ANSWERS: 49
  • You can't really be more of a terrorist than that.
  • As far as I am concerned, anyone who plants bombs or other hostile devices designed to maim, injure, destroy and kill is a terrorist.
  • Absolutely. Using acts of violence to impose your wishes on the population. would qulify as terrorism.
  • Of course. Anyone who tries to promote their political agenda through intimidation and fear is a terrorist -- including many PETA members and both environmental activists and animals activists who destroy the property of others or terrorize the families of those they disagree with by use of any means including mail or phone.
  • Yes as they are terrorising those who work at or attend the clinic.
  • Clearly a person who commits that kind of act is motivated by a distorted ideology. They most definitely qualify as a terrorist.
  • If the decription of some group includes "bomber", it's a safe bet they are a terrorist.
  • a person who bombs a clinic of any kind is a criminal, or terrorist whatever you want to go with
  • Absolutely. They are using violence and terror to achieve their means, instead of working through things legally.
  • Definitely. Using terror through the threat of death to try to sway peoples actions can not be anything else.
  • In broad terms, yes. "Terrorist" organizations seek to influence conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping...using force or the threat of force to achieve their goals through FEAR. However, this definition can be applied to ANY person or organization which acts in a like manner. There are somewhere around a hundred definitions for terrorist, last I researched it. So in this example, an abortion clinic bomber is attempting to influence personal, professional, AND governmental policies through a bombing to generate fear. This meets the broad definition of terrorist.
  • Yes, in my opinion. There are better ways to get your point across.
  • Definitely and without a doubt in my mind, they are. Folks can put whatever kind of spin on it they want to. Such acts meet the definition of terrorism. We're not allowed to deny someone is a terrorist just because their on "our" side.
  • That is definitely a form of terrorism.
  • Of course.
  • Yes. The bomb is taking lives , innocent lives and the person who perpitrates such a crime is most certainly a criminal or a terrorist if you wish to term them so.
  • Yes, because they're killing innocent people to advance their cause. Good thing for Palin she didn't post her answer here. ;)
  • I believe the government refers to them as domestic terrorists, no matter what Palin says.
  • Yes...I am very much against abortion, but bombing/killing is not Pro-Life. Murder is murder and it takes a special kind of crazy to justify it.
  • "Terrorist" organizations can be grouped into two categories. 1) External forces attempting to hurt us. 2) Internal forces attempting to save us from ourselves. . The first group is what we traditionally think of as terrorists. The second group are strictly speaking terrorists as well but they are not what comes to mind when someone says the word "Terrorist" nor are they a threat to our nation. Some may be misguided but these people are on the whole a group who are trying to help our nation not hurt it.
  • In every sense of the word.
  • Well, terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. So yes, an abortion clinic bomber would be a terrorist. If we classify that way so are many many organizations around the world. Even some organizations that are seen as a good cause can be terrorist organizations. Revolutionary groups, etc.
  • Any doubt?
  • Fact from fiction, truth from diction, who is and who is not a terrorist largely comes down to the governing body that has the might or influence to denote a person or group as a terrorist. To those who are trying to save the unborn because they are outside the law if the land that say you can't use explosives, they are terrorist. If those seeking to save the unborn believe from their perspective they are in a battle, a war, then it is not. Overseas Uncle Sam routinely hit targets they know have women and children in it but figure they have to get the “high value target” at any price, even the lives of innocent women or children. They feel justifies and since no one in that nation has the might hold Uncle Sam to task on that the lie of it being OK is solidified. It is no different really than what McVay did? I would not think any of those who lost a loved one to an air strike because someone from another country because they wanted to get someone else they did not know was anything short of terrorism. It all depends on what end of it you are getting and who has the power to frame the argument. To think anything less is hypocrisy.
  • absolutely.+3
  • Yes. Doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, not your choice to make. Can't just run around bombing bulidings thinking its okay.
  • Absolutely.
  • depends on everything please elaborate
  • If it quacks like a duck...
  • i believe this is quite an obvious question. if i blew up any type of building that would be a type of terrorism
  • Definitely. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you the right to kill or injur them. People are crazy...
