• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When is a terrorist, not a terrorist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love the implication of how they're not *really* terrorists, as long as they're acting in the name of the *right* religion....
 
Depends on whether or not the person using the word understands and/or agrees with the supposed "terrorist".
 
When is a terrorist, not a terrorist?
Easy one.

Kills people I like = Terrorist
Kills people I don't like = Freedom Fighter
 
Don't worry, I'm sure someone will be here shortly to explain, in a condescending fashion, that obviously those words mean something completely different from the way you're interpreting them.
 
Cleon. Cleon, Cleon, Cleon. Let me spell it out for you.

"I don’t know" = I am contemplating

"if you’re going to use" = If philosophers would decide the exact transfer of the word terrorist from Ayers to an abortion bomber,

"the word terrorist" =would emerge as the objective word: terrorist.

"there" = Vote Nader.

Silly Cleon.
 
Terrorists are not terrorists - in the American context - when they fight commies.

Witness UNITA and the right's love affair with Savimbi, the contras, and in present-day, the paras of Colombia.

Another example not of the commie/anti-commie dichotomy would be the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) and their bloody history of action against the Iranian government...
 
Do I need to point out that she said that bombing abortion clinics is unacceptable?
 
Cleon said:
Don't worry, I'm sure someone will be here shortly to explain, in a condescending fashion, that obviously those words mean something completely different from the way you're interpreting them.
Click to expand...

You could be right :D
 
gtc said:
Do I need to point out that she said that bombing abortion clinics is unacceptable?
Click to expand...

Not really. But that's not the point.

She thinks it's NOT terrorism to bomb abortion clinics...

I had a girlfriend once that had an abortion, if that clinic had been bombed, I would have said, "Yeah, some freekin' terrorist just bombed the clinic".

She can't admit that without losing the racist, jesus vote.

I soon hope that American politics learns that hate can't win elections, Hope can.
 
gtc said:
Do I need to point out that she said that bombing abortion clinics is unacceptable?
Click to expand...

But it came out in the same way that my dog peeing on the carpet is "unacceptable".

Had the interviewer taken out "abortion clinic" and substituted "hospital", "elementary school" or "campaign office", I'm sure she would not have hesitated in calling the theorectical bomber a terrorist.
 
XBoxWarrior said:
Not really. But that's not the point.
Click to expand...

I know its not the point, but it does seem to be the underlying assumption of several of the people in this thread.

Personally, I would classify anything as terrorism if it is done with the intent of creating 'terror'. Scaring doctors out of performing abortion seems to fit.
 
gtc said:
I would need to see more evidence before I could conclude that she meant it to come out that way.
Click to expand...

There's a short video in the link that includes just the quote. The entire interview is on youtube.

I don't mean to say she meant it to come out that way. Simply that's how it came out. At least, in my opinion, that's how it sounded. Like those that bomb an abortion clinic deserve a slap on the wrist as compared to the "real" terrorists.
 
Furthermore, "unacceptable" is the best she could come up with?

What about "reprehensible", "horrible", "terrible", "disgusting", etc?

Eating your mashed potatoes with your fingers at a formal dinner is unacceptable. The bombing of an abortion clinic is terrorism.
 
Maybe she simply have a hard time saying something so nasty about fellow belivers.
 
When is a terrorist, not a terrorist?

Terror ist, wenn man trotzdem lacht.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom