Abortion clinic bombers not terrorists: Palin, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times


reply posted on 25-10-2008 @ 10:46 PM by Xwino
It may just be me but the confusion seems centered on the definitions. If anyone took the time to read the first ref. The bill which was just passed does not include any of your scholarly definitions. The first is “violent radicalization”. This term means “the process of adapting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence to advance political, religious, or social change”.
The second definition, which is “homegrown terrorism”, talks about the 'planned use, threatened use, of force or violence by a group to intimidate or coerce the government of the United States.'
In order to grasp the full ramifications of pronouncing someone a 'Terrorist' or committing and act of 'Terrorism' you must define each principal word. Process,adapting, promoting, extremist belief system, facilitating, VIOLENCE later defined as force or coercion. Using the governments definitions ( yours don't matter ) terrorism now becomes something which may be broadly applied to a large segment of the american population. This is of course their intent. Intentionally vague to cast a pale of suspicion on the largest number of citizens.
So every single time one of you folks is quick to label a fellow American or anyone a terrorist, they smile and welcome you into THEIR GAME. I don't support either candidate but you do not allow anyone to force a yes or no answer for a complicated question. If you submit to playing that word game your an idiot. And if the think the commentator was unaware of the 'gotcha' question ............. well I don't know what to tell you.


reply posted on 25-10-2008 @ 10:55 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by CreeWolf



Isn't "terrorist" a term used when you are fighting against a "Government"?

Actually no. As it has been defined several times already during this thread, a terrorist is someone who uses terror to attain a political or religious goal.

Please note that to use terror in order to attain a political or religious goal, no actual action against the government or religion has to be taken. It can be taken against opponents of your view.

This is exactly what abortion clinic bombers do.

I would like to reiterate a point made on the second page of this thread. If the words "church" or "school" were to replace "abortion clinic" there would be absolutely no argument going on about defining that as a terrorist act. Bombing abortion clinics because you despise abortion is equivalent to bombing government buildings because you despise the government.

There really should be no argument going on here.



reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 12:35 AM by CreeWolf
Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by CreeWolf


Were the Twin Towers or Airlines government owned? Nope. I guess 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack after all.

Great detective work, Creewolf.

*Edit:

And your definition of terrorist, though it fits your ideals and opinions, is flat out wrong.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Sublime620]


OH! A "technicality"! Geez. I guess the Radical Muslims who flew those planes were targeting the WTC, United, and American Airlines huh? I saw the video. Osama Bin Laden was tired of the over-inflated airline prices and the eyesore the towers were to the skyline?

Nevermind they were dancing in the streets praising their attack on the UNITED STATES. And, how convenient, you forgot the PENTAGON. I've read your posts and I know you aren't dumb. Why play the part?


reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 12:40 AM by Sublime620
reply to post by CreeWolf


Well, I wouldn't say I've played the part. I did forget about the Pentagon, but without the Pentagon, the attacks were still terroristic in nature.

Are you honestly not going to agree with the definition:

Instilling fear for political gain?

Isn't that exactly what bombing an abortion clinic is?

Edit to add:

Or should we call Websters and tell them they need to rethink their current definition because certain people disagree with it when it doesn't fit their cause.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Sublime620]


reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 03:56 AM by mattguy404
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


My title is simply the actual headline.

However, Palin refused to answer the question to begin with and started dribbling on about Bill Ayres before she was bought back to the question.

And then still she refused to call that breed of domestic terrorist as in fact "terrorist" for something that some evangelicals would condone.


reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 09:37 AM by Sublime620
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


Uh... right at the beginning. "Other's who would want to harm innocent Americans or facilities it would be unacceptable. I don't know if you are going to use the word terrorist there, but it would be unacceptable."


reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 09:43 AM by jimmyx
Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Blueracer


She's been attacked nonstop on ATS and the media. People happily join in the fray...treating this woman like a piece of garbage. She has been belittled in almost every conceivable way and frankly i find it sickening.


yup, your darn right she's been attacked...we need someone who is sharp,
non-judgemental, knowledgeable about foriegn affairs, smart on the governmental roles and policies of the U.S. . just because she's female, doesn't excuse her from intense scrutiny and critical judgement. and if she can't handle herself in front of main stream media people, she will be unable to handle the pressure cooker of being president. this isn't kansas anymore, sarah, you betcha, wink, wink.

i want a president that is so smart and knowledgeable, that I myself feel dumb, not the other way around. i DON'T want a joe-six-pack type of president. we have to much stupid already

