Actually, her answer reminded me of Bush’s semi-denunciation of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. People kept asking him to specifically denounce SBVT, and he wouldn’t; he would criticize 527s in general, but wouldn’t say, “I think what SBVT’s are doing to my opponent is dishonorable, and I oppose it.” His political motivation for refusing to specifically denounce SBVT was obvious, as is the parallel to Palin’s refusal to come right out and say, “Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists.”
To be fair, both sides of the aisle have some serious, major, fundamental problems when it comes to different forms of terrorism.
The anti-abortion nutters on the Right can’t always bring themselves to say that murdering abortion doctors or bombing abortion clinics is terrorism, that’s their “freedom fighting”. And saving innocent lives isn’t terrorism to all of them.
Meanwhile, the blame-America-first nutters on the Left will happily list America as the one and only ‘root cause of terrorism’, but when it comes to abortion clinic bombers? Well, then they aren’t at all concerned about finding ‘root causes’ and instead will happily label the bombers as religious lunatics who deserve nothing but punishment. Certainly they’d never suggest that we do away with abortion since it provides the bombers with a grievance.
It all depends on whose ox is getting gored, I suppose.
In other news, politics in America sucks, fish have been found to have trouble living on dry land, and fire seems to be slightly warm.
Is it possible that, in a perverse way, Sarah Palin is showing a small civil-libertarian streak here? Remember, she’s incredibly unsophisticated in regard to national politics. I’m wondering if she things “terrorist” and “enemy combatant” mean the same thing - in other words, if she thinks that the Republican position is “all terrorists go to Guantanamo Bay”. Perhaps she thinks something like “well, I want abortion-clinic bombers to get conventional trials - so, no, they can’t be terrorists!”
I have no support for this at all, but it would be reassuring to believe it.
Yeah, when we’re discussing Palin, the answer is “It depends” and “Politics sucks.” When we’re discussing Democratic politicians, the answer is “Stay on topic here.”
Got it.
The funny thing is, I’m sure you’ve even convinced yourself that you’ve got a point.
It’s kinda cute.
Yes, it is. It’s like saying that homosexual promiscuity is some horrible abomination that the nation should be on alert against, while heterosexual promiscuity is merely unacceptable. It differentiates bombing abortion clinics from bombing primary care clinics based not on an aversion to bombing, but on an aversion to abortion.
I dunno, I see your arguments about expediency in definitions Boyo Jim, those make sense.
But I’m one of those who doesn’t see Ayers in the same light as Rudolph or abortion protesters. Ayers and his ilk aren’t terrorists to me. Maybe if I’d been a little older (I was in kindergarten) it would feel different. Their acts were committed at a specific time when there was a great deal of violence in America, protests and riots on behalf of civil rights and against Vietnam.
When you’re in a room full of loud people, don’t you have to yell louder to be heard?
Granted that we’ve all grown up a bit since then; still, I can’t blame those kids for trying.
The shame is that it didn’t work.
I’m disgusted and appalled at what our country has done in Iraq, in a similar climate of lies. What does it take to change these things?
And yeah, I see being anti-abortion as thoroughly illogical. What they’re trying to accomplish doesn’t make sense to me, so I don’t see the value in extraordinary means. I wish those protesters would take their energy and spend it on human beings who are already here, I’m sure plenty of people could use their help.
Actually, abortion is one of the few ‘hot button’ issues which makes 100% perfect sense to me, and that I honestly believe rational people can come to forceful, diametrically opposed positions.
If you (plural) believe that a fetus is a human life who is already here, then of course it makes sense to want to protect it.
If you (plural) do not believe that a fetus is a human life and is only a human-life-in-potential, then of course it makes sense to not believe it should have the same protections as a human being.
Yes, it is easy to get lost trying to figure out the point of my previous post.
If you’re a fucking retarded monkey.
I’ll spell it out: you’re also a hypocrite of the first order, deflecting the specific subject here from Palin’s inadequacies to the general subject of the shortcomings of all politicians of all parties when you find Palin committing acts that even you are unwilling to defend.