  • Yes. ANY bomber is a terrorist. (That is not military)
  • most definitely.
  • Personally, I hate abortion - But anyone who uses force to win an argument is a terrorist, period. +3
  • I don't listen to too much on what Sarah Palin has to say,and her opinions on much.I would say that it was a form of terrorism.
  • Yes, in the sense that he strikes without warning and may kill or injure any innocent bystanders within a certain radius of his target. Bombs are not respecters of persons.
  • I say save the cost of a trial, and shoot them on sight. Same for anyone associated with Al Qeada or how ever the heck they want it spelled.
  • wow she's....dumb. Of course someone who bombs and intentionally harms civilians for the advancement of their own goals is a terrorist.
  • Only if they're Muslim (sarcasm)
  • Being pro-life, Sarah Palin has some difficulty at calling abortion clinic bombers terrorists: those people are supporting the same cause as she does. 1) "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion. Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, in the form of vandalism, to crimes against people, including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder, to crimes affecting both people and property, including arson and bombings. Anti-abortion violence is most frequently committed in the United States, though it has also occurred in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. G. Davidson Smith of Canadian Security Intelligence Service defined anti-abortion violence as "single issue terrorism". A study of 1982-87 violence considered the incidents "limited political" or "subrevolutionary" terrorism." "Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion. Such incidents range from the vandalism, arson, and bombings of abortion clinics, as committed by Eric Rudolph, to the murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by James Kopp and Peter James Knight. A small fraction of those opposed to abortion have sometimes resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing the termination of pregnancy. Those who engage in or support such actions defend the use of force — as justifiable homicide or defense of others — in interest of protecting the life of the fetus." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence 2) "Palin is a social conservative. Palin opposes same-sex marriage. Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research, and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be." She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity," but opposes sanctions against women who obtain an abortion. She supports laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin 3) "In her interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said that Bill Ayers is “no question” a terrorist because he sought to destroy the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. Palin, however, refused to apply the same label to abortion clinic bombers" "Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has repeatedly voted against protecting Americans from domestic terrorists carrying out violence at abortion clinics." Source and further information: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/23/palin-abortion-clinic-bombers/
  • Yes. But how many folks said such BEFORE Sarah Palin did?
  • Her problem with this question is that she didn't fall back on what the definition of "terrorist" is. A terrorist is one who uses violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. In otherwords, they use the fear caused by such actions to cause the changes they wish. Thus, defining individuals or groups of people as "terrorists" hinges on both their purpose and their means. A person who seeks to cause change in a political structure with respect to abortion through such means as bombing abortion clinics is, therefore, a terrorist. He seeks to cause this change through fear caused by acts of violence. However, a person who bombs an abortion clinic as a specific response to an individual for their actions (like, say, revenge for causing the death of an unborn child who would have been his son) is NOT a terrorist. This is because the intent behind his actions is not to cause a change in the institution, but to kill a specific person he considers to be a murderer. Some would say that is a fine line. But intent IS the key here.
  • Most definitely. A psycho too.
  • I don't agree with abortion but anyone that intentionally harms innocent people is a terrorist.
  • According to WordNet (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/), terrorism is: "The calculated use and/or threat of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature." I would say that abortion clinic bombing would fall under that definition, yes.
  • I think "terrorist" is a term that was intended to represent one meaning but has since sometimes been co-opted by lots of different groups for political reasons. Originally terrorism strictly meant a non-state sponsored group of people with extreme political views using violence to coerce or punish a whole nation/state towards their objective or viewpoint. If an actual government of a nation attacks another then it's an act of war not terrorism. Using the original definition of the word abortion clinic bombers would be terrorists. I'm definitely not an advocate for abortion by the way.
  • Yes, abortion clinic bombers, the murders who target clinic staff and doctors and the people who contribute to organizations that encourage and glorify those actions are all domestic terrorist and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Oh, btw I met Sarah Palin last night in Grand Rapids, MI. I have a book signed, "You Betcha, Sarah Palin" that is for sale if the price is right! haha (No, I am not a Palin supporter! I just went to take in the spectacle of it all.)

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy