Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Plantain Parenthood Location Firebombed


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#16 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:03 AM

yes i'm sure there are plenty of other reasons for bombing planned parenthood, such as:


A complete lack of evidence is evidence of political motivation.

This is what hypocrite cantrell actually believes.

smh literally just said that there's 1 and only 1 reason in the world to bomb a planned parenthood building

#17 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:05 AM

Wait so, religiously motivated bombings aren't terrorism?


No.
Terrorism is political at its most basic form. Hence why the IRA or Earth First are considered terrorist groups.
Religion embodies a subgroup of terrorism.

But if you're cantrell, it's easier to be racist and let your badly-formed opinions fester on the lips of the victimized left.

#18 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,689 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:09 AM

No.
Terrorism is political at its most basic form. Hence why the IRA or Earth First are considered terrorist groups.
Religion embodies a subgroup of terrorism.

But if you're cantrell, it's easier to be racist and let your badly-formed opinions fester on the lips of the victimized left.


Wrong, terrorism is a very simple definition. "The use of violence as intimidation to achieve a goal, usually specifically against civilians." Whether it's political, religious, racist, whatever, it's all terrorism.

#19 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,728 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:21 AM

The only nutjobs that are hard enough against planned parenthood to want to bomb one are the religious. They've done it before, no reason to think the reasoning behind this one isn't the same. I know there are those against planned parenthood that are NOT religious, but they have no motivation to bomb one. Religious nuts are doing "god's will".

#20 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,662 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:20 AM

The only nutjobs that are hard enough against planned parenthood to want to bomb one are the religious. They've done it before, no reason to think the reasoning behind this one isn't the same. I know there are those against planned parenthood that are NOT religious, but they have no motivation to bomb one. Religious nuts are doing "god's will".


I'm sure the bombings simply had Ayers-like bombing intentions as to shut the clinic down and not hurt anyone. Amirite? /sarcasm


Whoever did this should be prosecuted as a terrorist...plain and simple.

#21 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,447 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 07:03 AM

ITT: king embarrassing himself

tell us more about how there's no such thing as religiously motivated terrorism and there's certainly no extensive history of terrorist attacks carried out on abortion providers in america and how it's really just hypocritical to suggest that a bomb exploding outside of an abortion clinic is probably a terrorist attack

#22 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,301 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 08:19 AM

Wrong, terrorism is a very simple definition. "The use of violence as intimidation to achieve a goal, usually specifically against civilians." Whether it's political, religious, racist, whatever, it's all terrorism.


Wow, I actually have to agree with Floppin. I guess hell is freezing over today. :)

#23 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,966 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:35 PM

I forgot about this thread. I still crack up when you guys talk about "bombs" and "exploding"

Grady told investigators he used a hammer to break a window at the clinic Sunday night, poured gasoline inside from a plastic bottle and lit it.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20120404/APC0101/120404124/Man-charged-Grand-Chute-Planned-Parenthood-attack-says-he-tried-burn-down-facility

#24 pOpCoRnPoPpEr

pOpCoRnPoPpEr

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,940 posts
  • LocationPrison

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:50 PM

lol poo we make better bombs than that out of sparklers and tape....

#25 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,126 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 05:25 PM

Wow, I actually have to agree with Floppin. I guess hell is freezing over today. :)

So you would call Hiroshima terrorism by the USA? Most people won't admit that, even though it fits 100% within the definition you agree with.

#26 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,689 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 07 April 2012 - 05:26 PM

The USA is the largest terrorist organization in the world.

#27 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,301 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 07:30 PM

So you would call Hiroshima terrorism by the USA? Most people won't admit that, even though it fits 100% within the definition you agree with.


Nope I wouldn't. Action against an opposing nation in a war is not terrorism.

I wouldn't even call the Japanese rape of Nanking terrorism.

Individuals or organizations commit acts of terrorism, states commit acts of war. May not mean much to those experiencing the results of the acts, but legally its a huge difference. Of course, there is also state sponsored terrorism, which is different from both.

#28 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,301 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 07:43 PM

nm

#29 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,126 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:07 PM

Nope I wouldn't. Action against an opposing nation in a war is not terrorism.

I wouldn't even call the Japanese rape of Nanking terrorism.

Individuals or organizations commit acts of terrorism, states commit acts of war. May not mean much to those experiencing the results of the acts, but legally its a huge difference. Of course, there is also state sponsored terrorism, which is different from both.


So the thing separating us from Al Quaeda is that we declared "war" before we did it? That seems kind of arbitrary. As does the state vs. organization distinction. Israel's attacks are war, but Palestine's are terrorism?

Since we're in a "war on terror" now, would another Al Quaeda attack in the USA be an act of war instead of terrorism?

#30 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,301 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 09:43 PM

Al Qaeda is a organization, not a state. Thats the key point. Al Qaeda declaring war has no more relevance than if you and I decide to eclare war on Botswana. But regarding WWII and Japan, its hardly arbitrary, its part of the Geneva Convention, second protocol on international armed conflicts.


I do believe that the Taliban, since they were the government of Afghanistan, are not really terrorist and that they committed an act of war against the United States by allowing a terrorist group to operate freely within their borders.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com