Obama fails to prevent terrorism

[Lurker]

Against non-combatants. jeez. Can you dodge the question any more vigorously?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Against non-combatants. jeez. Can you dodge the question any more vigorously?

Hmmmm.. Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Pretty much filled with non-combatants... how does that fit in your view? Was the US state a terrorist when we fire-bombed non-combatants in Dresden? Or nuked civilians in Hiroshima and Nagaski? How about the all the city and civilian targets in the Civil War? Boston Tea party? (All merchants). Merchant vessels in WWI and WWII? Interdiction of Cuba? Persecution of the Tories for support of the Crown?

What about those that aided and abetted violent acts against non-combatants in the venues cited above (Ben Franklin, Paul Revere)? Were they terrorists too?

So....

Let me ask you directly, based on your definition of terrorist(s), do the following people fall into your definition of terrorist (yes/no... should be easy enough for someone with a better brain than Parthsak or Rsak)

George Washington (many different attacks on multiple civilian targets during the war for independence)
Abe Lincoln (had his generals attack civilian towns)
Truman (ordered the bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, just to make a point)
Clinton (he ordered the attack on a pharmaceutical factory, thinking it was a bio-weapons lab)

Four people... were they terrorists in your narrow-minded definition?" Or not? Because from your statements, I would infer these would be terrorists... even though I don't think they are (even Clinton).

Yes or no Lurker...

[Lurker]

I'm going to attempt to dodge the question with a lot of counter questions

Wow. That's some major league flailing and dodging. Where's Jecks when we need him.

If you don't think anti-abortion zealots who murder doctors or bomb hospitals or put out death lists on health care workers are terrorists... just say so.

[Torakus]

Privileged frames of reference are a wonderful thing aren't they? Every single one of those people you mentioned was certainly considered a terrorist by the people who were the subject of their terror actions. And I disagree that a terrorist act must have a political or religious component. I would prefer the legal definition not include those qualifiers so that gangs and serial killers could be charged under those laws as well.

Tora

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm going to attempt to dodge the question with a lot of counter questions

Wow. That's some major league flailing and dodging. Where's Jecks when we need him.

If you don't think anti-abortion zealots who murder doctors or bomb hospitals or put out death lists on health care workers are terrorists... just say so.

Niiiiiice...

When you can't refute the argument, make up quotes from other people.

[Lurker]

I accurately summarized your post.

And you're still dodging.

[Partha]

George Washington (many different attacks on multiple civilian targets during the war for independence)
Abe Lincoln (had his generals attack civilian towns)
Truman (ordered the bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, just to make a point)
Clinton (he ordered the attack on a pharmaceutical factory, thinking it was a bio-weapons lab)

Four people... were they terrorists in your narrow-minded definition?" Or not? Because from your statements, I would infer these would be terrorists... even though I don't think they are (even Clinton).

Washington? Certainly in the eyes of the lawful authorities of the time. The other three? State actors. Terrorists are by definition non-state actors, and so was Roeder.

[Ddrak]

Are you saying George Washington, Paul Revere, Abraham Lincoln and Ben Franklin are terrorists? All of whom either were directly involved in violent acts, or supported them.

Washington, Revere and Franklin were definitely terrorists when it suited them. I've said that for years.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

Both cases are terrorism if you accept that terrorism is a use of violence intended to intimidate or cause terror (not sure how you couldn't accept that as a reasonable definition). Roeder's actions demonstrate that he intended to continue killing late term abortion providers and Mr. Bledsoe's own words indicated that he would have killed more military personnel had the opportunity presented itself. Both are fucking bat shit crazy and should be in a cage making big rocks into little rocks for a long time.

Tora

Sorry... no.

Otherwise serial killers would be charged with terrorism. As would gang members. that isn't the case. Your definition of terrorism is overbroad.

ok how about this one
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal criminal code. 18 U.S.C. §2331 defines terrorism as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."

And by that definition I say that the founding fathers were absolutely terrorists. Why don't Americans call them terrorists? For the same reason Palistinians don't call Hamas terrorists and why Fox News doesn't call Scott Roeder a terrorist.

[Rsak]

why Fox News doesn't call Scott Roeder a terrorist.

Sorry, but there are no declarations that hostility will cease if the abortion doctors put away their needles and scalpels. There is no threats to escalate the violence. It is not about change, but simply in the mind of this person punishment for someone who killed innocents. That isn't terrorism, its homicide.

[Lurker]

Your post shows a striking ignorance about the radical wing of the anti-abortion movement, what their goals are, and what methods they use to achieve them.

[Rsak]

Lurker we already had this exercise. Just because Roeder's motivations were "political or religious" does not make it terrorism. If the goal was to kill a known abortion doctor who he followed for years, that is pretty damn personal and he only harmed the doctor not any of the bystanders.

Bombing an abortion clinic on the other hand is a very general attack that can hit innocent people who have never had or performed abortions. That would meet the definition of terrorism, but this case just doesn't meet the criteria.

So much for the progress you were making.

[Lurker]

Roeder was arrested in the past for possession of bomb making material with the intent of bombing an abortion clinic. The murder of individual doctors is meant to both punish the doctor and intimidate other doctors. Just because Roeder's latest attack was aimed at a single doctor doesn't suddenly make him not a terrorist, especially when you consider the goals and methods of the radical movement he was part of.

As a side note, you of all people might want to tone down the condescension. It makes you look more foolish than you otherwise would.

[Rsak]

Just because Roeder's latest attack was aimed at a single doctor doesn't suddenly make him not a terrorist, especially when you consider the goals and methods of the radical movement he was part of.

Latest attack? Where and when were these other attacks? A conviction that was later overturned on possession of bomb material does equate to an attack.

That you find the request to deal with actual facts as condescension is very telling.

[Lurker]

A conviction that was later overturned on possession of bomb material does equate to an attack.

His conviction was overturned because the search of his car was deemed illegal. He was still found in possession of bomb making material with the intent to bomb an abortion clinic.

That you find the request to deal with actual facts as condescension is very telling.

Oh... I don't mind the request. I always try to deal with facts. I just think it's silly when the request comes from you.

[Rsak]

You still haven't provided any evidence that Roeder has committed any other attack in the past making this "Roeder's latest attack".

Or were you too busy being condescending to respond?

[Lurker]

I didn't see that coming.

I concede the point that his past terrorist activity was only attempted and was prevented by law enforcement. His other past actions, such as harrassment and vandalism, don't rise to the level of terrorism. He was still a terrorist. The radical elements of the anti-abortion movement are still terrorists.

[Rsak]

He was still a terrorist.

This only an opinion which makes it shocking that I am the one trying to keep opinions off of Fox News and you would have it the other way.

[Harlowe]

How many acts are you going to deny because they don't suit you? Torture isn't torture and terrorism isn't terrorism. Riiight.

Massive denial.

[Rsak]

Suit me? And I thought we were using the laws to make the determination instead of biased opinions.

I am curious as to what torture you think I am denying. Do you need an exercise like Lurker's?