Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 113 (444241)
12-28-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 1:57 PM


MB is clearly pandering
quote:
scuttled two ships ... damage(d) the Icelandic whaling station
arson attack on research facilities at Michigan State University
release of mink from a nearby MSU mink research farm, wrecking equipment and opening animals' cages
dismantling a lion trap and spreading mountain lion urine
felony conspiracy to interfere with or injure a government official, misdemeanor interference with or injury to a forest officer, and misdemeanor depredation (theft or destruction or the attempt to do so) of government property
All y'all really got (as I explained upthread) is three piddly "bombs" (none of which exploded) and one ass-kicking.
That, m'dear, is hardly "terrorism".
Not quite, Gaia.
"11 people were charged with acts of domestic terrorism on behalf of the extremist Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) over a five-year period.
The 65-count indictment alleges the defendants committed acts of domestic terrorism between 1996 and 2001 in Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, California, and Colorado. Specifically, the indictment includes charges related to arson, conspiracy, use of destructive devices, and destruction of an energy facility.
The defendants are implicated in 17 attacks, including the $12 million arson of the Vail Ski Resort in Vail, Colorado, in 1998 and the sabotage of a high-tension power line near Bend, Oregon, in 1999... In 2004, the FBI estimated ELF, ALF and related extremist groups had committed more than 1,100 criminal acts since 1976 with damage estimates over $100 million.
-Federal Bureau of Investigations
Three piddly bombs? Suppose I left three piddly bombs in your driveway, would you be this ambivalent? Suppose I set fire to your house or your business, would you be this ambivalent? These aren't acts of vandalism, these are serious felonies.
Oh, but I forgot, they didn't go off... So maybe they should get away with attempted murder, eh? Suppose somebody left three piddly devices of unexploded ordinance at an abortion clinic... You don't think there would be hell to pay?
Can I assume that you support them by the way you try to minimize what they've done?

“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 75 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 1:57 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 81 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 92 by nator, posted 12-28-2007 8:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 77 of 113 (444245)
12-28-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2007 6:58 PM


Juggs still has a reading problem.
The 65-count indictment alleges the defendants committed acts of domestic terrorism between 1996 and 2001 in Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, California, and Colorado. Specifically, the indictment includes charges related to arson, conspiracy, use of destructive devices, and destruction of an energy facility.
The charges are the same as I outlined earlier, chester.
By definition, arson/conspiracy/use of destructive devices/property damage are not terrorism.
The FBI can get its panties inna twist and call it domestic terrorism if it wants to. Doesn't make it so.
These aren't acts of vandalism, these are serious felonies.
Yep. Felonies. Still doesn't make them terrorism.
Suppose somebody left three piddly devices of unexploded ordinance at an abortion clinic... You don't think there would be hell to pay?
Considering that anti abortionist nuts have killed abortion providers and employees...
wiki writes:
In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed 7 people, including 3 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[5]
* March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of the year before. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
* June 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot outside of another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings, received a death sentence, and was executed September 3, 2003.
* December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in a clinic attack in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International,[6] was arrested and confessed to the killings. He committed suicide in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
* January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama died when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.
* October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot dead at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.
Considering that there is a 30 year history of kidnapping and death threats...
wiki writes:
According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[8] The attempted murders were:[9][10][5]
* August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence.
* June 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
* December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the same-day shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
* December 18, 1996: Dr. Calvin Jackson of New Orleans, Louisiana was stabbed 15 times, losing 4 pints of blood. Donald Cooper was charged with second-degree attempted murder and sentenced to 20 years.[11]
* October 28, 1997: A physician whose name has not been revealed was shot in his home in Rochester, New York.
* January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
* September 11, 2006 David McMenemy attempted a suicide bombing of a women's clinic in Davenport, Iowa after scouting targets throughout the Midwest. It was later revealed that the targeted clinic did not perform or make referrals for abortions.
Anthrax threats
The first letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting, and since then, there have been a total of 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.
November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare on December 3, 2003.
Considering that there is a 30 year history of 91 bombings/arsons...
wiki writes:
According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[8] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[13] More recent incidents have included:[5]
* October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.
* May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000.
* October 1, 2000: A Catholic priest drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being shot at by a security guard.
* June 11, 2001: A bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington on destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages
* July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson.
* December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year.
* April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device. [14]
* May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[15]
* December 6, 2007: Two unidentified persons set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico. [16]
... why do you suppose that the FBI has NOT chosen to call this activity "domestic terrorism"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 6:58 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2007 12:09 PM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 78 of 113 (444247)
12-28-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 3:27 AM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
quote:
For god's sake hit google and come up with something besides some dude that planted 3 "bombs" (three!) and some other dude that beat the s*** out of a guy with an axe handle.
Yet oddly, pro-life people who do that are called terrorists. I'm sitting here astounding at the sheer double standards you people have.
If a pro-life conservative uses a bomb against someone, he's a terrorist. Yet if a liberal environmentalist who uses a bomb against someone, they aren't a terrorist. You people are disturbing.
quote:
Property damage is not terrorism.
Monkeywrenching is not terrorism.
Tree spiking is not terrorism.
Arson is not terrorism.
Then what IS terrorism?
quote:
Only one guy has been hurt as a result of tree spiking. And the mill admitted that their poorly maintained equipment was just as much at fault as the tree spike.
Not the point.
Since you stated destruction of property is not terrorism, then abortion clinic bombers who do not kill anyone are not terrorists.
Let's see how consistent you are.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 3:27 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:25 PM obvious Child has replied

