When is a terrorist, not a terrorist?

[Temporal Renegade]

If you've ever wondered about that, just ask Sarah Palin.
You betcha!
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/23/palin-abortion-clinic-bombers/

[JihadJane]

When he or she is Shock-and-Awing for "democracy".

[Temporal Renegade]

I love the implication of how they're not *really* terrorists, as long as they're acting in the name of the *right* religion....

[Ikarus]

Depends on whether or not the person using the word understands and/or agrees with the supposed "terrorist".

[Tricky]

When is a terrorist, not a terrorist?
Easy one.

Kills people I like = Terrorist
Kills people I don't like = Freedom Fighter

[Cleon]

Don't worry, I'm sure someone will be here shortly to explain, in a condescending fashion, that obviously those words mean something completely different from the way you're interpreting them.

[Toke]

Winning will often turn a terrorist into a fredomfighter.

[Undesired Walrus]

Cleon. Cleon, Cleon, Cleon. Let me spell it out for you.

"I don’t know" = I am contemplating

"if you’re going to use" = If philosophers would decide the exact transfer of the word terrorist from Ayers to an abortion bomber,

"the word terrorist" =would emerge as the objective word: terrorist.

"there" = Vote Nader.

Silly Cleon.

[Temporal Renegade]

When is a terrorist, not a terrorist?
Easy one.

Kills people I like = Terrorist
Kills people I don't like = Freedom Fighter

Makes sense to me.....

[Praktik]

Terrorists are not terrorists - in the American context - when they fight commies.

Witness UNITA and the right's love affair with Savimbi, the contras, and in present-day, the paras of Colombia.

Another example not of the commie/anti-commie dichotomy would be the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) and their bloody history of action against the Iranian government...

[gtc]

Do I need to point out that she said that bombing abortion clinics is unacceptable?

[Toke]

Don't worry, I'm sure someone will be here shortly to explain, in a condescending fashion, that obviously those words mean something completely different from the way you're interpreting them.

You could be right :D

[XBoxWarrior]

Do I need to point out that she said that bombing abortion clinics is unacceptable?

Not really. But that's not the point.

She thinks it's NOT terrorism to bomb abortion clinics...

I had a girlfriend once that had an abortion, if that clinic had been bombed, I would have said, "Yeah, some freekin' terrorist just bombed the clinic".

She can't admit that without losing the racist, jesus vote.

I soon hope that American politics learns that hate can't win elections, Hope can.

[NobbyNobbs]

Do I need to point out that she said that bombing abortion clinics is unacceptable?

But it came out in the same way that my dog peeing on the carpet is "unacceptable".

Had the interviewer taken out "abortion clinic" and substituted "hospital", "elementary school" or "campaign office", I'm sure she would not have hesitated in calling the theorectical bomber a terrorist.

[gtc]

Not really. But that's not the point.

I know its not the point, but it does seem to be the underlying assumption of several of the people in this thread.

Personally, I would classify anything as terrorism if it is done with the intent of creating 'terror'. Scaring doctors out of performing abortion seems to fit.

[gtc]

But it came out in the same way that my dog peeing on the carpet is "unacceptable".

I would need to see more evidence before I could conclude that she meant it to come out that way.

[NobbyNobbs]

I would need to see more evidence before I could conclude that she meant it to come out that way.

There's a short video in the link that includes just the quote. The entire interview is on youtube.

I don't mean to say she meant it to come out that way. Simply that's how it came out. At least, in my opinion, that's how it sounded. Like those that bomb an abortion clinic deserve a slap on the wrist as compared to the "real" terrorists.

[NobbyNobbs]

Furthermore, "unacceptable" is the best she could come up with?

What about "reprehensible", "horrible", "terrible", "disgusting", etc?

Eating your mashed potatoes with your fingers at a formal dinner is unacceptable. The bombing of an abortion clinic is terrorism.

[Toke]

Maybe she simply have a hard time saying something so nasty about fellow belivers.

[Oliver]

When is a terrorist, not a terrorist?

Terror ist, wenn man trotzdem lacht.

[quarky]

Terrorists never have as much money as freedom fighters. That's how you can tell them apart.

[JihadJane]

Personally, I would classify anything as terrorism if it is done with the intent of creating 'terror'. Scaring doctors out of performing abortion seems to fit.

Is Hank Paulson a terrorist?

[boloboffin]

She also made a point of highlighting "innocent Americans." My thought was to ask, "Are doctors performing abortions innocent?"

[LawnOven]

Until a clarifying statement is made I'll assume she meant what she said: calling the bombing of abortion clinics terrorism is questionable at best; you know, in her opinion.

