Quoth Jolly Roger:
Most of us, now, see slavery as a human rights violation, but at the time it was being practiced, many people did not see it as such. Likewise, some (but not all) people now see abortion as a human rights violation, and history may or may not agree with that verdict a century from now. If you denied a person access to a slave auction house by physical force because it went against your beliefs against slavery, would that make you a terrorist?
The story is ten years old. It predates the Patriot Act.
Do you think the violently anti-abortion crowd would object being labeled terrorists in today’s political world, and having warrantless wiretaps and so forth, permanent jail time without trial, military tribunal, all that fun stuff?
Because I suspect as soon as you applied the Patriot Act to anti-abortion groups, opposition to these “anti-terror” laws would increase.
Cite?
So? There haven’t been that many murders of abortion doctors. But when it did happen, they were labeled “terrorists”, and nobody objected.
Violent groups are always going to object to being called “terrorists”. We aren’t talking about them; we are talking about the effect on everyone else. As mentioned, murder of abortionists in the US has been (thank God) quite rare. There have been a grand total of, what, seven people dead from violent anti-abortion protest. If that had been multiplied by a factor of a couple hundred, as in the case of Islamic terror, perhaps there might be more public pressure to create a Patriot Act for anti-abortion terrorists. (Not that there is anything to prevent the Patriot Act provisions from being applied to them anyway.) But I see no reason to believe that there would be any less pressure for such an act against anti-abortion terror than there was for the Patriot Act after 9/11.
And I see no indication of this. When murders of abortion doctors occurred, they were condemned nearly unanimously by every single anti-abortion group in the country. Jerry Falwell, Operation Rescue, everyone. This does not seem to be a case of whose ox is being gored.
Speculation is fine, but it doesn’t seem to be backed up by anything. What evidence do you have that anti-abortion groups are fine with labeling Islamic terrorists as “terrorist”, but not labeling anti-abortion terrorists as “terrorists”?
Regards,
Shodan
I know people on this board are loath to agree with Shodan, but his ten year old cite appears to be the most recent murder of a doctor who performs abortions.
The fact that this type of terrorism effectively stopped over a decade ago makes this debate kind of academic doesn’t it?
Why can’t it be both? People here seem to be making all sorts of false dichotomies. It’s possible to commit terrorist actions in furtherance of a noble goal.
I’m happy to hear that there haven’t been any recent instances of violence against physicians. I’m still curious what the effect would be; the word “terrorist” has a great deal more political influence today than it did in 1998.
What evidence do you have that I am speculating this is so? I am asking if it is so.
The fact that you said so kind of tipped me off.
Violent anti-abortionists have already been labeled as 'terrorists", and no one objected. The murders in question were condemned by the responsible leaders and groups involved in the anti-abortion movement. If you have any evidence that anti-abortionists are different in their attitudes now - by which I mean actual evidence, not just speculation that you then attempt to weasel away from - by all means trot it out. If not, then you can speculate to your heart’s content, unconstrained by reality.
Regards,
Shodan
So if right wing nut jobs fire bombed your house because your skin is the wrong colour,you shouldn’t be in “their” country,you’re unAmerican etc. and all the other tripe the racist scum come out with to justify their beliefs, then you would be quite prepared to understand their actions while not agreeing with their motivations?
After all one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
A totally facile statement,a terrorist is a terrorist.
And lets not forget that for every terrorist who pulls the trigger theres a pyramid of people who have funded him(or her),equipped him,transported him,covered up for him and been an apologist for him .
In fact made his actions possible.
And whether they like it or not they are terrorists, no matter how much they like to think that their delicate little hands are free of blood.
The other point made elsewhere in this thread that governments,the police,the church,the tooth fairy etc. have supposedly done this that and the other that is as bad or worse then the terrorists actions is also wearing a bit thin.
It would be like someone mugging a member of your family and then when up in court saying “Hey theres people out there committing murder and getting away with it sometimes, I’ve only mugged someone so in reality I’ve done nothing wrong.”
Its YOUR family member thats been mugged,are you happy with his moral outlook?
Um, no. It’s more like the judge has been mugging people, with the police and other judges refusing to stop him when they aren’t mugging people themselves, with widespread public support for them mugging people, and that same judge is now putting the mugger on trial for the same thing the judge does on a regular basis. In other words, they don’t actually object to mugging; they object to HIM mugging.
Just as most Americans don’t really object to terrorism; just to other people’s terrorism.
People who speak out are not terrorists. People who speak out loudly are not terrorists. People who use fear, intimidation, threats, violence and harm against others to get their point across are terrorists.
Like John McCain and Sarah Palin? They’d qualify based on the above.:dubious:
Our government would qualify based on the above, wouldn’t we?:rolleyes:
It’s not terrorism when the government does it. And that’s not just our government, that’s any government. It’s Weber’s definition of a state…a state has a monopoly of violence within it’s territory.
Yeah, I forgot, they call it desert storm. WHATEVA.
Quote me, please. I am asking if it is so. I cannot find in the thread where I said, “Anti-abortionists would not like being called terrorists.” I have said “What would happen?” and “What if?” and “I suspect.”
I have made no concrete assertions that it is the case.
That has nothing to do with it. It’s not always terrorism when an individual is violent, either; self defense, muggings, killing your rival, serial killers; none of those are violence by government, none of those are terrorism. Terrorism is violence a particular purpose and style, and whether a government is involved changes nothing but the scale and people’s willingness to admit what’s happening.
Terrorism is the use of fear and intimidation through violence or threats of violence by private individuals against noncombattants to influence a group, or as the US code defines it:
“The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience”
The extension of “terrorism” to include state action is idiosyncratic, because there are already other terms you can use when talking about state action, like “war crime” and “human rights violation”.
So ? They define terrorism in a way that absolves themselves. Why should I take such a definition seriously ?
Because we need to agree on some sort of definition in order to have a discussion, and since every government intimidates its citizens and uses force against them to make them do what it wants, expanding the term to government action isn’t very helpful.
:rolleyes: Slaughtering people indiscriminately in order to terrify them into submission is not at ALL the same as the rule of law, with laws, police, judges and/or juries.