Skip to main content

View Diary: Fox News Contributor Claims Abortion Clinic Bombers Are Not Terrorists (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So the bombers have to make a political statement (0+ / 0-)

    Before it can be terrroism?  hmmm

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:44:04 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Look at the definition provided... (5+ / 0-)

      I'm not disagreeing with you that this is terrorism, I'm just stating that we cannot make a definitive conclusion until we have the evidence in.

      Enacting our agenda requires winning elections. Oh, and me on Facebook and Twitter.

      by Mets102 on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:49:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Had Enough Right Wing BS

        But that's a legal definition.  I mean seriously, I hear people saying it's a "terroristic act".  Well, goddamnit, that's terror, that's terrorism, that's language.

        Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

        by yet another liberal on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:54:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's the legal definition that counts (0+ / 0-)

          I mean if we just go with what we feel and what "someone said"  then every vehicular homicide is a murder, every risque book is obscene, every good looking criminal with a good story is a folk hero, every rude classmate is a bully.

          Everything is anything and no meaning means anything.

          That leads to the old British Rail joke:

           "Dogs is dogs and cats is dogs"Parrots in cages are monkeys ... But this here turtle is an insect ... So it rides free.

          •  In court, indeed (0+ / 0-)

            What you say is true ... the legal definition counts.

            But see, dealing with FOX news and the public isn't court.  The legal definition is not everything that counts.  It has its limits and I'm not going to attempt that sort of response to wingers, I'm going to put it in their language.

            Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

            by yet another liberal on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:27:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "A word means what I say it means" (3+ / 0-)

              From Through the Looking Glass

              And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

              'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

              Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

              'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

              'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

              'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

              'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

              (And don't get me started about what "decimate" actually means, or why bits are champed at rather than chomped on )
      •  I take your point, I think. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not in agreement that the motive matters, though.

        Just as one might thoughtlessly use language which is racist--and we've unfortunately all heard too much of this--and then fall back on the indefensibly weak claim that there was no intention to be offensive.

        Motives and intentions are eclipsed by words and actions.

        Even a single explosive device placed to cause maximum suffering would fit undeniably into my definition of "terrorism." Two devices? It would be a huge uphill journey to convince me that some twisted effort to intimidate wasn't behind that.

        It has always seemed as if the right-wingers wanted to "divine" the goals behind horrendous acts so that they could treat terrorism as if there were different categories involved. The Fox "personality" is doing that, I think--pretending that one intentionally murderous act is significantly different simply because she may share the goals of the perpetrator(s).

        It would feel no less logical if I, as a committed environmentalist, "allowed" for exceptions if groups which share my goals similarly employed  deadly tactics in an effort to achieve those goals.

        In fact there are many issues I, and all of us here, feel strongly about. None of us can grant ourselves or others license to pick and choose when our fellow citizens can be sacrificed, whether the goal is political or social.

        Even if an unbalanced person or group has some motive other than influencing policy or the people their recklessness endangered or killed, the result is terrorism, isn't it?

        I appreciate the work you and so many others do in monitoring the right. I simply don't have the stomach for it.

        It matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. Henry David Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience

        by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 02:29:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, basically by definition (0+ / 0-)
      •  I still doubt it (0+ / 0-)

        They had a reason, they set off a bomb in a crowd.  It would be easy to find 12 to convict on terrorism charges.  They don't have to come out making demands or be part of a bigger group.  And actually, if they take the guy alive they should charge him with terrorism.  I'm sure they can find cause to make those charges.  (assuming they take him alive)

        Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

        by yet another liberal on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:12:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not if a prosecutor followed the law (3+ / 0-)

          in charging them:

          It would be easy to find 12 to convict on terrorism charges
          of course, new evidence could be uncovered that changes that dynamic, but as of now I've heard zero evidence that they carried out the bombings to further a social or political goal.

          sometimes people simply are fucking off their rocker for no larger purpose at all.  This could very well be one of those cases.

          •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roadbed Guy

            I think it's looking more likely that there was a political angle to the bombing, but we don't know for sure.  When I woke this morning to the news coverage of the manhunt,  and I heard that they were looking for two college age guys  near the MIT campus, the first thing I thought of was Leopold and Loeb.  Two bright young sociopaths plotting the perfect crime.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site