That's how one treats a fellow adult, one assumes they mean the things that they say. Something like "Bombing abortion clinics terrorism or not?" Is not the sort of question who's answer should need lots of special interpretation.

This woman is a monster, the sooner she is forced to retreat back up to the "state" of Alaska, the better.

[leftysergeant]

She also made a point of highlighting "innocent Americans." My thought was to ask, "Are doctors performing abortions innocent?"

She made it very clear that it was unacceptable to kill "innocent Americans" and avoid mentioning Eric Robert Rudolph. but boy! Did she ever keep up the attack on Ayers..who has never been convicted...as opposed to Rudolph, who has, and got a sweet plea bargain out of the Bush DoJ...er, Ayers is a terrorist, who bombed the Pentagon, now stop bothering me with that crap...

[Undesired Walrus]

On the other side of the fence, has Obama ever called Ayers a terrorist? He better get that answer ready.

[leftysergeant]

On the other side of the fence, has Obama ever called Ayers a terrorist? He better get that answer ready.

Obama is a lawyer. Ayers was never convicted of terrorism. It would be unbecoming of a lawyer to call someone a terrorist if they were arrested and not subsequently convicted.

Palin is not a lawyer. If she wants to pin labels on people, she needs to come up withj a definition that makes sense or be labelled as just another opinionated Republican poppinjay.

[Temporal Renegade]

If abortion equals murder, why doesn't killing someone who dies in an abortion clinic bombing equal murder?
This question comes about, from hearing interviews with bombers who get caught by the police. While some might regret people dying from their handiwork, many aren't remorseful, actually seeming to be proud that they've "made a point" by having people die in the explosion. Many people (including people of religion) see ANY ending of what they consider a human life by another human, murder. Quite a few of the aforementioned religious believers don't have a problem with blowing up the building (as long as people aren't hurt). BUT, there are those who actually applaud such things, claiming "That's one less murdering doctor around", or some such.

Deliberately destroying or attacking an office, car, home, or any other structure or area, that will result in people being hurt or killed (even if that's not the objective of the assailant), for the purpose of 'expressing your personal or religious beliefs, IS 'Terrorism', as far as some people (myself included) are concerned.

Yes, I know this argument probably has flaws; but, it's still the basis of how I feel concerning this subject Palin's been asked about.

[gtc]

Is Hank Paulson a terrorist?

No idea. Who is he?

[leftysergeant]

Is Hank Paulson a terrorist?

No. He is just a very successful swindler and a bit of a dunce.

He does, however, enable a few terrorists around the world by his participation in the Bush administration.

[Peephole]

On the other side of the fence, has Obama ever called Ayers a terrorist? He better get that answer ready.
Well, in contrary to McCain and Palin, Obama isn't calling anyone a terrorist. So it's pretty normal they haven't been asked about semantics like that.

[Darth Rotor]

Not really. But that's not the point.

She thinks it's NOT terrorism to bomb abortion clinics...

How many have been bombed, in the past thirty years?

In the past thirty days?

Are you sure you can read her mind?

I had a girlfriend once that had an abortion, if that clinic had been bombed, I would have said, "Yeah, some freekin' terrorist just bombed the clinic".

You might also have said "some ****** criminal just bombed the clinic" and been guaranteed to be correct. You might also have said "some ****** whacko just bombed the clinic" and likely been correct.
She can't admit that without losing the racist, jesus vote.

I paid for an abortion once. It was at a regular medical clinic.
How was Jesus racist? Do you have some anti-Semitism thing here?
I soon hope that American politics learns that hate can't win elections, Hope can.
No, votes can and do.

Hope is not a method, particularly in elections. Obama wants people to vote for him, not Hope for him. Likewise his opponent.

DR

[Peephole]

How many have been bombed, in the past thirty years?

In the past thirty days?

Are you sure you can read her mind?
Wikipedia:
Arson, bombing, and property crime

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_crime) committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb), 173 arsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson), 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_threat), 1630 incidents of trespassing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespassing), 1264 incidents of vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism), and 100 attacks with butyric acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid) ("stink bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stink_bomb)").[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#cite_note-naf-7) The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon) in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#cite_note-naf3-12) More recent incidents have included:[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#cite_note-naral-4)


October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood) clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux_Falls,_South_Dakota), causing US$ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.
May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord,_New_Hampshire) on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000.
October 1, 2000: A Catholic priest drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU-486). He pulled out an ax before being shot at by a security guard.
June 11, 2001: A bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma,_Washington) on destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages
July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Beach,_Florida) was the target of an arson.
December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail) at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shreveport,_Louisiana). The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year.
September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Hills,_Michigan), Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan) crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davenport,_Iowa), Iowa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa). He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinc.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#cite_note-13)
April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas) contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#cite_note-austin-14)
May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood) clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Beach,_Virginia).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#cite_note-15)
December 6, 2007: Two unidentified persons set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque,_New_Mexico).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#cite_note-16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#Arson.2C_bombing.2C_and_property_ crime

[Praktik]

I remember hearing from a friend who kept up on intelligence matters that prior to 2001, anti-abortion terror networks were the #1 threat according to the FBI... Got this 2nd hand but the stats above would indicate they were more than just a few loose screws.