[edit on 26-10-2008 by jimmyx]


reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 11:17 AM by noobfun
reply to post by Xwino

thats ok even with those stricter deffintions they are terrorists

christianity is a religeon founded outside of america there by it is an external(foreign) force of terrorism in the same way american islamic terrorists are bieng called terrorists not domestic or home grown as they beleieve a religeous ideology that comes from outside the country of thier birth

there by using this external religeon and ideology to commit murder and spread fear for thier reliegous ideals of a foreign religeon on americna soil. this would make them also international terrorists with links to other groups around the world that support them either financially or in belief

and as papy bush says to support or aid a terrorist is to become a terrorist


reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 11:42 AM by nixie_nox
reply to post by jimmyx


I agree with this. Media questions are going to be the least of her problems.

I don't think it is discriminatory. If a man answered the question the same way he would be chastised just as much, maybe even more so, because he is more ready to a war.

She is going to face discrimination from many many countries.Not all countries accept women as leaders, and not all are fair about it. She better get used to it.


reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 02:12 PM by Elijah Mohammad
I think that by the "other people", Palin was speaking of eco-"terrorists", and people like that. She was trying to say that, in her view, terrorism is much more than small individual actions against other individuals or even companies. The thing that, in her mind, it seems, makes it terrorism, is when it is the kind of action meant to militarily attack her nation or allies of her nation. The attacks on the World Trade Center, though they were not against government buildings, were a military attack on the nation, still. I heard it described before on the Art Bell Show as a "decapitation" attack. It's where the enemy tries to take down a nation, or state by taking out it's critical, top economic, military, and government facilities all at once.


Of course, this is accepting the "official" story of what happened, and who was responsible (which the media does). I do not accept this. I think the responsible parties are certain elements within the governments of the US and Israel, and the people who owned the World Trade Center, and the purpose was to make money, and to have an excuse to fulfill certain nasty schemes against nations around the world, and the American people as well.


I agree that her definition is wrong, but think about it.....almost ALL of the politicians' definitions of terrorism are wrong, because almost all of them do not include as terrorism actions which certainly fit the definition of attempting to coerce people through acts or words designed to instill fear. The US government is just as guilty of terrorism as any other nation or "terrorist" group, if not even more so than most. You won't get any politician to admit that, however. Their definition of terrorism is basically using force in a way that they strongly disagree with, or that conflicts with their interests. That is how governments define terrorism. Is it the right definition? No! It's the only one that allows them to make it a crime, however.



-Elijah


reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 02:28 PM by Elijah Mohammad
Abortion clinic bombing, and killing of abortion doctors, and the Earth Liberation Front, all are not terrorism/terrorists.

Under American law, which does not recognize the life of the baby in its mother's womb, Abortion clinic bombing is criminal mischief, arson, and a few other crimes, not terrorism. Killing of abortion doctors is murder, not terrorism....the Earth Liberation front is engaged in organized crime, mainly, arson and criminal mischief....NOT TERRORISM.

Terrorism is a phony crime to allow the government to persecute whomever they wish in an unequal way with others. They created a new crime in the wake of 9/11 in order to allow themselves to violate the equal protections clause of the constitution. This is wrong.

When citizens of the US make war on the US, that is either sedition, treason, or a legitimate act of war. When foreigners make war on the US, that is either a just or an unjust war, and whether or not they are a WAR CRIMINAL depends on their actions in that war....other than that, they commit no crime. There is no such thing as terrorism as a crime that can be solidly defined, it is a farce.

Under the law of the creator, and the understanding of science, to kill a baby in its mother's womb is murder of a human being. There is a video called "Silent Scream" which is available on the internet. I will not post a link to it, because that would go against board policy of having no links to blood and gore. If you wish, you can look it up on your own though. It shows how abortion is the worst kind of terrorism against the most innocent and defenseless of human beings. It shows on ultrasound how the unborn baby opens its mouth in a silent scream of agony, and wriggles and thrashes and swims around desperately, trying to escape being cut in pieces by the murderer trying to kill them.

To kill an abortion doctor intent on his/her practice is not even murder, much less some phony crime of "terrorism". It is the rescue of an untold number of innocent human beings who cannot defend themselves. Our laws are defunct and evil.



-Elijah


reply posted on 26-10-2008 @ 03:14 PM by Sublime620
reply to post by CreeWolf


That's what you think. You don't think Muslim extremists believe they are doing it to save lives? You don't think William Ayers was bombing (and not trying to kill people) to save lives?

Most people who commit terroristic acts believe they are doing it for the greater good. The sad part is that she, and apparently you, can attempt to justify it just because you happen to subscribe to their beliefs.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^