Dangerous pro-choice extremists?

quote:

---

I have no idea what you are referring to here.

---

Read post #1.

quote:

---

Really. By strangling the definition that way, picketing abortion clinics is terrorism.

---

hence why your definition suck.

quote:

---

Um, Obvious, did you check the cite? That is a definition provided by THE U.S. MARINES.

---

How does that refute my point?

quote:

---

When that day comes, I will consider changing my definition of terrorism.

---

But your definitions are clearly terrible.But this who discussion is idiotic as no overarching authority has accepted a clear definition. The US military has 109 versions. The UN gave up after 18 years of trying.Still, I like the GS one the best"terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or
societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological
objectives. (JCS Pub 1-02)"It must be illegal, revolve around the threat or use of force, and to achieve change in a society/gov't for a political, religious, or ideological goal.Therefore, military operations that are sanctioned are not terrorism, one key flaw on many definitions out there.

So dude, are you going to list all of those dangerous nutjobs in the pro-legalized abortion camp, that are roughly equivalent to the dangerous nutjobs in the anti-legalized abortion camp that you said existed?

They are not my definitions.If you have a problem with the technical definition of terrorism provided by the U.S. Marines, take it up with them, not me.If you have a problem with war crimes, take it up with the military, not me. You missed the point.Using this definition picketing abortion clinics is terrorism.And I am still waiting on those cites re: anti abortion wingnuts = terrorists.You have twice made the claim and twice failed to provide cites.

quote:

---

If you have a problem with the technical definition of terrorism provided by the U.S. Marines, take it up with them, not me.

---

Why post a definition if you won't accept it? The definitions you provide make military operations terrorist operations. There is a reason the UN gave up after 18 years of trying to come to a conclusion.

quote:

---

If you have a problem with war crimes, take it up with the military, not me.

---

What the hell are you talking about? I feel like you are jumping around randomly in the same way that omni did when he called me a terrorist for asking questions. So much for this place being reasonable. You people are just as irrational as the creationists you attack.

quote:

---

Using this definition picketing abortion clinics is terrorism.

---

Not at all. The 1st amendment clearly gives people the right to gather. Therefore as long as the protesting does not include threats of violence (and those must be reasonably backed up with capabilities as noted under the limits of free speech), their acts are in no way terroristic. Now if they were toting rifles and made it clear that they were going to shoot people who worked at the clinic, that would be different. Also merely having a firearm there does not equate to terrorism either as many states allow people to walk around with concealed firearms.People here may understand science, but their law understanding is on par with a understanding of a infant's on super strings.Is there even a single JD here? doesn't look like it.

quote:

---

And I am still waiting on those cites re: anti abortion wingnuts = terrorists.

​

You have twice made the claim and twice failed to provide cites.

---

Do you have a problem reading? I already cited where I got that, and I didn't even make it. I just repeated what the original poster did in the first post. For a bunch of so called scientists, the reading comprehension level is appalling.And I'm waiting for you to answer several key questions. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

You seem to be missing the clear intent of terrorism: terror.Blow up a few planes and people are terrified to fly - causing all kinds of disruption. Blow up a few buildings and people are terrified to go to work - causing all kinds of disruption. In an atmosphere where such acts are expected, a bomb threat causes as much terror and disruption as a real bomb.The question is: Does spiking a few trees terrify loggers so they can't work? Is that the intent at all? Or is the intent just to draw attention to "the cause"?On the other hand, what's the intent behind bombing an abortion clinic? Is it to deter women from having abortions?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

No they aren't. You conveniently omitted a few charges, then you minimized the other one's. "Oh, they're just bombs". Its all about motive. What would you know about it? Do you have a criminal justice degree? I think the FBI is a tad more qualified than you to make that determination. Maybe they have and you are unaware of it.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

aren't they?

Actually, it's to ruin chain saws in order to increase the costs of the logging operations.I suppose that stock holders may be terrified that their investments may not be as profitable as they could have been.

---

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

Again. You've obviously never walked thru a clinic protest.As a former Planned Parenthood volunteer, I have.These folks shout "threats" at the patients as they are escorted into the clinic.Using your definition, they are terrorists. Dear. The definition I provided includes violence in its definition too.In case you've forgotten. Just what I said. War crimes are way OT. Here is the link you provided:Page not found - National Abortion FederationThe word "terrorist" DOES NOT APPEAR ON THAT PAGE.Please provide a cite. Oh, yes you did.

Prove it. Yes. I did.It happened once.The bombs did not explode.Terrorism is characterized by a systemic effort.Were a single act of planting a homemade bomb sufficient to define "domestic terrorism" then this ... ... and hundreds of similar stories are acts of "domestic terrorism". No. It isn't.If it were, then anti abortion wingnuts would be called "domestic terrorists". The FBI is a political animal, like any federal bureaucracy.Political hype is political hype, no matter which way you slice it.Driving a truck bomb into the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is domestic terrorism.Arson is arson. Prove it.

