrorism is a politically motivated act of violence and destruction used as means of coercion.

The fact that she couldn't say this because of her side in the debate is unsettling. If she doesn't understand the definition, that's even more unsettling. If she didn't have the personal constitution to say "yes, that is terrorism," if she knows it to be true is even worse.

That's the problem.

Jeremy1012

saveuplife wrote:

I still think this is 100% semantics. I don't see 1 aspect of what she said to be incorrect. IMHO you are all nitpicking.

How?! She said Ayers was 100% a terrorist. Why did she not say abortion clinic bombers are? How could she not? What was with all the huffing and puffing and reluctance to answer the question straight? I don't think she agrees with bombing the places but why the bloody hell didn't she say so?

saveuplife

PJ_Saluki wrote:

No offense, but you're missing my point. If it has all the marks of terrorism, by definition it would be terrorism. If it's terrorism, then the perpetrators are terrorists. The followup question should have been: Governor, if you wouldn't label abortion clinic bombers as terrorists, what would you call them?"

Let me ask you this, do you see any distinction between US Capitol, the Pentagon, the Harry S Truman building (houses the secretary of state) and an abortion clinic? I do. One is a place where the U.S. government houses employees... it's a U.S. government building.... one is a private building.

I can see why this is tricky to equate the term terrorism to both, especially after they are followed sequentially. That said, like Palin, I think both acts are dispicable.

It's a semantical argument.

digster

If the question of whether blowing up abortion clinics is terrorism or not is a question of 'semantics', then the question of whether William Ayers was a terrorist is equally semantics, and Palin has no right to be saying what she said about Obama.

Both of these claims of course (that clinic bombers and that Ayers are not terrorists) are completely bull, of course.

digster

saveuplife wrote:

Let me ask you this, do you see any distinction between US Capitol, the Pentagon, the Harry S Truman building (houses the secretary of state) and an abortion clinic? I do. One is a place where the U.S. government houses employees... it's a U.S. government building.... one is a private building.

Than a Palestinian suicide bomber who blows up a bus in Jerusalem is not a terrorist? Then an Islamic fundamentalist who drives a plane into a building is not a terrorist since it's not a government building?

PJ_Saluki

One thing that kills is, people use the word "semantics" pejoratively, as if words don't have meaning.

Jeremy1012

saveuplife wrote:

Let me ask you this, do you see any distinction between US Capitol, the Pentagon, the Harry S Truman building (houses the secretary of state) and an abortion clinic? I do. One is a place where the U.S. government houses employees... it's a U.S. government building.... one is a private building.

I can see why this is tricky to equate the term terrorism to both, especially after they are followed sequentially. That said, like Palin, I think both acts are dispicable.

It's a semantical argument.

Sounds to me like it's you who has an odd grasp of semantics.

Any use of non-military violence to force political reaction is terrorism.

PJ_Saluki

digster wrote:

Than a Palestinian suicide bomber who blows up a bus in Jerusalem is not a terrorist? Then an Islamic fundamentalist who drives a plane into a building is not a terrorist since it's not a government building?

Or a Klansman who burns a cross in a front yard? Target doesn't make a terrorist. The intent and the action makes a terrorist.

digster

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Or a Klansman who burns a cross in a front yard? Target doesn't make a terrorist. The intent and the action makes a terrorist.

I understand if saveuplife is trying to play Devil's advocate here, but there is absolutely no argument that this is not terrorism.

jimed14

saveuplife wrote:

Let me ask you this, do you see any distinction between US Capitol, the Pentagon, the Harry S Truman building (houses the secretary of state) and an abortion clinic? I do. One is a place where the U.S. government houses employees... it's a U.S. government building.... one is a private building.

I can see why this is tricky to equate the term terrorism to both, especially after they are followed sequentially. That said, like Palin, I think both acts are dispicable.

It's a semantical argument.

wow .. .you're really going to stick to this, aren't you?

Why can't you, or her just say it ... it is TERRORISM!