Fact is, under ANY Democratic president this threat would increase... Under Bush they've been lulled to sleep I'm sure. I wonder what kind of "chatter" there might be about what to do when Obama takes over?

[WildCat]

Obama is a lawyer. Ayers was never convicted of terrorism. It would be unbecoming of a lawyer to call someone a terrorist if they were arrested and not subsequently convicted.
Who you crappin lefty? In Ayers own words "gulty as hell, free as a bird". He got off on a technicality and was pardoned. He admitted a string of bombings!

If conviction is your metric, Osama bin Laden isn't a terrorist either.

[leftysergeant]

If conviction is your metric, Osama bin Laden isn't a terrorist either.

When did he stand trial?

[Ausmerican]

Eating your mashed potatoes with your fingers at a formal dinner is unacceptable.

Damn Nobby, I wish we had talked before my wedding. Twould have been most helpful to know this.

[TheJim]

Who you crappin lefty? In Ayers own words "gulty as hell, free as a bird". He got off on a technicality and was pardoned. He admitted a string of bombings!

If conviction is your metric, Osama bin Laden isn't a terrorist either.

Nice to know that the Fourth Amendment is a technicality. Maybe if the FBI did not act in illegal manner (whom no one got fired for or charged with) he would be behind bars.

[WildCat]

When did he stand trial?
Osama? Never. I guess he's not a terrorist after all. :rolleyes:

I know you want to stand in solidarity with your fellow Marxist, but the fact is he was a terrorist and he has admitted a string of bombings.

Nice to know that the Fourth Amendment is a technicality. Maybe if the FBI did not act in illegal manner (whom no one got fired for or charged with) he would be behind bars.
It is a technicality, that doesn't mean it's trivial. And with what would the FBI agents be charged with? Evidence gets thrown out of court all the time, it doesn't mean the police acted criminally.

[Undesired Walrus]

I know you want to stand in solidarity with your fellow Marxist,


Why do you have to sink to this level? I thought you were better than that.

[WildCat]

Why do you have to sink to this level? I thought you were better than that.
Because that's the way lefty thinks. He has no problem accusing anyone who disagrees with him as being Nazis, no evidence required. he accuses the Republican party of sending thugs to Obama/Biden rallies to intimidate the Sems, no evidence required or given. He claims one of his local radio stations has a Nazi host who calls on Nazis to disrupt and intimidate Dems, no evidence given.

We know Ayers admits to a string of bombings, yet lefty can't bring himself to call him a terrorist since he hasn't actually been convicted. lefty requires no such standard of evidence for those he opposes, for which he has no problem making all sorts of unproven allegations. We know lefty's a Marxist, we know Ayers is also a Marxist, if he's not just engaging in a knee-jerk defense of his ideological brother what other reason is there for the double standard?

[Undesired Walrus]

Lefty is a Marxist?

[WildCat]

If anyone doesn't think lefty is a Marxist, just read this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125325

Post after post spouting off Marxist rhetoric, then issues the "I'm not a Marxist. But..." statement in post 91. Sure you're not a Marxist lefty, you just parrot all the talking points... :rolleyes:

[Toke]

To a rightwinger marxist, leninist, socialist, communist,.... are generic terms applied to anyone they disagree with.

To a leftwinger..............

I usually write it off to ignorance.

Like when people can´t tell current european socialists from the definition in the communist manifest.

[leftysergeant]

I am not a Marxist. The idea that labor, rather than capital, is the source of all wealth is not even unique to Marx. Lincoln entertained the same idea. It's called "realism." It is scientificly supportable.

Friedmanism and the wholle Chicago School mythos is scientificly disproveavble.

Not that the GOP gives a rat's about science or evidence.

[WildCat]

I am not a Marxist. The idea that labor, rather than capital, is the source of all wealth is not even unique to Marx. Lincoln entertained the same idea. It's called "realism." It is scientificly supportable.
Labor is not the source of wealth. If it was, early 20th century China would have been the wealthiest nation on earth. It wasn't even close.

And remember when you said:
A redistribution of wealth is in order.
No, nothing Marxist about that. Just ask Hugo Chavez!

