Dangerous pro-choice extremists?

Earth Liberation Front. That's a liberal terrorist group.Still, the point is obvious. Liberals, compared to 'conservatives' and that term should usually be denoted as Religious Conservatives, as libertarians are conservative in fiscal senses, but not often in religious aspects, commit or plan to commit far less violent crimes. Bin Laden is a example of a religious extremist and he planned a operation that killed almost 3,000 people.

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.

So the destruction of millions of dollars of property, grand arson and general violation of basic property rights is acceptable?We should just excuse the use of pipe bombs and other explosives?Are you sure you want to go there?And the ELF had made statements regarding certain areas warning people to stay away. Obviously their plans are going to cause damage. If we can call Muslims who blow stuff up and happen to kill people at the same time terrorists, why can't we do the same for the ELF?Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

quote:

---

These aren't pro-choice extremists, they are eco-terrorists and Animal rights activists.

---

True, but the notion that liberals don't use terrorism is simply wrong.

quote:

---

Only in a thoroughly capitalist country could property damage be considered the equivalent to shooting health care providers or blowing up school buses full of children.

---

When has a conservative in the US blown up a school bus full of kids?
Notice I'm not disagreeing that religious conservatives are outright nuts in their actions, just that the idea that liberalism excludes terrorism is wrong. The ELF has done massive property damage, including serious ecological damage as well from their many arson sprees. Plus, the ELF as noted before has put the lives of construction workers at serious risk. Again, notice I haven't said that the ELF = Abortion Clinic bombers, just that both sides of the spectrum aren't absolutely against using terrorism.

Not really.

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.I never said that they 'happen to kill people.' That argument reeks of creationist tactics. I said that their use of terrorism had lead to serious property damage, threatened the lives of people, given terroristic statements, and use explosives and other traps.Now I have a problem with people who do that regardless of what political affiliation they hold.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.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

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.

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.

For once, I actually agree with you.*Peeks* is it the end of the world?

quote:

---

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.

---

You assume too much. If I meant that, I would have thrown in everyone else who vandalizes and destroys property. The fact that I specifically noted the ELF as terrorists is because of the intent and motivation for why they destroy things.I won't respond to the rest of your post until it appears that you're actually reading mine.

For a so called academic open minded science accepting person, you sure do a great impression of a close minded, religiously fanatic maniac.Silent H proved my points. Just because you do not like the quotes doesn't mean they are not true. In fact you are doing exactly what you criticize creationists for. Ignoring or rejecting evidence they don't like because they simply don't like it. Now that pretty much proves you have a double standard problem, if you're fine with that, whatever, not my problem. Furthermore, you and others are deliberately ignoring the other terroristic activities of the ELF. Thus unless you state otherwise, you believe that sending pipe bombs to deliberately harm or kill people is not terrorism as it planting traps to kill and maim timber workers. Yet you consider people who destroy property to be terrorists even when they do not kill anyone and do not intend to kill anyone. Would you care to explain your seemingly huge logic problem there, or will you act like the creationists you attack and run away or ignore those points?Perhaps I was wrong about the ELF deliberately torching houses with people in them. That doesn't make them not terrorists when their other activities would qualify. It seems you and others understand that as the actions given by you and others are the exact same as creationists who know they can't deal with a specific argument.I will ask you a simple question:Do you consider people who send pipe bombs to kill or maim people terrorists?

quote:

---

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.

---

I find it amusing that you have no problem engaging in the same name calling and labeling that Creationists and Republican Pundits use. Frankly, you're cut of the same cloth whether you want to admit it or not. Also please show me where I accused and condemned anyone. All I have done is make observations based on you and other's inability or direct refusal to address a few issues. Did I call you a name? No. Did I call you a terrorist? No. All I did was based on posts ignoring specific issues, assert that the poster did not consider a specific act terrorism, especially when I asked them point blank if they considered act A to be an act of terrorism. Please use another form of argumentation other then the one Ann Coulter and O'Reilly use. It is very childish.At least Chiroptera has stated that abortion clinic bombers who destroy the clinic without harming anyone are not terrorists. His logic seems to be clear that destruction of property is not terrorism regardless of reason. Would you be so kind as you express your feelings on such a notion?Do you consider it disturbing that you call those who are merely asking you questions about what you consider a to fall within the definition of terrorism to be terrorists?So by definition, those who ask questions are terrorists as are those who you consider do not provide evidence that you consider evidence. Therefore, everyone here is a terrorists according to your logic, as everyone asks questions and many creationists either completely fail to provide any evidence or just run away from doing so. Omnivorous, you by your own definition of what constitutes terrorism are a terrorist. This thread is thereby over as you are pro-choice and have by logical argumentation admitted you a terrorist. You can invalided this argument by retracting your statement that I am a terrorist. Let's see if you are that mature.

quote:

---

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.

---

Therefore I take it that you believe that people who send pipebombs to kill and maim people are in fact not terrorists?That people who set booby traps to kill and maim timber workers are in fact not terrorists?That those who send statements to terrorize investors and skiers are in fact not terrorists?If I sent a statement to a local lodge telling them to leave and never come back or they might DIE in one of my attacks, would that be an act of terrorism?

quote:

---

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.

---

Does it bother you that you are acting exactly like a creationist in ignoring the majority of a post to concentrate on one aspect? The ELF has done more then just arson. And you seem to want to pretend those incidents never happened.So if someone placed a pipebomb on your doorstep and rung your bell in a attempt to harm, kill or simply scare you, you would not consider that terrorism?Your constantly refusal to answer any of these questions is quite disturbing.Do you have a habit of turning on everyone who disagrees with you?Oddly, I have to agree with the Creationist statement, in that some scientists are extremely dogmatic and narrow minded.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Then quite a few people are way off topic.

---

Perhaps, but it is obvious that the foundation of the argument is derived from a poor belief that conservatism is where terrorism comes from and that liberalism doesn't use it.

See post #54.