[Discussing Palin's refusal to label people who bomb abortion clinics as "terrorists."]
I agree that bombing abortuaries is not necessarily "terrorism," because in many cases, the intent is not to "instill fear," but to destroy the means of killing the unborn. My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed.
59 comments
So, by your logic, destroying medical tools and buildings that people in developing countries would kill for is a GOOD thing? It is not at all illegal to endanger live of persons working in them? Failure, you are, for defending terrorists. I hope your children will one day become a part of medical personel.
So, if people were bombing churches, but not physically injuring people, that wouldn't be terrorism?
abortuaries roflmao
ya'll are so stupid
image
Even Jebus hates you.
Er, actually the point of bombing abortion clinics IS to instill fear. And numerous people have been killed as a result of those attacks.
They are terrorists, plain and simple. Just because you agree with their stance on abortion doesn't mean that the way they go about proving that point is somehow justified. I mean, I disagree with the teachings of the church, but I somehow doubt that anyone would claim I was just "protecting people" if I blew up a church.
NorrinRadd, stop pallin around with terrorists, you are un-american, un-patriotic and deceived by the devil. You will roast over the flame like a marshmallow..
I agree that bombing streets, stores and school buses is not necessarily "terrorism," because in many cases, the intent is not to "instill fear," but to destroy the means of killing Palestinians.
Hamas
@Canadiest: "They call themself NorrinRadd. That's the Silver Surfers name. I doubt he'd agree with them."
I was thinking more about the irony of the Herald of Galactus talking about "My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed. "
Although, I suppose that could be an accurate assessment of Norrin Radd's dilemma, after encountering Earth... :-P
Well Extreme Muslims intend to kill infidels, terrorism is also just a side-effect.
And harming a person or their property is illegal in the USA.
SO STFU AND QUIT IT
What the hell is abortuaries?
As for bombing the clinics not being terrorism, she's wrong. If any action puts people in fear of their safety and/or lives, then it's terrorism.
Palin is a moral fraud if she refuses to call a spade a spade in the case of citizens breaking the law.
In anyone's terms planting is bomb is breaking the law, and also is terrorism.
Unless, of course your morals are flexible to the needs of getting votes. Some morals!
On Palin's showing, the Arabs who downed the twin towers were not terrorists. They simply wanted to instil fear...
Merriam Webster
Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. Stop kidding yourself, you delusional, irrational psychopaths.
I'm with Mick. Terrorism is in intent. If an abortion clinic bomber goes into it with sincere intent to only cause property destruction and not harm any people, they're not trying to instill fear, they're only seeking to remove the means to preform a procedure they deem morally reprehensible. Likewise, kids that shoot up schools are terrorists because they want to instill fear in those around them. And yet the former is widely considered a terrorist and the latter not. Interesting.
Wow, what an idiot. And the Islamic fundamentalists objective isn't to instill fear, but to destroy the means of spreading christianity and judaism. Give me a fucking break. And that last sentence...is she really suggesting that it's morally ok to destroy the clinics themselves, as long as people aren't hurt? I believe there are laws against that, too, idiot.
I remember someone saying on a quote about Bill Ayers that he was committing "nonviolent bombings."
Isn't it interesting how some of you change your tone with the same scenario and reversed politics?
(For the record, there is no such thing as a "nonviolent," non-terroristic bombing either way.)
An interesting idea.
On the one hand I agree with Mick in that if he's doing it sincerely not to "instill fear" to the building's occupants or patrons, then by definition it isn't terrorism. Stupid, immoral, and illegal (even by libertarian standards)? Absolutely. Should he be locked up for aggressing against another's justly-acquired property? Yep.
On the other hand, it can be argued rather easily that the mere act of planting a bomb is instilling fear ipso facto and is thus terrorism.
So, in a sense, he is both right and wrong.
"My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed."
So, it's okay if we all blow up the Palin house, so long as we make sure no one is home at the time?
I agree that bombing abortuaries is not necessarily "terrorism," because in many cases, the intent is not to "instill fear," but to destroy the means of killing the unborn. My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed.
Abortuaries is not a word.
If you had an appointment at a clinic or if you worked at a clinic like that and you heard about bombs going off at other clinics then you would be terrified and rightly so.
The intent to "instill fear" is not the point. The point is that it's bloody irresponsible behavior to go around planting explosive devices where you know people will be living and working.
There are well documented legal channels for taking away the means for abortion. Civilized people do not blow each other up.
...I can't believe this is actually a subject up for debate.
The purpose of terrorism is to push one's political agenda through fear. You cannot seriously believe that planting bombs in abortion clinics is not a tactic intended to frighten both employees and clients away from attending them.
Perhaps worst of all, you're trying to justify terrorism. Go die in a fire.
How in the fucking fuck someone could even get this bitch even near to VP position?
I mean, holy shit. That's something that your offspring will be proud about.
Have you noticed that women don't figure into this at all? It's as if they become invisible once pregnant, and what replaces them is a giant walking womb.
That would be morbidly funny if people didn't actually think of women that way. ::shudder::
"My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed."
And you call yourself a human being. You. Are. An. Ass.
So...if someone bombed your church, but made sure no one was in there beforehand, then it's kosher, then, right?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
