 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:00 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: 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.
So what? The French tried to blow up the Rainbow Warrior, human beings were never the target. But oops, they accidentally murdered a photographer in the process who was on it. But by your argument it wasn't really terrorism because they didn't mean to kill anyone. Whatever.
Again, I'd say that if we are to call person A a terrorists, at a minimum person A should be trying to instill TERROR in someone, somewhere.
Blowing up empty abortion clinics, empty infanticide clinics or empty gas-ovens meant for Jews simply does not qualify. Buildings cannot experience terror.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:15 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:05 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: 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.
So what? The French tried to blow up the Rainbow Warrior, human beings were never the target. But oops, they accidentally murdered a photographer in the process who was on it. But by your argument it wasn't really terrorism because they didn't mean to kill anyone. Whatever.
Again, I'd say that if we are to call person A a terrorists, at a minimum person A should be trying to instill TERROR in someone, somewhere.
Blowing up empty abortion clinincs, empty infanticide clinics or empty gas-ovens meant for Jews simply does not qualify. Buildings cannot experience terror.
Talk to yourself Stiggy. 
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:07 am |
|
HardyHeaven wrote:
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.
Yep, I don't blame her.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:10 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: 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.
So what? The French tried to blow up the Rainbow Warrior, human beings were never the target. But oops, they accidentally murdered a photographer in the process who was on it. But by your argument it wasn't really terrorism because they didn't mean to kill anyone. Whatever.
Again, I'd say that if we are to call person A a terrorists, at a minimum person A should be trying to instill TERROR in someone, somewhere.
Blowing up empty abortion clinics, empty infanticide clinics or empty gas-ovens meant for Jews simply does not qualify. Buildings cannot experience terror.
Talk to yourself Stiggy.
OK. Hey, stiggy, how 'bout me and you doin' some real stiggying together?
Let's start by discussing the apparent optical illusion you undergo, stiggy, when you read your reply in the box above. Notice how the two bold words "instill terror" look like they are inclined to the right.
That's weird, ain't it, stiggy? You think it's politically significant, stiggy?
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:15 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:11 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 agree with you Declin. And if some evil nutcase blew up an empty building in my neighbourhood I'd be terrified that there was some lunatic on the loose thinking they can blow up buildings any time they want.
And here's another thing Declin, I've heard terrorists justify their actions with the very same lines I'm seeing in here. They rarely admit to wanting to harm human life, they always claim that they try to minimise it by giving warnings. This is how the IRA operated. They never ever regarded themselves as terrorists because they always claimed that people were not the targets and that's why they gave warnings and chose the areas they bombed selectively.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:21 am by Sally-Anne
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:16 am |
|
Let's try this. I'll just talk about Stiggy as though he isn't here. That way, I can discuss Stiggy's ideas, without having to have an actual rabbit-hole discussion with Stiggy himeslf. 
Stiggy seems to be asserting that terrorists who bomb abortion clinics are mere revolutionaries who simply have not come into their time. The country in masse has yet to change the evil laws so as to prohibit abortion, so really, bombing an abortion clinic is simply a way to get the (wrong) laws changed.
That Sarah fails to call those who bomb abortion clinics 'terrorists' is ok with Stiggy, since abortion is wrong, and since MOST of the time, the bombers are only bombing buildings, not people. If there are only people in the buildings occasionally, then the people who bomb the buildings aren't terrorist. They are, by definition, mere building- bombing revolutionaries. Sarah is good. Building-bombing revolutionaries are good. Abortion is evil. Killing jews is evil too, therefore, bombing abortion clinics is justified.
Further, since a revolutionary doesn't consider himself to be a terrorist, he isn't a terrorist. It doesn't matter what others think an abortion clinic bomber is ... it only matters that the bomber doesn't consider himself a terrorist, and since he doesn't, he isn't.
Oh, and bombing buildings that people frequent during the day, but which aren't occupied during the evening hours, simply isn't terrorism, by any definition. Even though it is only MOST (but not ALL) of the time that the building bombers bomb the buildings.
