| Author | Post |
|---|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 09:54 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote:
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board?
Lies? What lies? It was your fucking heroine who refused to call them terrorists, not me.
I don't remember you being shy about posting on TalkBeliefs when it was run by an Australian.
I realise you lose your erectile function when someone disagrees with you, but what can I say? Build a fucking bridge and get over it.
You are full of shit. I heard the interview.
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
Cajun
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 910 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 10:01 pm |
|
Aldaron, I already have a beard... and it's long... and it's getting longer... I only need to trim my moustache really, really short... and I'll look like a western convert to Islam in a flash. 
Heck, I even have a grey, muslim men's tunic to boot along with a haji cap and red checkered head scarf. I only need the black braid/rope thing for the head covering, and I'm good to go. I also have a couple of Qurans and a summary of some of Buhkari's hadiths... which are very revered in most muslim circles.
There is no God but Yahweh, and Jesus Christ is His Son.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 11:28 pm |
|
manonfire wrote: Aldaron wrote:
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board?
Lies? What lies? It was your fucking heroine who refused to call them terrorists, not me.
I don't remember you being shy about posting on TalkBeliefs when it was run by an Australian.
I realise you lose your erectile function when someone disagrees with you, but what can I say? Build a fucking bridge and get over it.
You are full of shit. I heard the interview.
So tell me where she agrees that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
Should be a piece of cake, right?
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
Aldaron wrote:
So tell me where she agrees that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
Why should she? It seem to me that by definition a terrorist must have as a motive for his acts to: instill terror. At a minimum, that is.
Now this phrase demands an object. If an abortion clinic bomber blows up a building that he THINKS is absolutely vacant of humans (and chances are he'll probably be wrong, since after all, most abortion clinic bombers aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars), then who can his inteneded target be to terrorize? The building? No. Pregnant women who might have 3AM appointments?
It would be a stretch to say that the bombings are intended to terrorize prenant women who are considering having their unborn children killed. The only deterrent is to make sure you don't visit totally vacant abortion clinics at 3 AM, for example.
No, they might be dumbasses, but they are not terrorists. But somehow when Ayers planned to bomb the Pentagon, I doubt he was waiting for the largest building in the USA to be empty.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 12:11 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 12:34 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote:
So tell me where she agrees that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
Why should she? It seem to me that by definition a terrorist must have as a motive for his acts to: instill terror. At a minimum, that is.
Now this phrase demands an object. If an abortion clinic bomber blows up a building that he THINKS is absolutely vacant of humans (and chances are he'll probably be wrong, since after all, most abortion clinic bombers aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars), then who can his inteneded target be to terrorize? The building? No. Pregnant women who might have 3AM appointments?
It would be a stretch to say that the bombings are intended to terrorize prenant women who are considering having their unborn children killed. The only deterrent is to make sure you don't visit totally vacant abortion clinics at 3 AM, for example.
No, they might be dumbasses, but they are not terrorists. But somehow when Ayers planned to bomb the Pentagon, I doubt he was waiting for the largest building in the USA to be empty.
Ah...and that makes three.
You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Mind you, with Stiggy I suspect he's just being a pain in the prat and nitpicking definitions. I guess the Nuremberg Files were just lists of building addresses for people to blow up when empty, eh?
But that's cool. The more you claim that the murderers and bombers and arsonists of the anti-abortion movement aren't terrorists, the more you make my point: it's only terrorism if <insert favourite bad guy here> is doing it. The Taliban don't think blowing up American buildings is terrorism. "Palinist"-style Christians obviously don't think blowing up abortion-related buildings and people as terrorism.
____________________
|
Torquemada
Yoda
| Joined: | Mon Aug 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 12:39 am |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: Now, I'm sure you'll be delighted and apalled to know that my own view aligns with Palin's, and in fact is probably even more (in your view) unhinged: 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. YO: ...I don't even know what to say at this point. Aldaron, what's property selling for in Australia these days?
____________________
Let's Take a Vote.
|
Torquemada
Yoda
| Joined: | Mon Aug 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 12:39 am |
|
Oh, and Wayne has earned himself another FSTDT citation 
____________________
Let's Take a Vote.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 12:50 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote:
So tell me where she agrees that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
Why should she? It seem to me that by definition a terrorist must have as a motive for his acts to: instill terror. At a minimum, that is.
Now this phrase demands an object. If an abortion clinic bomber blows up a building that he THINKS is absolutely vacant of humans (and chances are he'll probably be wrong, since after all, most abortion clinic bombers aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars), then who can his inteneded target be to terrorize? The building? No. Pregnant women who might have 3AM appointments?
