Abortion clinic bombers not terrorists: Palin

She wasn't approving of what these people had done. She knows its wrong. Attempted murder on anyone...whether it be by bombing or not...is wrong. Even if they are doing it because they think they are actually stopping the people doing the murdering. That's the important thing. Now if she had said that it was ok...then yeah...that's a problem. But defining them as a terrorist or not shouldn't mean anything.

Abortion is the problem with it. It's such a touchy subject that many people hold closely to their hearts and values...that's what makes the answer so difficult.

I don't consider them terrorists like i said before.... but i can see why others would.

Originally posted by David9176

What do i consider someone who bombs an abortion clinic? A person attempting murder. Not a terrorist act.

so if the buildings empty and i blow it up it isnt murder, and it isnt terrorism woohoo lets all go blow up abortion clinics and get a fine for littering or maybe criminal damage -_-

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by David9176

What do i consider someone who bombs an abortion clinic? A person attempting murder. Not a terrorist act.

so if the buildings empty and i blow it up it isnt murder, and it isnt terrorism woohoo lets all go blow up abortion clinics and get a fine for littering or maybe criminal damage -_-

So, you kill pregnant women, shoot up a house killing the family inside. You blow up a hospital killing dozens inside, incite fear, terrorize people, hate America, but you're not a terrorist because you vote Republican? Yeah, makes perfect sense. As long as I vote Republican I guess I can nuke San Fransico. Actually, if McCain/Palin win they'd probably give me medals for killing so many homosexuals and blacks and Asians and other people they don't agree with.

The Idea of Terrorism is using Terrorism to instill fear in your enemies.

So yes this can be considered Terrorism.

reply to post by GamerGal


sorry i forgot to include [/sarcasm] i thought the -_- face gave it away

anyone who blows up anything in an effort to force change through fear and violence for political or religeous motivation is a terrorist

the only differance between blowing up a church/mosque/federl building/bank/abortion clinic should be length or tye of punishment

which should be solely decided by 3 factors deaths/injuries/finacial damage (at least to my mind in that order too)

guantanamo 1/2 filled with terrorist christians ... now thats a lesson in equality


[edit on 25/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by mattguy404


I didn't see any of you wring your hands when Chris Mathews claimed Ayers wasn't really a terrorist, along with an agreeing Obama campaign. What rationalization have you come up for that one?

They are terrorist. A normal citizen does not go around blowing up buildings of things they don't agree with. Picketing in front of a Planned Parenthood is a protest, blowing up a Planned Parenthood is terrorism.

Those that keep complaining it's a gotcha question, may not realize that is what reporters are suppose to do. They are not suppose to give softball fluff questions like they did post 9/11 or use the interview to criticize another candidate. They are suppose to ask hard hitting questions of the person being interviewed. Questions America voters want asked. Questions that reveal the true person behind the facade.

People BOMB clinics in order to create fear. They want people to be afraid to go there. That's also part of the goals of gathering large protest crowds outside, to attempt to humilate and intimidate anyone who might go to an abortion clinic.

If the goal were simply to kill the doctors and/or clinic workers, they'd be using guns. Though this too is a form of intimidation and fear tactics.

How could anyone call Ayers a terrorist and yet give violent abortion clinic murders a different label when both agendas were to 'terrorize' and create fear?

There is no denying that she did not want to label abortion bombers as terrorists. Take that how you like. One mans terrorist is another mans patriot.
His question was a brilliant one and nailed the issues. He triped her up into spilling who she really is inside. She caught herself but too late. Don't fool yourself and be a sheeple. She said exactly what she felt inside. She is scary.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Xeven]

reply to post by noobfun


I wasn't attacking you but the guy you were quoting. Also, to the republicans on here saying it's not terrorism to blow up a hospital killing pregnant women inside because they vote republican, be quite. After Osama Bin Laden Endorsed McCain its over.

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
reply to post by mattguy404

 

I didn't see any of you wring your hands when Chris Mathews claimed Ayers wasn't really a terrorist, along with an agreeing Obama campaign. What rationalization have you come up for that one?

Chris Mathews is not running to be Vice President of The United States. I would not want Chris as President or Vice either. What he says is not relevant to this discussion.

reply to post by Blueracer

I see nothing wrong with what she said. All I see is underlying sexism. Nothing this woman can do is right in many people's eyes. And it's only because she is a woman. But people won't admit that. They'll use every other excuse to attack her.

What does sexism have to do with not being able to answer a direct question with a direct answer minus the bs in between?
Naming terrorist actions as terrorism, domestic or otherwise?
???
I fail to see what sex has to do with that at all.


...taps...

reply to post by silo13

maybe its the use of the word domestic

owe noes asking a woman a question with the word domestic in it must be sexist!

especially as we love her she is sooo dreamy ....[/sarcasm]


it seems to me theres really only 1 differance between both VP candidates

one is honest and admits he is a clown and there are much better people to do the job then him and the other is sarah palin

[edit on 25/10/08 by noobfun]

So stopping mass murder is not heroic? Killing Hitler before he took office would have saved millions............How about killing Stalin..........more millions saved..........america dropped the atom bomb on japan to stop the killing of millions during the upcoming invasion........which is worse?

Does she consider those crazy muslims in Iraq who blow themselves up everyday to be terrorists???

It is the same thing here, of course those abortion clinic bombers were terrorists. Isn't Timothy McVeigh branded a terrorist???

reply to post by heliosprime


yes your right lets assainate these would be terrorists bombing abortion clinics in the name of saving lives!

infact lets build a time machine go back intime and shoot mary and joseph before jesus was born, look at all the racism and murder done in the name of christianity that we could undo

sorry all i got from your post was lets go kill someone to save otehrs you didnt say which side of the fence your standing




[edit on 25/10/08 by noobfun]

Ouch. Looks like i'm alone here. Just stating what my opinion was. It's a word...terrorist....whether one is called one or not doesn't change horrible things they have done. A bomber is a bomber, a murderer is a murderer, a rapist is a rapist. The term can be used vaguely enough to brand any of these people terrorist. We can even go so far as to say the woman giving abortions are terrorists (that is not my stance btw). Some people hold the definition differently, and that's what this is all about. It's your right to get angry, but don't get angry with me about it. Just because i label someone a terrorist or not doesn't mean i approve of what they are doing.

Here is a link on my views...which was a good thread...but most seemed to ignored for the most part.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't even like to think about the American elections.
What a state of affairs.
She's got a good chance at being the next president- A thought which is both disturbing, and disgusting.
How did that country get to be in such a state?

I'm glad I live in Canada- But it won't be long before they drag us down with them.

Was the Olympic Park bombing in '96 a terrorist act? Eric Rudolph was deemed responsible for that. He was also held responsible for several abortion clinic bombings. I don't think anybody could seriously or truthfully dispute that Eric Rudolph is a domestic terrorist. So, domestic terrorists carry out abortion clinic bombings, at least one of them did. Let's stop trying to split partisan hairs here, people.

If 'abortion clinic' was replaced with 'school' or 'church', would we be having any debate?

Would her answer not be seen as innapropriate by all of us?

Somewhere up the page someone mentioned that killing those commited mass murder would be heroic. Here we go:

Originally posted by heliosprime
So stopping mass murder is not heroic?

Well, our foreign policy, at this moment, is responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths...so in order to stop that we should...what?

And Hitler, hell, we could have killed the guy who decided he didn't have what it took to be in art school and maybe we could have replaced WWII with some pretty water colors.

Please, citing Hitler is more of a cop out then the quoted bit above.