Abortion clinic bombers not terrorists: Palin

Am I the only one who sees the irony here? People who think Ayers, who declared war against the US Government was NOT a Terrorist are criticizing someone for not labeling a person who attacks a business as a Terrorist.

I also watched the interview. The question was a set up.

Abortion needs to be left out of politics. Pro-Life means I believe that abortion is murder. Even worse than that, I believe it is infanticide. I see abortion for birth control as a hideous thing. I see it as Evil.

Pro-Choice means I think a fetus before birth is not a Human and is just a mass of tissue. I think that destroying this mass of tissue as a form of birth control is the same as wearing a condom.

When a Pro-Choice person tries to force their view on a Pro-Life person, they are in fact asking them to agree that murdering ones own children is acceptable. People need to learn to be sensitive to that. Imagine asking someone to say, go ahead kill your kids, it is all right with me.

One side will never change the others mind, so it is best it be left out of politics altogether. In this case it was used as a weapon against a woman who was criticized for not having her own handicapped child chopped up in her womb. Imagine how she must have felt. We don't need to become less than human in our political debate.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Were the Twin Towers or Airlines government owned? Nope. I guess 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack after all.

Here's an article for ya Sublime,

But Wait ... By Palin's Definition, Mohamed Atta Isn't A Terrorist

What is truly and deeply frightening in this exchange is the lengths to which Palin will go to avoid disparaging abortion bombers. She is so desperate not to characterize the Eric Rudolphs of this world as terrorists that she forges a severely narrow definition of the act: You have to target the Capitol or the Pentagon to qualify.

That even lets Mohamed Atta off the hook, since he attacked the World Trade Center. Like the doctor's offices and medical clinics struck by abortion terrorists, it's a civilian target. We know that Sarah Palin doesn't believe that Islamic militants who kill civilians aren't terrorists.

Palin is just waaayyy out of her league and too uninformed about ... , well, it seems everything!

Originally posted by David9176
It's almost an impossible thing to answer without getting caught on the bad side of someone.

It was a cheap shot.

The answer is simply yes. The bomber of an abortion clinic is attempting to instill fear, or terrorize, those affiliated with abortion. Both employees and patrons.

How could she have been caught on the bad side if she were to answer yes?

On a side note...

I personally believe this is a difficult question for her to answer.

She has strong Christian values, as exemplified in a few speeches given as governor.

Although Christians are against murder, many view the bombing of an abortion clinic as, one less abortion clinic. She may also hold this view.

If elected, hopefully her pledge to her country is of higher value than her pledge to god.... Or.... God help us.... lol!

Abortion clinic bombers are not terrorists they Are criminals
Is Infanticide terrorism ?
Obama & Live Birth Abortion / Induced Labor Abortions / Infanticide Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

www.youtube.com...

So i gather from reading this thread that only people from other countries and people who identify with the left politically are only capable of being terrorists in the republicans mindset?

Oh dear how did that logic train managed to get derailed.

reply to post by mattguy404


Don't ya know that all of Gods Christian soilders get a pass when they're throwing bombs.

This whole attempt by media types to center the question of "terrorists" Ayers or abortion clinic bombers is founded on many false assumptions.

First of all, many here were not of age during the Nixon/Agnew years and don't understand that most young people then were so angry at the government that the common chant was "America, change it or screw it" as well as "one, two, three four we don't want your f___n war" I remember that Agnew called us names, mocked us and was later indicted for crimes and had to resign as VP. I remember Nixon having a think tank postulate on cancelling the next election if riots took place so he could declare himself President under Marshal Law, and then he too had to resign for high crimes. Ayers may have crossed the line. But let me tell you, it was scarry back then, many were ready for a revolution and it would have happened except that they ended the war.

One must view Ayers in light of the high crimes that were taking place in the oval office back then. Were Nixon and Agnew terrorists? I would say so. I believe Nixon wanted to make himself dictator, much like the guy in that office today. Would you consider men in an administration guilty of faking an attack on the world trade center and killing 3,000 New Yorkers terrorists? I would.

Many here mouth the name Ayers and terrorist too easily...look at history and then realize that our media don't want you to think too much about terrorists that are right now in charge of this country and stripping us of our citizen's rights at every opportunity. If you are so opposed to "terrorists" what are you prepared to do about the financial crisis terrorists striping your 401k's, your houses and bank accounts of all their value?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? People who think Ayers, who declared war against the US Government was NOT a Terrorist are criticizing someone for not labeling a person who attacks a business as a Terrorist.