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


Message 79 of 113 (444252)
12-28-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Omnivorous
12-28-2007 9:44 AM


Re: Perhaps?
quote:
You are halfway there. I told you I would not engage you on other points until you came clean about your unsupported claim: the full Monty takes even fewer words:
No you didn't. You deliberately ignored everything else I wrote like insolent child. You already answered my question about your maturity.
quote:
Rather than simply admit that you were wrong, you spent a great deal of time and thread-space dodging responsibility for your error by slandering me.
You accused me of being a terrorist on the basis of asking questions (which makes you a terrorist as well, which I noticed you ignored along with at least 85~95% of my posts). I accused you of doing nothing more then using the tactics of creationists and being a insolent child. Are you actually serious about your comment?
You do do a great creationists impression.
quote:
That's maturity?
I see why your nick is obvious Child, kid.
Your failure to actually address my points shows how mature you are. Not to mention massive failure to answer simple questions. Chiroptera is obviously light years beyond where you are.
Gotta admit, the creationists are right about just how fanatically narrow minded some people who accept evolution can be.
Can I send a bomb to your house with the intent of killing/maiming/scaring you and you'll be fine with not calling that an act of terrorism?
But you'll probably just pretend I never asked that.
And until you define what you consider terrorism to be mean, all of this is pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Omnivorous, posted 12-28-2007 9:44 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Omnivorous, posted 12-29-2007 10:19 PM obvious Child has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 80 of 113 (444254)
12-28-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by obvious Child
12-28-2007 7:16 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Yet oddly, pro-life people who do that are called terrorists.
Cite please.
If a pro-life conservative uses a bomb against someone, he's a terrorist.
I did not say that an anti abortion wingnut is a terrorist. You did.
Then what IS terrorism?
1983 Beruit Marine barracks bombing.
1993 WTC bombing.
1998 American Embassy bombing.
2000 USS Cole bombing.
911.
Not the point.
It is when you keep harping about the horrific dangers to timber industry employees.
The fact is, tree spikes don't do any harm to timber industry employees. Nor do they harm the equipment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:16 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:34 PM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 81 of 113 (444255)
12-28-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2007 6:58 PM


Re: MB is clearly pandering
quote:
Three piddly bombs? Suppose I left three piddly bombs in your driveway, would you be this ambivalent? Suppose I set fire to your house or your business, would you be this ambivalent? These aren't acts of vandalism, these are serious felonies.
Why is that NONE OF THEM are willing to answer any of these types of questions?
It's like the mentality of "if it didn't happen to me, it's not terrorism" is rampant here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 6:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:34 PM obvious Child has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 82 of 113 (444260)
12-28-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by obvious Child
12-28-2007 7:27 PM


Are you reading the thread, Obvious?
Why is that NONE OF THEM are willing to answer any of these types of questions?
It's like the mentality of "if it didn't happen to me, it's not terrorism" is rampant here.
I have addressed this concern upthread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:27 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:36 PM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 83 of 113 (444261)
12-28-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 7:25 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Will you state that none of the people on this list are terrorists in the isolated context of abortion clinic bombings?
quote:
I did not say that an anti abortion wingnut is a terrorist. You did.
Let's make this perfectly clear, you consider pro-life abortion clinic bombers not to be terrorists?
We seem have to a massive problem agreeing what terrorism consists of, and omni seems to desire to keep this problem open despite my clarifications as to what I consider terrorism.
quote:
1983 Beruit Marine barracks bombing.
1993 WTC bombing.
1998 American Embassy bombing.
2000 USS Cole bombing.
911.
Alright. I'll have to wait to see if you agree that abortion clinic bombers are indeed not terrorists.
quote:
The fact is, tree spikes don't do any harm to timber industry employees.
So the act of placing potential booby traps to harm or kill workers is not an act of terrorism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:25 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:39 PM obvious Child has replied

