Grrrrrr. two-faced, nutjob, man I hope she loses.

Edit: someone also has to explain to me how if killing a fetus is not good, then killing a fetus AND a woman by bombing an abortion clinic (there are bound to be MANY in there at any given time) is acceptible?

Baby killers bad. Mother and baby killer...well that falls in the gray area.

What's the rest of her response, if not terrorists then what, criminals?

"I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist'... Maybe 'political activist' or 'partially misguided warrior for Jeeeeeesus.'"

Guys cut her a break already. She was probably worried about losing the abortion clinic bomber vote.

>> ^chilaxe:
"I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist'... Maybe 'political activist' or 'partially misguided warrior for Jeeeeeesus.'"


That was hilarious...!

The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.

How is an abortion clinic bomber NOT a terrorist?

Or is this a "Guerrilla" vs "Freedom Fighter" pedantic issue? Freedom Fighters fight for causes we agree with, Guerrillas just use the same tactics to fight for causes we don't agree with?

You people draw your morality in crayon.

The idiots who bomb abortion clinics are animals, and they should be executed, but their tactics would be perfectly legitimate if their cause was legitimate.

It's only terrorism when they're fighting for ideals I *disagree* with. I don't understand what's so hard about that concept. God is on my side, god is good, terrorism is bad. Therefore anyone on my side of an issue could not be a terrorist.

"...now others who would want to harm innocent Americans or facilities it would be unacceptable, I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist'."
So, it isn't just abortion clinic bombers that dodge that title. Just make sure whatever you're bombing has no political affiliation and you're not a terrorist!

I think the problem here may just be that she doesn't quite understand the word 'terrorist', she has the gist of it but not the whole picture. Even if she considers abortion to be sinful and wrong her words don't necessarily mean she condones those who bomb abortion clinics.

That being said, she could just as easily condone it. At the very least, I think she probably has mixed feelings about it.

wonder what she'd think if we discovered that the 9/11 hijackers weren't interested in destroying our financial and military buildings after all.

what if their real target was a hypothetical abortion clinic,
inside the World Trade Center?

I'm just glad your hear to set us right with your super sophisticated sense of morals... as well as which 'causes' are legit and which arn't...

Ahhh shucks... where did i put that crayon...

>> ^gorillaman:
You people draw your morality in crayon.
The idiots who bomb abortion clinics are animals, and they should be executed, but their tactics would be perfectly legitimate if their cause was legitimate.


wha-ha-ot?

So its someones cause, which is in essence personal opinion which defines whether something is legitimate (in what? in America? To you? To Inuit's?)

The cut is pretty suspicious.

She's starting to make Bush look respectable.

* dead i think.

Why is the unibomber called a terrorist, but these people aren't?

>> ^RedSky:
The cut is pretty suspicious.


I agree that in no way sounded like she was finished speaking... Don't get me wrong... I say we keep handing the woman rope... Does ANYONE really feel like the rest of that interview would have somehow clarified or rationalized her statments... Just the same... credibility hit for not being able to see it.

Palin: "<continued from video>...but it's unacceptable, and it would not be condoned, of course, on our watch, but...I don't know if what you're asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist...I don't regret characterizing him as that."

Brian Williams: "I'm just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers, protesters in cities where fires were started, molotov cocktails were thrown, people died?"

Palin: "I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to campaign to destroy our United States Capitol, and our Pentagon, and would seek to destroy innocent Americans."

--
Adding the word "innocent" certainly changes the tone of her message. Does that mean she thinks anybody in an abortion clinic is not innocent? She is so good at skirting the question. I don't think she's given a solid answer yet.

He asks, "Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?" This tells me that a non-standard definition of the word has been proposed before the clip begins. Perhaps an odd legal interpretation or some such.

Can't condemn her answer when I don't know the whole question.

You might be over thinking it... I really feel like he just meant under the terms that she was using to apply the word 'terrorist' to Bill Ayers...

He is basically just saying as she has applied it to Ayers does she also apply it to abortion clinic bombers... and as has been mentioned she dancing around without really answering the question at all.

I just gave you the entire question, and her definition, before your comment. Her definition of a terrorist is anybody who would try to destroy our government buildings and take innocent lives.