I'm calling people who bomb abortion clinics terrorists, and I'll agree Ayers was a terrorist! Why do you have to make such a false broad sweeping statement like that that would include people like myself and others who might have the same opinion as I do?

I also watched the interview. The question was a set up.

We went over the definition of a terrorist a couple times here already!

NO, it wasn't a "set up", it was a question that should have received a simple YES answer. People scaring and intimidating and terrorizing other people with a bombing in order to push their own agenda are called TERRORISTS!

Abortion needs to be left out of politics.

I agree with you there!

One side will never change the others mind,

I agree with you there too!

Just have to get the people who bomb, intimidate, terrorize, abortion clinics to cease and desist!

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


Spread your propaganda elsewhere. We are trying to have an intelligent discussion.

reply to post by Keyhole


Thanks for the heads up. It was an obvious misspeak by Palin. What's more amazing is people aren't saying that she was caught off guard or making some other excuse, but rather, they are trying to justify it.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by noobfun
they are just doing the lords work and got a bit over excited

its ok they said sorry and they wont do it again they will stick to throwing stones and spray painting things .......

nothing to see here just kids having fun .. obviously they cant be terrorists they beleive in god .. but i suppose if you were really being mean and harsh about it maybe terrorist could be used but they did say sorry after all

Did they say sorry? All of them? I think you bring up a good point. Are they unrepentant or not? Apparently we have two very different levels of domestic terrorist. I think maybe she needs to come up with a pretty chart for us. It can show the range of acts of terror, what god or political ideaology they are in the name of, and what type of terrorist or 'non-terrorist who happens to attack innocent Americans in the name of religon' as it were.

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
Abortion clinic bombers are not terrorists they Are criminals
Is Infanticide terrorism ?
Obama & Live Birth Abortion / Induced Labor Abortions / Infanticide Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

www.youtube.com...

Bombing a building full of innocent live adult people is now the same as abortion? OK, I can buy that. But to claim that somehow brings the AC attackers up from the level of terrorist to criminal?

Do you have any idea how many females go to these places for other medical treatement because they cannot afford to go to a primary care physician? I cannot tell you how many girls I know that have never had an abortion but have been in these clinics plenty of times for other care. So, they deserve to get bombed in the name of Jesus? A building full of the abortion doctor, as well as....receptionist, nurses, innocent scared poor girls, families, husbands and boyfriends being blown up is the same as abortion? That sounds like a whole other thread to me.

reply to post by Blaine91555

Pro-Choice means I think a fetus before birth is not a Human and is just a mass of tissue. I think that destroying this mass of tissue as a form of birth control is the same as wearing a condom.

Maybe to you it does. Not to me. I believe life begins at conception, and I am pro informed choice. I don't want people going around killing unborn babies. The key is how to go about convincng them not to. People need to think things through and be aware of the consequences of their actions. In order to do that, they need to be properly educated. They can't be made to feel desperate and ashamed. They can't have their choices taken away or forced on them.

I don't think Jesus ever forced anyone to choose salvation. Maybe pro-lifers could take a lesson from that.

Seems to be one of those "definition" questions. The are government approved definitions and there are dictionary definitions and there are personal definitions...

My terrorist is "any person, organization, or alliance which uses fear, force, or threat of either to impose any change in an established environment". So, every politician who uses the word terrorist in any context is a terrorist themselves. A person who exceeds the speed limit is terrorist, too... Hence, I don't ever use that word in conversation.

So, Gov. Palin of Alaska probably uses some party line or religious definition or some other "duplicitous" meaning. She is pro-life and probably thinks murder suits her desires because that doctor is already alive and well and his death means that more cute little babies would be born thus overwriting his death. I guess so, anyways.

reply to post by mattguy404


I think this is possibly one of the smartest things Palin has yet said. Toss the "double standard" out the window; let's not criticize her for making such a clear remark. She understands that people are taking the term "terrorist" much too far. What she said is definitely a comforting removal from all the fear mongering that's going on in the U.S., where everything and anything that is ostensibly unpatriotic or that appear to have motives, which are seemingly derisive, in context of the War or the current foreign policy measures, are labeled "terrorist", or supporters of "terrorism". Note she did NOT say that 'they are NOT liable, neither morally nor legally, for their actions (they are and she knows that; she's not as clueless as many seem to believe)'. She did say that perhaps there should be a better word to describe them, something worse than "terrorist" itself. I find too few people actually know the definition of the word "terrorist" in the first place. Perhaps we should call these people something along the lines of "radicals" or "partisans".