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


Message 84 of 113 (444262)
12-28-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 7:34 PM


Re: Are you reading the thread, Obvious?
No you didn't. He asked you what you would feel if he left three bombs on your doorstep. You didn't answer.
Now, if someone tried to bomb me and my family, I'd consider that an act of terrorism. Normally, I'd state that people here would agree, but this thread has shaken my belief that people here are reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:34 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:47 PM obvious Child has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 85 of 113 (444264)
12-28-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by obvious Child
12-28-2007 7:34 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Will you state that none of the people on this list are terrorists in the isolated context of abortion clinic bombings?
You said that anti abortion wingnuts are "called terrorists". The cite you provided did not do so. I am awaiting proof of your bare assertion. Then I will answer your question.
So the act of placing potential booby traps to harm or kill workers is not an act of terrorism?
Booby trap: Noun
* (n) land mine, ground-emplaced mine, booby trap (an explosive mine hidden underground; explodes when stepped on or driven over)
* (n) pitfall, booby trap (an unforeseen or unexpected or surprising difficulty)
Pitfall, yes. Difficulty, yes. Explosive, no.
And it's a moot point, really.
Tree spikes are ineffective against both people and equipment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:34 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:56 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 86 of 113 (444267)
12-28-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by obvious Child
12-28-2007 7:36 PM


Re: Are you reading the thread, Obvious?
Terrorism: Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)).
http://www.asme-iti.org/RAMCAP/Terminology.cfm
A psychological strategy of war for gaining political ends by deliberately creating a well-founded climate of fear among the civilian popuation.
http://www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm
The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change.
http://www.wps.prenhall.com/...,9681,1613226-content,00.html
You will note that 2 out of 3 definitions are military and the one that is not refers to SYSTEMATIC use.
One person planting 3 bombs (that did not explode) one time is neither military nor systematic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:36 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 8:02 PM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 87 of 113 (444274)
12-28-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 7:39 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Actually I believe the OP did that, citing off the previous thread. I was just agreeing with him.
Why is it so damn hard for people here to answer simple questions?
By your own definition, tree spiking is terrorism
"Terrorism: Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d))."
The ELF premeditated the placing of the spikes, for political reasons, against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Whether or not it actually kills anyone is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:39 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:04 PM obvious Child has replied

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


Message 88 of 113 (444278)
12-28-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 7:47 PM


Apparently, none of you can answer questions
Those definitions would dictate that many military actions, including Allied efforts in WWII and even the war of independence were terrorist actions (Dresden for example). Also, those definitions would imply that the Boer resistance against British occupation was terroristic. Not to mention the Zulu attacks on British colonies in response to encroachment on their territory was terroristic. And the US involvement in Iraq is terroristic as well, especially if you consider the use of white phosphorus used in Falljuah.
quote:
One person planting 3 bombs (that did not explode) one time is neither military nor systematic.
By that logic, if a million independent people all did that, none of them would be terrorists?
Those definition suck
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)
FM 100-20 Glossary
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:47 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:08 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 89 of 113 (444279)
12-28-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by obvious Child
12-28-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Actually I believe the OP did that, citing off the previous thread. I was just agreeing with him.
I have no idea what you are referring to here.
The ELF premeditated the placing of the spikes, for political reasons, against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Whether or not it actually kills anyone is irrelevant.
Really. By strangling the definition that way, picketing abortion clinics is terrorism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:56 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 8:18 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 90 of 113 (444281)
12-28-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by obvious Child
12-28-2007 8:02 PM


Re: Apparently, none of you can answer questions
Those definitions would dictate that many military actions, including Allied efforts in WWII and even the war of independence were terrorist actions (Dresden for example).
Um, Obvious, did you check the cite? That is a definition provided by THE U.S. MARINES.
By that logic, if a million independent people all did that, none of them would be terrorists?
When that day comes, I will consider changing my definition of terrorism.
If a single act of violence were considered "terrorism", then one guy beating the ever lovin crap out of another guy for any political reason whatsoever would qualify as "terrorism".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 8:02 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