Dangerous pro-choice extremists?

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.

quote:

---

Actually, I'm an insolent old man.

---

That explains a lot.

quote:

---

You said something that wasn't true. I entered this thread for the express purpose of challenging that falsehood.

---

So you have no problem with wasting time on minor issues and completely ignoring the bigger, actual meaningful discussions?Well, I guess when you're a insolent old man, whatever...And we don't know it is not true, merely that it is unproven. Under your logic, whatever we have no evidence for does not exist. Therefore every new species we discover did not exist until we discovered it.

quote:

---

The truth is important.

---

From your argument, that doesn't seem so at all. Instead of discussing the issue of whether or not the ELF was terroristic, you completely ignored its other activities as if they did not matter. The discussion was around a subject you completely ignored. That's hardly a search for the truth.

quote:

---

My insistence that you admit the truth resulted instead in long rants of baseless accusations and insults.

---

Made largely by you. Remember, you called me a terrorist. And I will admit I had little fun using logic to show that if I was a terrorist, you were one as well. Seeing as you haven't responded to this, I guess I can still think and refer to you as a terrorist by your own accord. We're terrorists together (along with everyone else!)

quote:

---

And you still don't have the cojones to admit you were wrong.

---

No, I just don't have evidence that you'd find satisfactory. That doesn't mean that they haven't actually done it. Remember that simply because we do not have evidence of something now does not mean it did not happen/does not exist. As someone who reportedly accepts science, you should understand this. But I have made the mistake that people are reasonable here. I will not do so again.

quote:

---

You have no idea, child. I would pith you like a frog.

---

Interesting how you ignore the question.