X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
terror,lies,pick,and chose,bending,slimey,politicians Palin on Abortion Clinic Bombers - Not Terrorists
Comments  playlists with this video <1 min by daxgaz
who voted for this video NordlichReiter
- siftbot
x111who has this post bookmarked EDD
Palin On Abortion Clinic Bombers - Not Terrorists Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 7. lore_weaver
(230 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Edit: someone also has to explain to me how if killing a fetus is not good, then killing a fetus AND a woman by bombing an abortion clinic (there are bound to be MANY in there at any given time) is acceptible?
"I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist'... Maybe 'political activist' or 'partially misguided warrior for Jeeeeeesus.'"
That was hilarious...!
How is an abortion clinic bomber NOT a terrorist?
Or is this a "Guerrilla" vs "Freedom Fighter" pedantic issue? Freedom Fighters fight for causes we agree with, Guerrillas just use the same tactics to fight for causes we don't agree with?
The idiots who bomb abortion clinics are animals, and they should be executed, but their tactics would be perfectly legitimate if their cause was legitimate.
So, it isn't just abortion clinic bombers that dodge that title. Just make sure whatever you're bombing has no political affiliation and you're not a terrorist!
I think the problem here may just be that she doesn't quite understand the word 'terrorist', she has the gist of it but not the whole picture. Even if she considers abortion to be sinful and wrong her words don't necessarily mean she condones those who bomb abortion clinics.
That being said, she could just as easily condone it. At the very least, I think she probably has mixed feelings about it.
what if their real target was a hypothetical abortion clinic,
inside the World Trade Center?
Ahhh shucks... where did i put that crayon...
You people draw your morality in crayon.
The idiots who bomb abortion clinics are animals, and they should be executed, but their tactics would be perfectly legitimate if their cause was legitimate.
wha-ha-ot?
So its someones cause, which is in essence personal opinion which defines whether something is legitimate (in what? in America? To you? To Inuit's?)
The cut is pretty suspicious.
I agree that in no way sounded like she was finished speaking... Don't get me wrong... I say we keep handing the woman rope... Does ANYONE really feel like the rest of that interview would have somehow clarified or rationalized her statments... Just the same... credibility hit for not being able to see it.
Brian Williams: "I'm just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers, protesters in cities where fires were started, molotov cocktails were thrown, people died?"
Palin: "I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to campaign to destroy our United States Capitol, and our Pentagon, and would seek to destroy innocent Americans."
--
Adding the word "innocent" certainly changes the tone of her message. Does that mean she thinks anybody in an abortion clinic is not innocent? She is so good at skirting the question. I don't think she's given a solid answer yet.
Can't condemn her answer when I don't know the whole question.
He is basically just saying as she has applied it to Ayers does she also apply it to abortion clinic bombers... and as has been mentioned she dancing around without really answering the question at all.
And if you want to be proactive, you can look up the entire interview on YouTube.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
He asks, "Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?" This tells me that a non-standard definition of the word has been proposed before the clip begins. Perhaps an odd legal interpretation or some such.
Can't condemn her answer when I don't know the whole question.
use of bombs = terrorism.
army use of bombs = socialised terrorism.
How are any bombings or the like ok if done for some other cause? Harming or killing, or generally making people fear for their safety is not ok for any cause.
If the animals were right, and abortions were murder, then bombing abortion clinics would save lives in the long run, punish the guilty, and kill a few fetuses who would have died anyway.
The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.
That would mean anyone who has ever waged war (defensive or otherwise) is a terrorist... Including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Try another definition that involves something along the line of deliberately killing random noncombatants.
Oh wait, that would still make all the major powers on both sides of WWII terrorists for bombing the fuck out of each other.
So you'll be wanting another definition...
At least after the USA won WWII relations with Japan were repaired and now we're friends.
Between firebombing a whole city with airplanes and leaving a backpack bomb in a cafe, the only significant differences are size, purpose, and governmental affiliation. I suppose one could argue that the world is better off if loose cannons get more opprobrium than republic-supported warfare.
>> ^Kagenin:
The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.
That would mean anyone who has ever waged war (defensive or otherwise) is a terrorist... Including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Try another definition that involves something along the line of deliberately killing random noncombatants.
No such qualification is necessary. Washington was a "terrorist" to the British forces he fought against, and the Red Coats were "terrorizing" the American Colonists. Its all about perspective, which was the point I was making.
In that respect, Americans practically invented Guerrilla warfare. During the American Revolution, we targeted commanders, knowing full well the men they commanded would fall apart without their leadership. We continue to do this today, targeting leaders of political organizations, with far different results, however. In the short-term, we create power vacuums, but it isn't long before someone steps up to fill said vacuum, and energizes another generation of people to hate us.
Naturally blowing up civilian buildings, especially symbolic ones like the US capitol, would fit this definition. Firebombing entire cities (like we did in Germany and Japan in WW2) also fits. Blowing up abortion clinics makes people who want abortions too scared to go get them. It probably fits too.
Here is a great resource on modern theories of warfare:
http://www.amazon.com/Unjust-Argument-Historical-Illustrations-Classics/dp/0465037054
See thinker247's comment for the rest of her response.
Liberals and honest journalism parted ways decades ago. Zero credibility.
And in case you didn't notice, people here are seriously taking the framing of the question into consideration, not just taking the clip as is. Your argument fails. Zero credibility.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Biden-Smacks-Media-Hack