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:
Q: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor?
PALIN: (Sigh). There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there.
Watch it:
1 comment:
There are four categories that distinguish a "terrorist" from any other type of combatant:
1. Premeditation to instill fear/terror
2. Motivation/cause for action (political, religious, economic, etc)
3. Target victims, i.e. political figures, bureaucrats, innocent bystanders, organizations, usually noncombatants
4. Secretiveness of sponsors, member of "clandestine group"
(-Pillar, Brookings Institution Press 2001)
Or does Sarah Palin just think "terrorism" necessarily involves turbans and Allah?
Abortion clinic bombers have traditionally been ultra-("neo")conservative pro-life Christians (or white supremacists like in Eric Robert Rudolph's case). The "clandestine" requirement is fulfilled if you account for those whose actions are on behalf of groups like "Army of God."
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/18/national/main709777.shtml)
Christians have been persecuting for a looonnnnngggg time, but it's also the oppressed that becomes the oppressor, right?
My question is: where is the line between terrorist and revolutionary? Who's to say WE'RE not terrorists (although with all this election jingoism, "socialist" is the new "terrorist").
Thoughts?
Post a Comment