Abortion clinic bombers not terrorists: Palin

Originally posted 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.

Well here's one woman who thinks she's way off.......

Ayers did NOT kill anyone.....the Weathermen attack on the Pentagon was in a bath room and damaged plumbing that destroyed some computer records....

Eric Robert Rudolph, the abortion clinic/Olympic bomber, KILLED two people and injured 150 others....

And you see nothing wrong with what she said????

reply to post by heliosprime


thinking about it lets take this to its fullest, why stop at killing jesus

lets go back in our time machine to kill adam and eve .... no people means no terrorists no sexism racism rape murder child abuse no abortions ..see somthing for everyone even though they wont exist


the ultimnat goal of mankind should be to go back and stop mankind ever existing .... its heroic after all -_-

So, let me get this straight:

-This is a "gotcha question."

-Bombing innocent people because they disagree with your political opinions may not necessarily make you a terrorist (though Palin and every McCain supporter on this thread had no trouble calling Ayers one).

-Calling Ayers a terrorist to this day is okay, but not thinking others are terrorists because the people who bomb agree with your opinion is okay.


What is difficult about this question? Why even bring up Ayers. I think we'd all admit the acts he carried out (no matter what his reasons) were terroristic in nature. That was decades ago, however.

Why is it okay to attack him, but condone bombings of innocents? She said, "unacceptable".

Really? Unacceptable? No, it's not unacceptable. Killing innocents is sick and outrageous.

Pfft. Unacceptable. The only thing unacceptable was that answer.

*Edited to add:

And what the hell is a gotcha question anyway? It's a glorified buzz word. Every one of these candidates has answered tough questions. Why all the sudden when she pops into the scene is there a "drive-by media" who asks "gotcha questions".

I understand how certain questions may be a bit unfair occasionally, but if you can't answer simple questions... oh well. Don't run. No one cut any slack on Hillary or expected them to.

If she can't take the heat...

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Sublime620]

I don't know why liberals are up in arms over this. Abortion clinic bombers are few and far between, but EVERYTIME it has happened it is widely covered. In the meantime, there is never any coverage every time a late-term abortion is performed. And, of course, to go to extremes, right-wingers are killing leftist doctors who drill holes in an infant's head.

I think if it is not in the case of rape, incest, or the mother's life is at stake, women who get abortions (as a form of birth control because of lack of personal responsibility) should be made to watch the procedure.

There really is no difference between what abortion bombers do and what the Weather Underground did, except of course the fact that a Presidential Candidate lies about his association with one.

Do you think if libs could tie McCain to one of these "abortion bombers", it would not be a media frenzy?

reply to post by CreeWolf


I think you displayed the exact ideology that makes people upset. First of all, it's not that she thinks they aren't terrorists, it's that she is willing to throw the word terrorism around when it benefits her side.

Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. I don't give a damn what you think about abortion.

You can put up statistics, or pictures of dead babies, or hold a rally when a liberal is giving a speech, or whatever you want. I don't care. It is irrelevant to what we are discussing here.

We aren't talking about the ethics of abortion, we're talking about absolute hypocrisy.

reply to post by CreeWolf


Yeah I dont really understand why this is such a big deal. In the video McCain gives a stern Chop with his hands to pretty much say he doesnt condone it, nor would he allow such acts!

I mean he said it himself. And he is not saying that if someone bombs an abortion clinic that he would be easy on them, or claim otherwise.

I stick up for Obama now and then, thus I must be fair and say this in McCain defense.. I think its being taken out of context due to what Sarah said..

I will make it clear with this post.. IM all for Obama and will be voting for him.. But the maddness needs to stop on both sides.
Guys the elections are comming up and its a fragile time.. Lets ease back a little bit and just go vote. and See what happens..

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

Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? Yes.

Was Eric Rudolph? No.


Are these abortion clinics government owned? No. Do you call someone who robs a UPS man a "terrorist"? No. Do you call someone who robs a Post Office man a "terrorist"? Yes. If you put a bomb in a UPS box, are you a terrorist? No. If you put a bomb in a U.S. Mailbox? Yes.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by CreeWolf]

reply to post by mattguy404


I agree. The implication by not answering a simple question is that she does not see them as terrorists. In other words, she is willing to advocate violence in the name of changing the laws of the country = domestic terrorist. Good job potential VP of MY country! Way to represent!

ColoradoJens

reply to post by CreeWolf



wait so if i go blow up churches what crime would that be?

reply to post by CreeWolf


I believe the Unabomber is on their list. See above post. He blew up random people. He is/was considered by the definition as a terrorist. It does not have to be a govt building only that they blow up - see world trade center.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by ColoradoJens


No. He just sent a few letter bombs to Government Employees.