Nothing of course in comparison with your personal inadequacies.
I’ve never EVER heard anyone, left or right, say America is the one and only root cause of terrorism. You got a cite for that?
What Boyo Jim said.
Ah, yes-the old “both sides do it equally” ploy.
Please point out the “blame-America-first nutters on the Left” who “will happily list America as the one and only ‘root cause of terrorism’” that either are in positions of major power or have a decent chance of soon being in a position of major power to me.
Where have you been since 2001?
Honest question: do you just read news from one source without checking to see what the fringe wackos are saying?
You’ve never, ever, ever heard anybody claim that America is the thing that causes terrorism? That it’s our policies and only our policies that cause terrorism?
Never?
[
](http://www.iraqwar.org/policies.htm)
This has been all over the news for years now.
I’m not going to spend any more time hunting down fringe wackjobs and their quotes. Some of them say this shit. It’s a non-zero number. That you and Boyo have evidently never “EVER” heard of this phenomena is rather disturbing, actually. I go through periods where I deliberately avoid reading the news because it’s so fucking depressing, and yet you two have never even heard of stuff like this?
So if someone condemns a type of behavior, regardless of who engages in it, and points out that it’s not unknown in a country’s two majorfactions, you demand that only one faction be focused on and claim that spreading the blame around is a “ploy”?
Just because I’m curious here, what type of “ploy” do you think it is, and what am I, I guess, scheming at? What do you believe this plot, this gambit, this ruse… is designed to acehieve?
See, during the darkest days of Bush’s presidency, I was called a crazy Liberal and a traitor, to boot, for opposing Bush.
During debates where I correct people who don’t know the first facts about the Middle East, I’m called a neocon.
Please tell me that you’re not making a statement as retarded as pseudoprof’s and claiming that I’m somehow a supporter, tacit or otherwise, of Palin?
Not that it wouldn’t be somewhat funny to be a Traitor-Liberal-Neocon-Republican depending on whose partisan ox gets gored.
If you have taken pseudoprof’s massive error and run with it , all that shows me is that partisans assume anybody who disagrees with them, at all, must be an ‘enemy partisan’. Which, I must admit, is a rather frightening form of pathology.
Did you perhaps just misunderstand what I said, and we can chalk it up to you being overly hasty?
I’ve never known you to be a partisan whore, but to be honest, I don’t generally pay attention to most posters’s posting habits all that much.
Anyway, might I also point out that I never sad that both sides do anything “equally” and that you’re simply making that up or twisting my actual words so far beyond their original meaning and context as to constitute a work of fiction on your part?
Or, perhaps, that I merely pointed out that there are serious issues with how whores on both sides of the aisle use the issues of terrorism while I was pointing out the problem with people like Palin who can’t even bring themselves to clearly and unambiguously state that civilian targeted killings for the purpose of inspiring fear are always terrorism?
Sure, happily.
I’ll explain who those people are as soon as you quote where I said I was talking about those in positions of major power or have a decent chance of soon being so.
Or you could admit that you uprooted the goalposts, set them on a flatbed truck, drove that over to the docks, put 'em on a cargo freighter and shipped them off to Asia… and you’re now complaining about why my argument is no longer at the goalposts?
Either or.
See, what’s really sad is that I openly and clearly criticized the mindset that Palin has, but committed the sin of mentioning that there were other assholes who use the word “terrorism” to mean whatever they want it to and who condone/excuse/ignore/support/justify it when it fits their politics?
Is your issue here, really, that I had to include some explicit statement? Like warning labels on hot coffee?
That I had to waste ink to say that an idiot with political power is more dangerous than an idiot without political power? Or maybe that most polls are pointing to an Obama win and the chance of Palin exercising national power is vanishingly small by this point?
If so, that’s just pathetic.
Speaking of pseudo…
Awww pseudoprof, delusions of competency again? You’re so adorable when you’re pretentious. But seriously, look how stupid you are.