Actually, I'm an insolent old man.You said something that wasn't true. I entered this thread for the express purpose of challenging that falsehood.You could have closed that exchange at any time by merely admitting that you were wrong. Instead, you sought to imply that my challenge to your falsehood suggested that I was a terrorist sympathizer.The truth is important. When someone tries to dodge a challenge to their falsehoods by shouting questions with smearing implications, it is important to recognize that tactic for what it is.My insistence that you admit the truth resulted instead in long rants of baseless accusations and insults. When my insistence that you either support your assertion or withdraw it became too embarrassing to ignore, you suggested that perhaps you might have been in error, but that your error paled in comparison to my insolence and immaturity.And you still don't have the cojones to admit you were wrong. You have no idea, child. I would pith you like a frog.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

They have no idea of how silly it is to threaten old men, do they?LOL

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

quote:

---

You seem to be missing the clear intent of terrorism: terror.

---

As is everyone else. Seeing as people like molbiogirl do not consider the aspect of terror within the context of an act, this thread is rather idiotic. However, the definitions she provided do make incidents such as the fire bombing of Tokyo or the systematic de-housing of German civilians terroristic. Remember that the US air force had to hide the true purpose of their heavy bombers as there was serious opposition to building bombers that would be directly used against civilian targets. Also, remember that the Nazi designers specifically added a siren to the Stuka to scare the people within the target zone. Plus the whole rape of Nanking was a giant terroristic act. The problems with molbiogirl's definitions is that they can easily make military operations terroristic. The UN gave up after 18 years due to this problem and others in trying to define terrorism. Hence why I use the GS version as wars are generally legal, thus removing the military operation problem from the definition.

quote:

---

The question is: Does spiking a few trees terrify loggers so they can't work? Is that the intent at all? Or is the intent just to draw attention to "the cause"?

---

Probably all of those. The ELF has made it perfectly clear that they are in favor of protecting nature, laws be damned. If I was a eco-terrorist, I'd try to scare enough timber workers away to financially harm the logging company to either force a change in what it does or put it out of business. Killing people tends to do that.

quote:

---

On the other hand, what's the intent behind bombing an abortion clinic? Is it to deter women from having abortions?

---

Probably to deter women from having abortions as well as scaring away the workers there. Remember that pro-life people have murdered nurses and doctors working at abortion clinics and sent terroristic threats to the offices of PP.IMO, it doesn't matter what your end goal is, if you use a method designed to scare and terrorize people, you're a terrorist. It's just that simple.

Under those definitions yes.Now, I'm freely willing to admit that the US military has acted at least as a supervisory or trainer role in terroristic operations, particularly in central America during the 70s and 80s, but I have hard time accepting that the primary role of the US military, defense of the American people is terroristic, especially in the context of things like WW2.Defining terrorism as unlawful removes this problem as a declaration of war, or reacting to a declaration of war is not illegal.

quote:

---

As a former Planned Parenthood volunteer, I have.

​

These folks shout "threats" at the patients as they are escorted into the clinic.

​

Using your definition, they are terrorists.

---

I'm starting to wonder if you can actually read. The rules regarding free speech dictate that one can say basically whatever they want, including fighting words as long as there is no reasonable assumption that the user of the statement has the will or the assets to fulfill their threats. A 18 year old who says "Kill Bush" will not be prosecuted if they lack the assets or will to actually do it. A 50 year old former seal who has a large amount of weapons, skills and an known grudge against Dubya is a different story.Furthermore, just because you say a threat doesn't make you a terrorist. The US statutes, unless they've changed since I checked do not qualify the charges of terroristic threating with the person being a terrorist. What they say may (and probably does) qualify as terroristic threating, but just because you say something of that matter does not make you a terrorist unless you act on it. Like I said before, the law understanding this forum seems to have is on par with a infant's understanding of super strings.

quote:

---

Dear. The definition I provided includes violence in its definition too.

​

In case you've forgotten.

---

Do you always takes things out of context? I was talking about your inability to accept that the military definition makes military operations terroristic. Not the issue of violence. I can check what I actually wrote and your constant removal of context is getting very annoying, as it is extremely dishonest.I've noticed that outside of the science forums, many of you people are no different then creationists.

quote:

---

War crimes are way OT.

---

Do you consider the leveling of Dresden to be a war crime?

quote:

---

The word "terrorist" DOES NOT APPEAR ON THAT PAGE.

---

*sigh* I see no point in discussing this when you don't even bother to read what I actually wrote.The link I provided merely cites incidents of arson or crime against abortion clinics. And you completely ignored my question. Right now, Buz looks more honest then you do.

quote:

---

Oh, yes you did.

---

And if you stopped for a second to stop lying, you would actually read what I wrote and what I cited.