Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dangerous pro-choice extremists?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 31 of 113 (443734)
12-26-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Chiroptera
12-26-2007 12:50 PM


Re: Don't dodge the demand for evidence
I should have added that I'm not that much interested in this debate topic, as I think the point is rather clear... at this time there are few liberal terrorists, and almost certainly no pro-choice terrorists.
The main thing is that I saw Omni's question and I felt like giving him some info.
I'm not sure if I'd take oC's position, but I guess I would consider some material damage as terrorist in nature. The equivalent to this would be gangland extortionists coming in and busting up someone's house or business, that is intimidation for a purpose even if it is just property damage.
But the numbers are low in comparison... unless you want to throw in how many liberals use police and military forces to get people to do what they want. If terrorism by the state is included, there may be more liberal terrorists, though still not the same as conservative (by which I mean fundie not libertarian).

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 12:50 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 6:14 PM Silent H has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 32 of 113 (443775)
12-26-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Chiroptera
12-26-2007 12:50 PM


Re: Don't dodge the demand for evidence
quote:
Anyway, in oC's subsequent post, I notice a couple of things: first, he still confuses vandalism with terrorism, and he still makes comments without back up. It is pretty weird that conservatives can't seem to do their own legwork. No wonder they seem under represented in academia, where solid scholarship counts for something.
Are you telling me that the deliberate destruction of millions of dollars of property to scare away investors and consumers is not terrorism? I have a hard time placing arson designed to terrorize developers in the same category as spray painting the side of a house.
Let's see if any of you claim to be as reasonable and logical as you claim. Since some of you don't think that destruction property is terrorism, would you call a fundie who bombed a abortion clinic after everyone left a terrorism? Since he only caused property damage, wouldn't you be FORCED by your logic to remove him from the terrorist category? Furthermore, are you saying that using pipe bombs against business men is not terrorism? If I, placed a pipe bomb on the door of my local politician who favored development, intending to either scare or harm him, would that be an act of vandalism or terrorism? Are you also stating that placing traps that can either maim or kill timber workers is vandalism? If I placed large, sharp spikes on trees that I knew timber workers were going to be chopping down intending to hurt or kill them as the trees fell or as they worked on cutting the trees up, would that be just vandalism or terrorism?
Silent H did the job providing the sources. There's no need for me to do it when he beat me to the punch.
I'm simply getting to the fallacy that many liberals hold that liberalism rejects terrorism. Would anyone like to argue that Liberals have never used terrorism?
A number of you, despite claiming to be academics and open minded, seem to have a problem applying it here.
Now I call people who cause property destruction for terroristic reasons to be terrorists. Political ideology is irrelevant. Can any of you apply your reasonings without double standards?
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 12:50 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 6:20 PM obvious Child has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 113 (443778)
12-26-2007 6:13 PM


Leftists with a sordid past
The Weathermen, The Black Panthers, Che Guevara, Red Army Faction, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, Symbionese Liberation Army, FARC, Black Liberation Army, FALN etc, etc, which is not inclusive to proletariats under the heel of leftwing oppression.
Like I said, both sides have nutjobs. That is an indisputable FACT. To even suggest that there isn't is dishonest in an unfathomable way.

“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

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 11:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 42 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2007 10:34 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 60 by nator, posted 12-27-2007 5:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 113 (443779)
12-26-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Silent H
12-26-2007 4:30 PM