I’ll start slow, because you’re a proudly ignorant fool who yaps like an angry puppy. Don’t worry, i forgive you. I know it’s because you’re a troll and an idiot to boot.
Now, hypocrisy has an actual meaning. I know, I know, you and dictionaries are like oil and water. Words confuse you and your busy job as a jizz mopper keeps you from enjoying some leisure reading time. It’s okay.
See, “hypocrisy” is the condition of claiming one thing, and then doing the opposite, proving your claims to have been a mere pretense (much like babbling about the importance of using the Engligh language properly when you don’t even own or know how to use a dictionary, but I digress).
Okay, good, let’s move on now. Try to keep up.
Now, did I ever say one thing and do the opposite, revealing that my position was a facade?
Nope. You’re an idiot a liar and a troll.
I suspect that you heard the word ‘hypocrisy’ somewhere and thought it sounded neat, and decided to try it out even though you didn’t really know what it meant, much like a kid I went to HS with who announced to the class one day that “notebook paper is totally psychedelic!”
I’m sure that, after attempts like “That Toyota Camry is hypocritical!” and “The bird has such bright colors, it’s totally hypocritical!” you’ve now graduated to “Finn, you are a hypocrite of the first order!”
It’s cute because the you’re so earnest and ignorant in your self-righteous stupidity. You kinda remind me of a petulant five year old pitching a fit in a supermarket.
Anyways, did I in fact deflect anything from Palin, or did I specifically address her mindset, and you’re a dumbfuck liar and displaying the characteristic ignorance of a pseudoprof?
Hint: you’re a dumbfuck liar.
See, pseudoprof, the very first thing I said was that anti-abortion nutters (like Palin) would often not be able to bring themselves to actually call abortion clinic bombers terrorists. And, lo and behold, Palin couldn’t bring herself to do that, and only in the context of slamming Ayers did she admit that people who harm innocents would be terrorists. But, of course, without ever explicitly stating that she believed that abortion doctors were innocent or that abortion clinic bombers were terrorists.
Now, again, as you’re functionally retarded, claiming that I’ve only taken this course since I found “Palin committing acts that even you are unwilling to defend”?
It should occur, even to a fraud and a retarded chimp like you, that I’d have to have said something good, at all, about Palin on the SDMB, even once, in order for this to be a position which goes too far for me to defend.
You can’t find any such thing, because you’re a kneejerk fucking moron of a troll who can’t even bother to find out what the facts are before trying to bait people.
I’ve never defended Palin on one single point.
Not once.
Not anywhere.
You shit-stupid motherfucker.
You waterhead babbler, I’ve never defended Palin and have, in fact, taken her to task a few times. You poor, poor stupid troll.
Now back to your bridge pseudoprof.
What’s hilarious about this is that the softball questions are the ones she seems to have the most trouble with. They’re also ones that involve a personal answer, not one that is a regurgitated talking point provided by her handlers.
My list of softball strikeouts:
-
What newspapers do you read?
-
What Supreme Court decision, other than Roe v Wade, do you disagree with? - This is a softball because she is on record this very summer as having vehemently disagreed with the Exxon decision, and that decision affects Alaskan fishermen, fishermen like her husband.
-
Reassure Americans that you are prepared to become President, if necessary. - The response to this should be about you and your skills as an executive. You should not say that your executive experience would be put to “good use” then talk about what a great country America is.
-
Are people who bomb medical clinics terrorists?
The correct answer, above and beyond all rhetoric or political hacking is simply YES. Are abortion clinic bombers terrorists? Yes. Period. There isn’t really a way to take that out of context. The question is asked, she launches into the Ayres diatribe and finally gets to the answer and says “I don’t know if you can use the word ‘terrorist’ there”? You don’t? Really? You don’t think people committing violent, deadly, cowardly acts in order to harm others and force their nutbar agendas on innocent people are terrorists? Really? That’s not a question that needs an explanation for an answer. The answer is yes, they’re terrorists.
Jesus, she should beep when she backs up like that.