Even the mainstream media makes this distinction. They call Eric Rudolph a "bomber". They call Timothy McVeigh a "terrorist".

reply to post by noobfun


If you blow up churches, you are just a "bomber". Not a terrorist. Churches aren't Government owned. Of course, now, if the church is on a military base? Hmmmmmm!

I have remained silent about Palin, until we got closer to the end of the campaign. But now, I just can't hold it in any longer.

This woman is clearly dangerous, and I question not only her inability to make sound judgments for this country, but her mental stability as well.

She could be one heartbeat away from being our president. What a horrifying thought.

The further along we go, the more unstable and strung out Mc Cain and her appear to be.

She seems to be throwing out any old thing she pleases, without regard to what consequence it brings. But I'm not duped for a moment. This is the last ditch effort to make Palin appear a maverick. This isn't her, straying from the advice of her handlers, it's just another mind trick. I wouldn't doubt that she auction or donate all her clothes to charity this week, and turn her heel further. It's all smoke and mirrors.

reply to post by Asherah


I think she did well answering the question. Most people don't seem to understand what terrorism is even defined as. She seems to understand that its only a "crime" when its committed against another citizen. Its "terrorism" when you commit it against a government body.

Abortion clinics aren't government owned. Remember, that's one of the main stinks over abortion rights. The Left would like the government to pay for it. If you end up with government-run abortion clinics someday, and you choose to go bomb one, THEN you are committing "Terrorism".

[edit on 25-10-2008 by CreeWolf]

I think as someone who is a staunch supporter of the evangelical church, and anti-abortion, had way to much trouble answering this question.
She didn't want to offend the anti-abortionists.
since she didn't know how to answer the question, she just did what was grilled into her.

Along with her world leaders 101 classes, she needs classes on how to professionaly divert a question.

But the fact that can't answer that yes, this is terrorism, really bothers me.

Even if she has crimes at different levels in her head, if doesn't know the definition of terrorism...

The fact of her being in any kind of office just really worries me at this point.


If she can't handle a question like that...what happens when the tough ones really come.

and this may or may not be baiting by the media. The question was as easy to answer as what is the capital of the US.

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]

reply to post by Dewm0nster


LOL I have thought about moving to Canada. But I don't have enough money.

The elections are nothing short of chaos.

And if I had my way, which I never do. They would only be 3 months long.
One month to pick a candidate.ONe month for the candidate to pick a cabinate. And One month for them to duke it out.

And the reason I said the cabinate is because a president is only as good as the people in their administration.
That is why there is so much focus on teh VP, despite their limited abilities, because that is all we have to go on.
I think that if the person shows who they are going to pick for the whole cabinate, we can get a much better view on what they are going to do.
So McCain has a lousy VP candidate, but if the people he picked for all the other working positions are great, he would have a much better shot.

I probably miss it, but does any reporter ask who they are going to appoint? Or would like to appoint?
Kind of like fantasy football. LOL


Then I would add that they only get 10 million each and see how resourceful they get.

I was in Pennsylvania a couple of times the past few months and lord I feel sorry for the swing states. I watched tv and in an hour and a half there must of been 12 campaign commericals.

The residents want to tear their hair out! lol


It doesn't even end. then there are months of speculation till the person is inaugurated.
Heavens it should all happen the same day.

I really do feel for other countries who have to deal hearing about this also. Sorry folks!

OK there are my ideas for campaign reform.

Originally posted by CreeWolf
Isn't "terrorist" a term used when you are fighting against a "Government"?

No, all you have to do is terrorize another person or group of people to be a terrorist!

I guess I'll have to go to the dictionary again! (this was posted on the first page!)

Definition of Terrorist

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
******SKIP******
terrorist
noun
a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

#2 - Don't you think blowing a building up that people work in would would cause them to feel frightened and terrorize them?

2nd Highlighted Area - The people that blow up abortion clinics want abortion to be illegal and go to this extreme to try to scare/terrorize people from getting a LEGAL abortion. They are pushing their political/religous view through terrorism!

3rd Highlighted Area - Most of the people (if not all) that are bombing these abortion clinics are VERY religious and abortion is against their religious beliefs, they believe nobody should have an abortion! (HMM, reminds me of Palin)

So the answer is NO, a terrorist isn't only somebody who is fighting against a government.

Years ago (and maybe even today) the terrorist label wasn't pinned on the people who bombed abortion clinics, that doesn't mean that they didn't fit the definition of a terrorist though!

[edit on 10/25/2008 by Keyhole]

reply to post by CreeWolf


so if i blow up a church for my religeous belief that god doesnt exist, and i want to abolition all relieon and turnpeople away from god by fear

it would be ..... ?

It's been clear to me that Palin was not choosen for her experience but,for her supposed appeal to women and the base of the GOP.She's the perfect scapegoat for McCain once the election is over she will be thrown to the wolves.