I think most have misinterpreted what she said. Neither is she advocating domestic terrorism in the name of some self evident truth, nor agreeing with their motives. She's simply disambiguating the term "terrorist" and the fear of the word that is consuming and consequently estranging many honest Americans. But now I fear maybe she should not have commented at all, as this misinterpretation is too easy to come by and will, obviously now, as many on this forum alone have lead me to believe, come to some avail for her fiercest opponents. It's just the political image that she has created in past few months, or rather that the media has portrayed, undermines anything that she says. Even something like this, which is as intelligent as I've never heard her before, can be turned against her. It's sad really. Too bad she won't be vice president; this public image monstrosity has tainted her every action and every word. Behind all that I'm sure there is, along with a lot of honest passion, intellect and conviction, a great woman. She's much better than Joe Biden in my opinion, he's useless. Have you heard him drag on for hours about absolutely nothing? Much worse than Palin's nervous rambling, and apparent clueless demeanor. At least there's character there.

Oh and just so you can't attack me ad hominem, I'm Canadian and if I were American I would vote Democrat.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente


I don't attack anyone

Even Palin's own GOP party people think she is going about things the wrong way and not taking their advice:

Palin's 'going rogue,' McCain aide says

edition.cnn.com...

McCain sources say Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate. They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls -- recorded messages often used to attack a candidate's opponent -- "irritating" even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan.

A second McCain source says she appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

People in her own party think she is a "diva" - and she is supposed to be next in line to the throne if grumble guts McCain keels over in office?

I agree that what a terrorist is or isn't is debatable, I'm not disputing that.

But this woman is just a rolling disaster, and I feel nothing but pity for her I have to say.



[edit on 25-10-2008 by mattguy404]

reply to post by cognoscente


So it is admirable that she does not want to throw the terrorist label around so casual. I can not argue with that at all.

Unfortunately, she has no problem throwing it at Democrats and their ilk. So, it does not seem at all like a noble gesture to quiet that word as much as a partisan hair splitting tactic.

If someone from our own country does something horribly bad to us and we decide to go bomb something of there's within our own country, We are considered terrorists.

Yet when someone from a foreign country does something horribly bad to us and we decide to go bomb something of there's within their own country we are automatically considered heroes and patriots.

Sarah Palin isn't sure if bombing abortion clinics is a terrorist act?

But if I want to go bomb a prison where thousands of murderers, rapers, and child molesters who got off easy, are now sitting in a warm place with food to eat while millions of innocent people around the world are starving. I will get locked up for 50+ years if not put on death row. And labled as a terrorist.

reply to post by cognoscente


Bombing innocent people for political gain is possibly the best interpretation of that word. It's what Osama did, it's what Ayers did in the 60s, and it's what the Unabomber did (along with thousands others throughout history).

That's what terrorism is. Domestic terrorism isn't being unpatriotic, going to protests - even if they get a bit rowdy, or speaking out against current politics.

I don't know how you believe she is stopping the word from being used too loosely. She is basically disagreeing with the basic definition of the word.

The real truth: She, and many others, use the word when it is convenient to them. And that, well that is bogus.

reply to post by David9176


It was not a cheap shot. And your dictionary references are explicit enough that you should be able to read between the lines. Because what unites those meanings are the mention of religion, politics, and partisan beliefs. Therefore the overriding factor is IDEOLOGY.

The dictionary doesn't have to say "right to lifers", the meanings given should be understood to include " right to lifers", who from the basis of their POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS beliefs, use fear and violence to kill, intimidate, and control others that do not share the same beliefs.

Look up the word "IDEOLOGY" for clarity.

reply to post by mattguy404


Well apparently I'm mistaken. I haven't taken the time to research her I admit. I was just saying what came to mind. That's quite disheartening that she's turned out be a "diva". I guess I just expect much more from people than I probably should.

Sublime620: And I agree with you. Although she is attempting to abate the definition of terrorism, I found it slightly noble that she would try to disambiguate the term, and not simply propagate all the fear mongering that's been going on recently.

But I do in deed disagree with this logical rationalization. These "domestic radicals" are in essence terrorists. We aren't wrong for calling them so. But it would be more sensible to offer a more appropriate term to them. If not, we will only see people throwing around the word inexplicably, generating some national fervor if you will. The word will bring incessant harrying to those that are targeted as such. Just as women were persecuted as "witches" as recently (relatively) as the late seventeenth century, the term will be used too liberally, and lead all too much to unnecessary violence.

Now it's clear to me that she is somewhat a diva. And I do believe that she shouldn't have said any of this at all. Her public image can only do her harm now. She really should lay it low until this election is over.


[edit on 25-10-2008 by cognoscente]