Re: Don't dodge the demand for evidence
The main thing is that I saw Omni's question and I felt like giving him some info.
Well, I wasn't aware of the more extreme threats by ALF, so this is good info to have given.
-
The equivalent to this would be gangland extortionists coming in and busting up someone's house or business, that is intimidation for a purpose even if it is just property damage.
I don't know whether gangland violence would count as terrorism since the goal isn't so much political but to extort money, but I see your point here. Certainly one could say that a political organization threatening poverty and destitution would count as terrorism and I wouldn't argue against it.
As I understand it, though, the tactics of ELF aren't meant to intimidate as much as they are to add an extra cost to the bottom line when corporations and organizations decide on how they will do their business. I see a difference here, although I can see how this line can get pretty blurry.
-
If terrorism by the state is included....
Personally, I would prefer to confine terrorism to the acts of the state (or by dominant groups trying to stay dominant, like the Southern U.S. lynching culture) -- after all, this was the original meaning of terroriste gladly taken by the Jacobins themselves, I believe -- but I guess I have to accept the meaning of the word as used.
-
...there may be more liberal terrorists....
Outright state terrorism isn't something usually associated with liberals, although I suppose that it might be hard to distinguish between a liberal and a policy position traditionally advocated by liberals. But since I'm not a liberal it really isn't for me to define what a liberal is.
I guess anyone who supports some role for the state in society is going to advocate for the use of state power to coerce, through intimidation if necessary, compliance with the adopted policy decisions. I wonder if we can call anyone who advocates state power to effect policy decisions terroristes?
No matter how we define terrorist, it may be that there are going to be some gray areas where the designation may not be so clear. (Maybe that was your point?)
-
Anyway, I think that it is a good question whether liberal terrorist isn't an oxymoron, but then I don't want to parrot Buzsaw's "true Christianity is peaceful" argument.
But I do think we need to know exactly what a liberal is. Is there some ideology called liberalism, and does this ideology preclude the use of violence? Or is a liberal defined solely by the center of gravity of all of her public policy opinions?
-
Sorry, nator, this seems to getting off-topic of the so-called pro-abortion-wackos-who-are-identical-to-anti-abortion-wackos. But no one seems to be interested in coming up to the plate and identifying these so-call pro-abortion extremists.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 12-26-2007 4:30 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 113 (443782)
12-26-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
12-22-2007 12:10 AM


Nazi's
Do nazis count?
No, since Nazi's are rightwing.

“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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 12-22-2007 12:10 AM Taz has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 113 (443785)
12-26-2007 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by obvious Child
12-26-2007 6:04 PM


Re: Don't dodge the demand for evidence
Are you telling me that the deliberate destruction of millions of dollars of property to scare away investors and consumers is not terrorism?
Pretty much.
-
I have a hard time placing arson designed to terrorize developers in the same category as spray painting the side of a house.
I have a hard time placing arson of uninhabited houses in the same category as blowing up school buses full of children.
-
Since some of you don't think that destruction property is terrorism, would you call a fundie who bombed a abortion clinic after everyone left a terrorism?
Well, no, if the goal isn't to actually to make people afraid, then there is no intention of causing terror, is there? I mean, isn't that what terrorism means, the use of violence to make people afraid of their lives and safety?
Or do you think that terrorism is any use of violence for a cause that you don't support? I mean, that is what most people think terrorism is. If they support a cause, the proper term is "freedom fighter". If they don't support the cause, the proper term is "terrorist".
Why don't you supply a proper definition of terrorism instead of just listing causes that you don't support?
Edited by Chiroptera, : added "full of children."

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 6:04 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 11:42 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 37 of 113 (443836)
12-26-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Chiroptera
12-26-2007 6:20 PM