It would be a stretch to say that the bombings are intended to terrorize prenant women who are considering having their unborn children killed. The only deterrent is to make sure you don't visit totally vacant abortion clinics at 3 AM, for example.
No, they might be dumbasses, but they are not terrorists. But somehow when Ayers planned to bomb the Pentagon, I doubt he was waiting for the largest building in the USA to be empty.
Ah...and that makes three.
You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Mind you, with Stiggy I suspect he's just being a pain in the prat and nitpicking definitions. I guess the Nuremberg Files were just lists of building addresses for people to blow up when empty, eh?
But that's cool. The more you claim that the murderers and bombers and arsonists of the anti-abortion movement aren't terrorists, the more you make my point: it's only terrorism if <insert favourite bad guy here> is doing it. The Taliban don't think blowing up American buildings is terrorism. "Palinist"-style Christians obviously don't think blowing up abortion-related buildings and people as terrorism.
I take it you too are unable to supply an actual OBJECT of terror for the abortion clinic bomber. Your failure to do so implies that we're now up to FOUR...., hear that sally-anne. FOUR! Declin joined us, albeit an implicit membership. Uh, sally-anne. That is who we're all talking too here, right?
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 12:57 am |
|
How did we make the jump that abortion clinic bombers only bomb abortion clinics at 3:00 in the morning, when no one is there?
Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills because she was 'terrified' that some nut would bomb the clinic while she was in there.
____________________
Don't believe everything you think!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:00 am |
|
I take it you too are unable to supply an actual OBJECT of terror for the abortion clinic bomber. Your failure to do so implies that we're now up to FOUR...., hear that sally-anne. FOUR! Declin joined us, albeit an implicit membership. Uh, sally-anne. That is who we're all talking too here, right?
Your mistake is in assuming that there has to be a specific target of terror generated by terrorist activities.
Tell me, who was the actual OBJECT of terror on 9/11? The whole of America? New York? Joe the Plumber?
Let's have a look at Dictionary.com's definition of "terrorism", shall we?
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
You're insisting that a terrorist meet definition #2, and completely ignoring definition #1.
Abortion clinic bombing is about the best example you could find of "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes", that political purpose being, of course, the elimination of abortion.
The only reason I'm mentioning Sally-Ann is that she simply couldn't grok why a Christian wouldn't think that abortion-clinic bombing was terrorism. She thought Palin was on the lunatic fringe with that, and couldn't believe it when I suggested that a lot of "Palinist" type Christians - fundie Christians - would agree with Palin.
So now whenever some Christian comes out and says abortion-clinic bombings aren't acts of terrorism, or that the perpetrators of such aren't terrorists, I simply draw her attention to the increasing number of people just on this board who take the same position.
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:00 am |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
That's terrorism. The subject here was blowing up buildings, not doctors.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:00 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
____________________
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
HardyHeaven wrote:
How did we make the jump that abortion clinic bombers only bomb abortion clinics at 3:00 in the morning, when no one is there?
Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills because she was 'terrified' that some nut would bomb the clinic while she was in there.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills
If she can't afford birth control pills, then she ought not be having sex.
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
From Dictionary.com
ter⋅ror⋅ism var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", " /ˈtɛr əˌrɪzəm/  [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
ter·ror·ism var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", " (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
____________________
Don't believe everything you think!
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:02 am |
|
manonfire wrote: HardyHeaven wrote:
How did we make the jump that abortion clinic bombers only bomb abortion clinics at 3:00 in the morning, when no one is there?
Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills because she was 'terrified' that some nut would bomb the clinic while she was in there.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills
If she can't afford birth control pills, then she ought not be having sex.
Whatever. That's not the point being discussed though, is it?
____________________
Don't believe everything you think!
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:05 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Let's have a look at Dictionary.com's definition of "terrorism", shall we?
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
No wonder that dictionary.com page was so slow to load a minute ago. LOL. Stop posting what I'm about to post a few minutes from now, Aldaron!!
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:06 am by HardyHeaven
____________________
Don't believe everything you think!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:06 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: I take it you too are unable to supply an actual OBJECT of terror for the abortion clinic bomber. Your failure to do so implies that we're now up to FOUR...., hear that sally-anne. FOUR! Declin joined us, albeit an implicit membership. Uh, sally-anne. That is who we're all talking too here, right?
Your mistake is in assuming that there has to be a specific target of terror generated by terrorist activities.