I think I've got it all straight now. I'm glad I got to have this conversation with myself. I feel all better now.
____________________
Don't believe everything you think!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:32 am |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: Let's try this. I'll just talk about Stiggy as though he isn't here. That way, I can discuss Stiggy's ideas, without having to have an actual rabbit-hole discussion with Stiggy himeslf.
Stiggy seems to be asserting that terrorists who bomb abortion clinics are mere revolutionaries who simply have not come into their time.
Looks like your soliloquy isn't off to a good start. I never suggested anything of the sort, and I don't think that for a minute. Perhaps in these little talks with yourself, you can provide yourself with some documentation for your claims; like maybe a quote or something.
The country in masse has yet to change the evil laws so as to prohibit abortion, so really, bombing an abortion clinic is simply a way to get the (wrong) laws changed.
No. I've never bombed an abortion clinic and don't plan on doing so, but if I did have the balls to do it, it would only be to keep a particular building from being used to butcher unborn boys and girls. I don't think burning down buildings is a good way to get a law changed.
That Sarah fails to call those who bomb abortion clinics 'terrorists' is ok with Stiggy, since abortion is wrong,
No. Again, if you are to have soliloquies, maybe they should be better informed. I never said that bombing abortion clinics was OK with me. I said it was not a terrorist act, becase bulidings cannot be terrorized. They can't laugh or cry either.
and since MOST of the time, the bombers are only bombing buildings, not people. If there are only people in the buildings occasionally, then the people who bomb the buildings aren't terrorist.
No, I specifically stated that killing people was an act of terrorism.
They are, by definition, mere building- bombing revolutionaries. Sarah is good. Building-bombing revolutionaries are good. Abortion is evil. Killing jews is evil too, therefore, bombing abortion clinics is justified.
So now that you combined the three, let me ask you this. (You can address the reply to yourself, if you wish to continue your weirdness). Would bombing an infanticide clinic or a nazi built gas oven for Jews be "justified?" Wait. I think you already answered that. You'd wait for "legal channels" to make things right.
Further, since a revolutionary doesn't consider himself to be a terrorist, he isn't a terrorist. It doesn't matter what others think an abortion clinic bomber is ... it only matters that the bomber doesn't consider himself a terrorist, and since he doesn't, he isn't.
I have no idea where you got that bit of nonsense. Is someone in this place going around claiming that A can be NOT A, simply by claiming it?
Oh, and bombing buildings that people frequent during the day, but which aren't occupied during the evening hours, simply isn't terrorism, by any definition.
No, it would be terrorism by any definition that would be able to explain how an empty building gets scared.
I don't think soliloquies are your thing, HH.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:34 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:37 am |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: That Sarah fails to call those who bomb abortion clinics 'terrorists' is ok with Stiggy, since abortion is wrong, and since MOST of the time, the bombers are only bombing buildings, not people. If there are only people in the buildings occasionally, then the people who bomb the buildings aren't terrorist.
Yeah, just insert "IRA" next to the word "bombers" throughout that paragraph and you've got the introduction to their terrorist handbook on "how to be a non-terrorist in a worthy cause."
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:43 am by Sally-Anne
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:45 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
Yep, they did. I didn't want it to be true and thought you were stirring it Dec, but I have to admit that you were telling me the truth.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 04:37 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
Yep, they did. I didn't want it to be true and thought you were stirring it Dec, but I have to admit that you were telling me the truth.
Looks like Coadie and Hiram are going to wade in with it, too. *sigh*
Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it, but the terrorist apologists were apparently just looking for their heroine Sarah to make excuses before they too came out of the woodwork. 
ETA: Now do you get why the idea of a US Christian theocracy scares the crap out of me??
The American Taliban
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 04:43 am by Aldaron
____________________
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 04:44 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
Yep, they did. I didn't want it to be true and thought you were stirring it Dec, but I have to admit that you were telling me the truth.