Re: Don't dodge the demand for evidence
quote:
Pretty much.
Then how do you define 'terrorism.' I see an act that was deliberately done to place people in a state of fear and deter them from future actions as terrorism.
quote:
I have a hard time placing arson of uninhabited houses in the same category as blowing up school buses full of children.
How about placing pipe bombs on the doorsteps of the houses of businessmen? How about placing deadly spikes into timber to deliberately harm and kill timber workers?
I asked before when school buses full of children were bombed. I notice no one has provided any evidence of this.
quote:
Well, no, if the goal isn't to actually to make people afraid, then there is no intention of causing terror, is there? I mean, isn't that what terrorism means, the use of violence to make people afraid of their lives and safety?
Then how is arson deliberately made to make people afraid of their lives and safety not terrorism? I noted that the ELF has made statements to skiers to stay away from the rebuilt lodge for their own safety. Under new US laws, that is clearly terroristic threatening, easily prosecuted.
Do you consider someone who destroys the property of someone else to make them afraid to returning to the area and rebuilding terrorism? Many Islamic insurgents in Iraq do that. Deliberately attacking the destroying the offices, homes and religious sites of Shiites or Sunnis to terrorize them to move. Now, I call someone who blows the crap out a home or threatens people to terrorize them to make them move a terrorist. Do you?
quote:
Or do you think that terrorism is any use of violence for a cause that you don't support? I mean, that is what most people think terrorism is. If they support a cause, the proper term is "freedom fighter". If they don't support the cause, the proper term is "terrorist".
Causes are irrelevant. Terrorism is defined by the methods and the motivations. If someone bombed the house of the KKK's leader, that would still be terrorism. It doesn't mean I wouldn't smile, laugh and poke fun, but it's still terrorism. Trying to label me this or that won't work. Most people are idiotic morons who know nothing. And a terrorist is often a freedom fighter, as a freedom fighter is often a terrorist. The Mujahdeem that the US supported in Afghanistan during the 80s were freedom fighters at the same time they were terrorists. I agree with your assertion that dumb people consider people who use terrorist means in causes they support to be freedom fighters and people who use terrorist means in causes they reject to be terrorists.
Many Republicans consider the Contras to be freedom fighters even though the raped, murdered, maimed and terrorized thousands of innocent central Americans all in the name of fighting Communism. Many leftists consider Che to be a freedom fighter even though he killed plenty of people.
IMO, there is only one or two ideologies that are exclusive to terrorism, pure Buddhism (not that Aum Shinrikyo crap, which is more Christian then Buddhist) and Pacifism.
quote:
Why don't you supply a proper definition of terrorism instead of just listing causes that you don't support?
I thought I already made it clear what I consider terrorism to be and made it perfectly clear that ideology and causes are irrelevant. Just because you support their overall cause doesn't make what they do not terrorism.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 6:20 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Chiroptera, posted 12-27-2007 9:19 AM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 38 of 113 (443838)
12-26-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
12-26-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
For once, I actually agree with you.
*Peeks* is it the end of the world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-26-2007 6:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 1:45 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 113 (443871)
12-27-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by obvious Child
12-26-2007 11:42 PM


Re: Don't dodge the demand for evidence
Then how is arson deliberately made to make people afraid of their lives and safety not terrorism?
Huh? This isn't what I have been saying, is it? Remember, it's been your contention that property damage and vandalism alone can constitute terrorism to which I've been responding.
I won't respond to the rest of your post until it appears that you're actually reading mine.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 11:42 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 3:47 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 40 of 113 (443876)
12-27-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by obvious Child
12-26-2007 12:49 AM


obvious Child obviously cannot read
obvious Child writes:
Silent H did the job. But what you seem to ignore or completely unwilling to admit is that liberals have no problem using terrorism.
It seems to me that you have no problem with people causing mass arson destruction, using pipe bombs and placing deadly traps for timber workers to be okay.
...
It seems to me, your refusal to condemn these people means that you think that terrorism is okay when liberals practice it.
As much as evolution believers publically detest fanaticism, they are often not above falling into its traps, as you have shown.
You seem unable to read.
You made an assertion about ELF. I demanded that you support it. Neither you nor Silent H have supported that claim. If you see something in Silent H's post that supports your assertion that ELF members deliberately torched property with people in residence, please quote it to me: I saw quoted material about ELF destroying property, and quoted material suggesting other folks deliberately put human lives in danger. But that isn't what you said, is it?
You can make all the assumptions you like about my position on ideologically driven property destruction--but I have not stated one. How telling it is that a demand for evidence yields plenty of contumely--but no evidence.
Since you cannot support your assertion, you rave on about a position you cannot know that I do or do not hold, all because I demanded that you back up your accusations--that ELF activists torched property knowing that people were in residence.
You, obvious Child, are the terrorist in this discussion, accusing and condemning anyone who refuses to accept your assertions without evidence. It is the tactic of the Inquisition and the McCarthyite.
Put up or shut up. Show me your evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 12:49 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 4:11 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 4:38 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 41 of 113 (443881)
12-27-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by obvious Child
12-21-2007 9:46 PM