Tell me, who was the actual OBJECT of terror on 9/11? The whole of America? New York? Joe the Plumber?
Let's have a look at Dictionary.com's definition of "terrorism", shall we?
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
You're insisting that a terrorist meet definition #2, and completely ignoring definition #1.
Abortion clinic bombing is about the best example you could find of "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes", that political purpose being, of course, the elimination of abortion.
The only reason I'm mentioning Sally-Ann is that she simply couldn't grok why a Christian wouldn't think that abortion-clinic bombing was terrorism. She thought Palin was on the lunatic fringe with that, and couldn't believe it when I suggested that a lot of "Palinist" type Christians - fundie Christians - would agree with Palin.
So now whenever some Christian comes out and says abortion-clinic bombings aren't acts of terrorism, or that the perpetrators of such aren't terrorists, I simply draw her attention to the increasing number of people just on this board who take the same position.
You're making it too complicated. I'm only saying that terror is an EMOTION, which a building (if the target of the alleged terrorism) cannot feel.
You're right. Elements of fear among those who are not the target might ensue. But if I lived in nazi Germany in 1938, and I saw that a new gas oven for Jews was being constructed, I might attempt to blow it up. My motive would be to save Jews, NOT to terrorize nazis, even though some nazis might become fearful by my act.
But I don't think I'd consider myself a terrorist in that hypothetical scenario. Would you?
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:14 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: I take it you too are unable to supply an actual OBJECT of terror for the abortion clinic bomber. Your failure to do so implies that we're now up to FOUR...., hear that sally-anne. FOUR! Declin joined us, albeit an implicit membership. Uh, sally-anne. That is who we're all talking too here, right?
Your mistake is in assuming that there has to be a specific target of terror generated by terrorist activities.
Tell me, who was the actual OBJECT of terror on 9/11? The whole of America? New York? Joe the Plumber?
Let's have a look at Dictionary.com's definition of "terrorism", shall we?
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
You're insisting that a terrorist meet definition #2, and completely ignoring definition #1.
Abortion clinic bombing is about the best example you could find of "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes", that political purpose being, of course, the elimination of abortion.
The only reason I'm mentioning Sally-Ann is that she simply couldn't grok why a Christian wouldn't think that abortion-clinic bombing was terrorism. She thought Palin was on the lunatic fringe with that, and couldn't believe it when I suggested that a lot of "Palinist" type Christians - fundie Christians - would agree with Palin.
So now whenever some Christian comes out and says abortion-clinic bombings aren't acts of terrorism, or that the perpetrators of such aren't terrorists, I simply draw her attention to the increasing number of people just on this board who take the same position.
You're making it too complicated. I'm only saying that terror is an EMOTION, which a building (if the target of the alleged terrorism) cannot feel.
You're right. Elements of fear among those who are not the target might ensue. But if I lived in nazi Germany in 1938, and I saw that a new gas oven for Jews was being constructed, I might attempt to blow it up. My motive would be to save Jews, NOT to terrorize nazis, even though some nazis might become fearful by my act.
But I don't think I'd consider myself a terrorist in that hypothetical scenario. Would you?
I think that blowing up abortion clinics is indeed terrorism. It's an intent to cause fear, and an intent to sway public opinion through violent means. If a government condones blowing up abortion clinics, simply because some people don't agree with the laws that state that it is perfectly legal to have an abortion, women who desire to go to such clinics are going to be in fear.
I don't care about your analogy. Abortion is still legal in this country, at least it was the last time I checked. You're basically condoning the vigilante who doesn't like the fact that abortion is legal.
I don't like businesses that clean people's carpets. Those chemicals are harmful to the poor little dustmites who count on dirty carpets in which they live. If I started a rampage across America, bombing carpet cleaning businesses, would you not consider me to be a terrorist?
____________________
Don't believe everything you think!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:15 am |
|
| Oh, and by the way, did Palin write a book blurb for an abortion clinic bomber? Did she kick off her campaign for governor in the living room of Eric Rudolph? Did I miss something?
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
limana
Supercalafragalistic Limana
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1268 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:18 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Oh, and by the way, did Palin write a book blurb for an abortion clinic bomber? Did she kick off her campaign for governor in the living room of Eric Rudolph? Did I miss something?
Yes, as usual.
This thread is about the term "terrorism," not about your revered Sarah's company.
____________________
"There's only so many times you can say "cesspool of filth and perversion" before the words start losing their sting."
- Hyperbole 3/10/2009
|
Current time is 05:22 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|
