Of course it is. I understand their anger, of course, but they have zero right to blow anything up. They should be treated like any other terrorist under the law.Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act? I say that it is. It's the use of violence to try to get your way politically.
Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act? I say that it is. It's the use of violence to try to get your way politically.
How does setting off a bomb get their way politically?
It's an attempt to scare people and make a message against abortion.... pretty straight forward.How does setting off a bomb get their way politically?
Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act? I say that it is. It's the use of violence to try to get your way politically.
Yes and no.
"Classic" or true terrorism attacks all of us - simply for existing
Terrorism against an abortion clinic is only set against the abortionist and his victims.
Is there some significance to it being deemed a "terrorsit act", say a longer prison sentence, as opposed to your usual, everyday bombing?
Bombings in this country are an everyday occurance?
Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act? I say that it is. It's the use of violence to try to get your way politically.
Is there some significance to it being deemed a "terrorsit act", say a longer prison sentence, as opposed to your usual, everyday bombing?
It paints people like Eric Rudolph as terrorists instead of being treated like a hero like he was by quite a few anti-abortion supporters when he was on the lam.Don't be banal. My question was to the motivation of the OP to have abortion clinic bombings considered a "terrorist act". Is there some advantage to this?
It paints people like Eric Rudolph as terrorists instead of being treated like a hero like he was by quite a few anti-abortion supporters when he was on the lam.
I think that's an advantage.
If you get tm ask the motivation of the OP,then I get to ask you what are your motivations?
Yes, actually.
Due to a raft of atrociously bad laws passed during the Clinton and Bush II administrations, merely being ACCUSED of certain criminal acts (including some forms of terrorism) dramatically changes which legal rights -- if any -- you retain.
I don't recall if domestic terrorism falls within that range of specified crimes, but for those select crimes, you don't have habeas corpus rights or in some cases even a right to a timely trial (i.e. you can be thrown in a dungeon without access to family members or counsel...indefinitely).
So if the local wiseguy torched a Dry Cleaners because they won't pay protection money and WG wants to send a message to other business owners, that's a crime, but if you're anti abortion and torch an abortion clinic that's a double secret probation crime crime worthy of Guantanamo?
It paints people like Eric Rudolph as terrorists instead of being treated like a hero like he was by quite a few anti-abortion supporters when he was on the lam.
I think that's an advantage.
If you get tm ask the motivation of the OP,then I get to ask you what are your motivations?
What advantage is that? Do you think the people who applauded Rudolph are going to think differently about him because he's labeled a terrorist in the MSM?
That's Verthaine for ya. He doesn't read books, he hates answering questions, and he has prerogative that only Bobby Brown can appreciate.Don't be banal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?