[Praktik]

Ya, but John McCain redistributes wealth. The Republicans do it, so do the Democrats. Even radical libertarians want some sort of tax base to enforce criminal laws and fund a military. Even a flat tax is a percentage, so the rich would pay more than the poor. Seems to me like every politician in America is behind redistributing wealth, some just use that language cause it seems to work well electorally to posture as if your opponent is the only one who wants to "redistribute wealth". Meanwhile, unless you're advocating some kind of wild west capitalism, you're all about redistributing wealth too. Even Forbes.

[leftysergeant]

Back to Obama's exact words, he said "spread the wealth around."

Like in give a break to the working poor and the skilled workers who have a chance to move up. Give a break to small businesses starting up and tell the big box chains that their free ride is over.

Let the small operators keep more of what they make until they make so much that they can bear the burden of a little more in taxes.

Letting people like the Walton larvae keep more of what they earned, compared to the people who used to have jobs with small businesses sure worked out great for our manufacturing base, didn't it?

[Temporal Renegade]

Which would you rather see: Redistribution, or everyone paying their 'fair share' of taxes?

[boloboffin]

Redistribution of wealth is just good Christianity in action.

[JihadJane]

Is Chavez a Marxist??

The recent bankster bail-out was a redistribution of wealth.

[Temporal Renegade]

Is Chavez a Marxist??

The recent bankster bail-out was a redistribution of wealth.

But, not a very good one, as I haven't seen my share of it yet...

[Meadmaker]

Labor is not the source of wealth. If it was, early 20th century China would have been the wealthiest nation on earth. It wasn't even close.


I'm afraid there's a fallacy here. Labor is the source of wealth, but that doesn't mean the laborers are the beneficiaries.

We pay Indonesian laborers pennies to put together sneakers. As a result of their labor, we have high quality basketball shoes. Our wealth has gone up as a result of their labor. The fact that their wealth hasn't increased much is a totally separate issue.

[WildCat]

I'm afraid there's a fallacy here. Labor is the source of wealth, but that doesn't mean the laborers are the beneficiaries.

We pay Indonesian laborers pennies to put together sneakers. As a result of their labor, we have high quality basketball shoes. Our wealth has gone up as a result of their labor. The fact that their wealth hasn't increased much is a totally separate issue.
No. The guy who thought up the sneaker design, the company that figured out how to manufacture it at the highest quality and lowest cost, the marketers who motivated people to buy the sneakers, etc. have much more to do with the creation of wealth than the people whose only task was to show up and sew the sole to the fabric like they were told.

eta: you may as well credit the peanut vendors for the Phillies winning the World Series.

[BenBurch]

I'm afraid there's a fallacy here. Labor is the source of wealth, but that doesn't mean the laborers are the beneficiaries.

We pay Indonesian laborers pennies to put together sneakers. As a result of their labor, we have high quality basketball shoes. Our wealth has gone up as a result of their labor. The fact that their wealth hasn't increased much is a totally separate issue.

And most of what is paid for those shoes goes to people who did NONE of the work.

What we chiefly need is a tariff that makes negates the entire effect of the unfair wages paid abroad. A tariff we can reduce or remove when the workers there are paid on par with the workers here. Thomas Jefferson was an early proponent of that sort of tariff, and it is only because we removed those tariffs that we are in this mess now. We don't need FREE trade, we need FAIR trade.

[boloboffin]

No. The guy who thought up the sneaker design, the company that figured out how to manufacture it at the highest quality and lowest cost, the marketers who motivated people to buy the sneakers, etc. have much more to do with the creation of wealth than the people whose only task was to show up and sew the sole to the fabric like they were told.

eta: you may as well credit the peanut vendors for the Phillies winning the World Series.

This is a perfect example of the snobbery involved when the upper classes deign to look upon the mere laborer. Indeed, back in the day, the laborer was considered property, part of the means of production, and thus fit only for the same care and consideration you would give a pair of oxen pulling a plow.

The actual better example here is the baseball players, not the peanut vendors. Were they involved in creating the logo, the marketing, the design of the stadium, the production of graphics for the televising? No. They're just there putting ball to bat. Mere peons in the process.

The laborer is part of the means of production. Unions are the laborers' way of owning themselves in a way powerful enough to force a reckoning by the upper class. Capitalism in action. Just the way the people of Alaska banded together in government to possess the land and force the oil companies to pay for the resources. All good capitalism. Those who control access to the necessary resources are just as much capitalists as those who need the resources to produce their own product. It's called Socialism as a smear. "Socialism" is really just capitalism that doesn't benefit the few at the expense of the many.