And if you want to be proactive, you can look up the entire interview on YouTube.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
He asks, "Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?" This tells me that a non-standard definition of the word has been proposed before the clip begins. Perhaps an odd legal interpretation or some such.
Can't condemn her answer when I don't know the whole question.

bombs = terrifying.

use of bombs = terrorism.

army use of bombs = socialised terrorism.

Disgusts me the way that palin immediately goes after bill A when the word terrorist is brought up. No one mentioned him Sarah. Stop trying to push that terrorist association bullshit on us.

gorillaman, you continue to demonstrate your complete lack of thinking anything, anything at all through to any kind of sensible conclusion.

How are any bombings or the like ok if done for some other cause? Harming or killing, or generally making people fear for their safety is not ok for any cause.

How can you be so dull?

If the animals were right, and abortions were murder, then bombing abortion clinics would save lives in the long run, punish the guilty, and kill a few fetuses who would have died anyway.

>> ^Kagenin:
The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.

That would mean anyone who has ever waged war (defensive or otherwise) is a terrorist... Including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Try another definition that involves something along the line of deliberately killing random noncombatants.

Oh wait, that would still make all the major powers on both sides of WWII terrorists for bombing the fuck out of each other.
So you'll be wanting another definition...

At least after the USA won WWII relations with Japan were repaired and now we're friends.

Between firebombing a whole city with airplanes and leaving a backpack bomb in a cafe, the only significant differences are size, purpose, and governmental affiliation. I suppose one could argue that the world is better off if loose cannons get more opprobrium than republic-supported warfare.

Hmm. No vote for lack of context. I want to see the full interview.

>> ^jwray:
>> ^Kagenin:
The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.
That would mean anyone who has ever waged war (defensive or otherwise) is a terrorist... Including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Try another definition that involves something along the line of deliberately killing random noncombatants.


No such qualification is necessary. Washington was a "terrorist" to the British forces he fought against, and the Red Coats were "terrorizing" the American Colonists. Its all about perspective, which was the point I was making.

In that respect, Americans practically invented Guerrilla warfare. During the American Revolution, we targeted commanders, knowing full well the men they commanded would fall apart without their leadership. We continue to do this today, targeting leaders of political organizations, with far different results, however. In the short-term, we create power vacuums, but it isn't long before someone steps up to fill said vacuum, and energizes another generation of people to hate us.

Anyone can define any word however they want, but a standard definition of terrorism is a tactic whose primary aim is to spread fear among noncombatant populations. Thus killing soldiers in battle is not terrorism. Its primary aim is to destroy the enemy army. Bombing factories is not terrorism. Its primary aim is to prevent the enemy from equipping his forces.

Naturally blowing up civilian buildings, especially symbolic ones like the US capitol, would fit this definition. Firebombing entire cities (like we did in Germany and Japan in WW2) also fits. Blowing up abortion clinics makes people who want abortions too scared to go get them. It probably fits too.

Here is a great resource on modern theories of warfare:

http://www.amazon.com/Unjust-Argument-Historical-Illustrations-Classics/dp/0465037054

the idea of Palin running the world scares the SHIT out of me. Is she a terrorist? I mean i am literally terrorised and i am a noncombatant.

Its hard to edit Palin's answers... she always tries her damnedest to not answer a question, but you only get to find out how close she'll get to answering it after listening to her waffle around for 2minutes.

See thinker247's comment for the rest of her response.

You can put lipstick on a bush but its still a bush.

Can this woman actially hear herself at all?

The lib media frames questions just like they do their lying polls. Promoting left-wing lunacy is all that matters to them. People answer, they imply. Friends of liberalism like Obama are given nimbuses, enemies of liberalism are cast in shadows.

Liberals and honest journalism parted ways decades ago. Zero credibility.

Yah, because FOX news is where all the honest journalism lies, right QM?

And in case you didn't notice, people here are seriously taking the framing of the question into consideration, not just taking the clip as is. Your argument fails. Zero credibility.

Oh yes, and the right wing media is oh-so-balanced-and-fair, like this exchange?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Biden-Smacks-Media-Hack

She should have given a straight "yes" answer.

But she didn't, did she?

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by kronosposeidon.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.