FinnAgain, in your previous post you said:
“Meanwhile, the blame-America-first nutters on the Left will happily list America as the **one and only **‘root cause of terrorism’, but when it comes to abortion clinic bombers?” (bolding mine)
No, I have never heard or read anyone of prominance say America is the first, or only, cause of terrorism, or that ONLY America’s policies cause terrorism in the world. I’m sorry. I never have. Ever. There probably are a few wackos who hold this view, but I try to steer clear of the wacko, and don’t give it credence even when encountered.
America does use terror and terrorist tactics to achieve its goals when it suits us, and is complicit in promoting terror via its marionettes around the world. However, that’s not the same as saying America is the only one doing it, or employs it as its primary motivational tool.
I’m unclear what the purpose of linking to iraqwar.org was.
I read the news constantly. I even read YOUR link, which is titled: Face it: U.S. foreign policy contributes to acts of terrorism
I agree with this statement. And it does not support your claim at all.
:smack:
So you read the title, and deliberately disregard the author’s actual arguments and claims?
My, that’s intellectually honest.
Hey, why don’t you do yourself one better and claim that you read it on a site titled “iraq war dot org” and, thus, he can only possibly be talking about terrorism in Iraq?
Bangup job there Boyo. The author’s claims that terrorism is caused by the US and that a change in foreign policy would eliminate terrorism certainly are’t saying that the US causes and is ultimately totally in control whether or not there is terrorism. Nopers.
Luckily, you read the title and didn’t have to read the actual article.
Saves time that way.
Talk about fucking cherrypicking.
Which is weird… as I just cited, linked to and quoted someone doing just that.
I’m not quite sure what I can do other than directly cite, link to and quote someone saying that “Terrorism is a political act, a response to U.S. foreign policy.” and if we’d change our foreign policy, we’d “eliminate terrorism”.
Those are direct quotes.
They contain not one qualifier, modifier, or ‘wiggle word’.
Put simply, the author states that terrorism is a response to US foreign policy. Not some terrorism, or most terrorism, or certain kinda of terrorism, but terrorism, period. Full stop.
He then states that if America changed its policies it would eliminate terrorism. Again, not some terrorism, or most terrorism, or certain kinds of terrorism, but terrorism period. Full stop.
FinnAgain, I’m truly not attempting to be obtuse, but the quotes you reference don’t say what you say they say. It says that America doesn’t have clean hands when it comes to terrorism, which is true. It implies it’s endemic, which I believe is also true, at least for the last 50 years or so. It doesn’t say it’s America’s sole tactic, or primary tactic in an overarching foreign policy strategy, but one of them, which is also true. Nowhere in those quotes does it state that America is the only sponsor or perpetrator of terrorism in the world.
‘A response’ does not mean ‘only response’, or ‘first response’. Perhaps I’m missing something.
It doesn’t say it’s America’s tactic at all, but the tactic of others in response to US foreign policy. After all, if it was US foreign policy, it couldn’t be in response to itself.
If terrorism is a response to US foreign policy, and changing US foreign policy would eliminate terrorism, that means that there can be no other causitive factors. Otherwise, if there were, once US foreign policy was changed, those other factors would keep terrorism going. But since the alteration of one variable, and one variable only would be enough to totally eliminate terrorism, then that variable was the governing variable.
I think you’re also parsing things a bit too strictly.
If I tell you “AIDS is a syndrome that is a response of the body to HIV”, you probably wouldn’t quibble and say that I was implying that there are other things that cause AIDS. (Likewise, Reese didn’t elaborate on any other causes of terrorism, merely said it was a reaction to US policy).
If I then tell you that we have an effective vaccine for HIV and, thus, we will eliminate AIDS, it would not be reasonable for you to assume that not only is AIDS caused by things other than HIV, but that only eliminating HIV will result in any and all other causative factors simply ceasing to work.
Right?
P.S. I appreciate you taking the time to talk this through honestly and apologize if I’m coming off as being a bit frustrated from dealing with some other folks in this thread. It’s a bit hard for me to totally shift gears sometimes.