Looks like Coadie and Hiram are going to wade in with it, too. *sigh*
Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it, but the terrorist apologists were apparently just looking for their heroine Sarah to make excuses before they too came out of the woodwork.
Yeah, I'm kinda sad too, I didn't expect this. And I kinda feel all on my lonesome now. I dunno if hiram will wade in, not from what he wrote anyway....good for him.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 05:38 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
Yep, they did. I didn't want it to be true and thought you were stirring it Dec, but I have to admit that you were telling me the truth.
Looks like Coadie and Hiram are going to wade in with it, too. *sigh*
Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it, but the terrorist apologists were apparently just looking for their heroine Sarah to make excuses before they too came out of the woodwork.
Yeah, I'm kinda sad too, I didn't expect this. And I kinda feel all on my lonesome now. I dunno if hiram will wade in, not from what he wrote anyway....good for him.
It looks to me, from the "Terrorism" thread, that he already has...
____________________
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 07:32 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 07:52 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
____________________
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 08:47 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:00 pm |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building, I guess I'd start by terrorizing that Amityville House, since it seems to have started the terror. Is that it? You and declin believe in haunted houses? But I don't think that will help you here, since even the most staunch pro-lifer probably wouldn't think that abortion clinics are haunted; not even by the spirits of the millions of unborn babies who are slaughtered before having a chance to enter into yours and declin's and my world.
____________________
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 01:27 pm |
|
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
And you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time telling us over and over that buildings can't experience emotion.
Gee, Stiggy. Thanks for that.
Now go back and read the definition of "terrorism" again. Here's a hint: it does not exclusively mean eliciting feelings of terror in a particular target.
It also means the use of violence to intimidate people to gain a political point. Bombs are violent. They are set off to intimidate people to make a political point. They are, by definition, acts of terrorism.
I know you want to split semantic hairs so the abortion-clinic bombing fanatics aren't quite as bad as, say, the IRA or Al-Qaeda, but you're fighting a losing battle. They set off bombs to make a political point. They have killed people as part of making their political point.
They are terrorists.
Stop being an apologist for them. It's unbecoming.
____________________
|
darwiniac
Coadie who has been banned
| Joined: | Mon Sep 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 505 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:29 pm |
|
Please alderoonie. The black Panteres will couple with the Weather Underground and you before they would go hear Billy Graham.
Richard dawkins now calls taking kids to church is child abuse and violence.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:35 pm |
|
darwiniac wrote: Please alderoonie. The black Panteres will couple with the Weather Underground and you before they would go hear Billy Graham.
Richard dawkins now calls taking kids to church is child abuse and violence.
Look, get back to me when your borderline literate personality comes online, will you? Until then, just keep heaping abuse on people over their spelling/grammar errors...it's kinda funny to watch you do it.
"Yu canit speel pruply. you must be idito"
*sigh* Never gets old...
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 05:28 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
And you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time telling us over and over that buildings can't experience emotion.
I know. It is astounding to me that I have to do so.
"
Gee, Stiggy. Thanks for that.
Think nothing of it, man.
Now go back and read the definition of "terrorism" again.
OK. Here's Wikipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.
So if one blows up a building where children are being killed and when no one is in the building, it obviously does not qualify as an act intended to create fear, since as we SHOULD know by now, buildings cannot expeerience fear. Is there an "ideological goal?" Is saving someone from sure death that will occur in a building an "ideological cause?" If so, then firemen are ideologists. Does it deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants? No: In fact, PRECISELY the opposite, if the bombings occur intentionally when no one is around.
Meanwhile Obama pals around with a guy who tried to actually kill PEOPLE and encouraged students to kill their parents. And even if buildings COULD experience emotion, you STILL don't have Palin palling around with bombers of empty buildings.
So you guys screwed this entire thread up.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 05:30 pm by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Current time is 03:31 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   |
|
|
|
|
