Dangerous pro-choice extremists?

Huh? I know that the U.S. government defined terrorism for the specific purpose of including groups like the ELF, but are you really going to fall for it? I mean, do you really want to elevate something as mundane as vandalism to the level of terrorism?

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

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.-Oops. Sorry, nator. I see that the thread is intended to talk about alleged anti-prolife terrorism. I'll let oC have the last word; I myself won't say another word.Edited by Chiroptera, : abortion -> prolife; sorry, too much eggnog, I'm pretty bagged tonight.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

Too be fair, the references about ELF still just describe vandalism. I tried to get more information on the Vail arson, but I still couldn't get any information on whether anyone was actually in danger. But I suck at Google.I know less about ALF than ELF (ELF was a little more active where I used to be located, and so I'm a bit more familiar with the so-called "deadly traps placed for timber workers"), but it does appear that we now we do have a couple of examples of terrorism that are associated with causes one associates with liberals. Still nothing associated with the pro-choice movement, though.A question remains about relative numbers. I remember discussing the utility of revolutions and mass action with a colleague long ago who was also on the left: he mentioned the right is always better at violent action than the left.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.

---

"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

Well, I wasn't aware of the more extreme threats by ALF, so this is good info to have given.- 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.- 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.- 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

Pretty much.- I have a hard time placing arson of uninhabited houses in the same category as blowing up school buses full of children.- 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

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

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

Wow! You were far more patient than I was.

---

"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