Reminder for obvious Child
obvious Child writes:
Vandalism? The amount of damage they do is immense per person and they have been known to commit arson when the owners of the properties are there, often at night.
This is just to remind you of the statement that requires support.
As you can see, you need to supply evidence that ELF has burned properties when the owners are in residence, "often at night."
So we are looking for evidence of multiple cases, many of them at night.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by obvious Child, posted 12-21-2007 9:46 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 42 of 113 (443884)
12-27-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
12-26-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
none of these people are specifically pro-choice groups and none of their sordid pasts have anything to do with murdering adoption workers, demanding and berating women to get abortions, or going into ivf clinics and destroying vats of embryos. this is completely off-topic. this thread is about extremist pro-choice people ONLY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-26-2007 6:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 11:47 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 1:48 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 43 of 113 (443890)
12-27-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by macaroniandcheese
12-27-2007 10:34 AM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
nator in her OP writes:
I hear this claim from conservatives a lot; that when it is pointed out to them how many violent, hate-mongering, radical, and obviously irrational people there seem to be withing the conservative community, they say "Oh well, there's just as many wacko people on the liberal side."
I don't think that's true. At all.
This thread is intended to let conservatives document the liberal equivalents of conservatives who, say, threaten or murder abortion doctors, or picket women's health clinics, or beat up or kill gay people, or break bottles over their heads and send themselves death threats to make it look like they were attacked and threatened and then blame it on liberals, etc.
Nator, in her OP, cites the murders of abortion providers, gay bashers, fake conservative victims, etc.
She asked for liberal equivalents; she did not limit those equivalents to pro-choice liberals.
The true difficulty in this discussion hinges on the labels of "conservative" and "liberal": the OP seems to accept the notion that one must be one or the other, while it seems to me that those who resort to violence are more properly termed "radical" or "extremist." Neither self-described conservative nor self-described liberal camps in the U.S. body politic embrace violence.
Apparently, the best obvious Child, for example, can do is to call environmentalist vandals "liberals": I think we can rule-out the terms of conservative and liberal from anyone who embraces violence.
But are there as many violent left-wing extremists as violent right-wing extremists in the U.S.? Apparently not, based on the evidence provided in this thread.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2007 10:34 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 4:17 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 61 by nator, posted 12-27-2007 6:06 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 44 of 113 (443908)
12-27-2007 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
12-22-2007 10:29 PM


Re: Maybe Some Help?
Randall Terry
Where's the violence. He lost a lawsuit for infringing on the profits of abortion clinics during his non-violent protests. I guess that paves the way for lawsuits against any non-violent protests that hurt a business.
Ann Coulter
Nutty rhetoric - yes violent-no
David Duke
White supremacist - no history of violence
Bill O'Reilly
When did he even advocate violence?
Glen Beck
Conservative anti-GW wild statements...violent...don't see it.
Pat Robertson
wild rhetoric...where's the violence?
Fred Phelps (conservatives oppose him now, but their outrage at his "God Hate's Fags" demonstrations only emerged after he started targetting the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq.)
His blatantly hateful statements and protests were criticized by Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson and through official statements by Assemblies of God, Church of God, and Southern Baptists to name a few. Those criticisms were issued back when he was protesting at funerals for gay men. Not embraced by majority of conservatives, then or now.
So if wild and hateful rhetoric is the point at which you want to call these people dangerous then I can start looking for extremist rhetoric in the pro-choice ranks and provide you with a list of dangerous people. Thanks for the clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 12-22-2007 10:29 PM nator has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 113 (443913)
12-27-2007 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by obvious Child
12-26-2007 11:48 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
For once, I actually agree with you.
*Peeks* is it the end of the world?
I'm sure stranger things have happened...

“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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 11:48 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024