A different kind of terrorism

April 27, 2007

I’m a little surprised that this incident, from Austin, Texas, isn’t a bigger deal. Then again, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. (via Feministe)

A package left at a clinic that performs abortions contained an explosive device that investigators said Thursday could have been deadly.

The incident came just days after a national abortion group alerted providers around the country to an increased risk of violence.

The device, found in a duffle bag Wednesday, “was configured in such a way to cause serious bodily injury or death,” said David Carter, assistant chief of the Austin Police Department.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern — when abortion makes headlines, violent activists are apparently more likely to attack. Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, noted that there have been 93 attempted bombings and arson committed during times that abortion issues were prominent in the news.

Of course, in this case, recent headlines have been about a Supreme Court ruling that undermined abortion rights, which one would assume made the violent activists happy, but apparently, it doesn’t matter. The criminals seem to react with, “Oh yeah, abortion, haven’t thought about that in a while. Let’s go wreak some havoc.”

Scott Lemieux predicts, “I’m guessing this will go down the same memory hole as the hundreds of packets of anthrax sent to abortion clinics after 9/11. After, as five reactionary lawyers on the Supreme Court have just informed us, you have to be crazy if you want to obtain an abortion anyway, so what’s the big deal?”

On a related note, Feministe calls this “terrorism.” I’m hard pressed to think of another name for it.

Had that bomb been found outside a post office or a school, the headlines would have been hysterically running on about ZOMG TERRORISM TERRORISM IS AL QAEDA INVOLVED? And the right-wing warbloggers would be pissing their pants and hyperventilating about profiling Arabs and banning Muslims from public life and dhimmitude and how if they had been there, they’d have stopped it with their concealed carry and their extra-super special powers of righteousness, just like they saw in a movie once and BOMB IRAN! and 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!!! but they still have better things to do than join the military, but they’ll be happy to go into the woods and hunt Russians and shout WOLVERINES!!

But it’s an abortion clinic, so. Ho-hum.

I should note that “ho-hum” does seem to apply to the media, though local officials seem to be taking this more seriously. Wednesday’s incident is being investigated by the regional Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is led by the FBI and includes Austin police.

But the broader points still seems valid. We’ve been accustomed to these kinds of attacks, we assume we know the perpetrators (at least the kind of people who leave bombs at medical clinics), and it happens often enough that it no longer seems shocking.

That, in and of itself, suggests a stunning tolerance for terrorism.

I am personally against abortion, but I believe the state has not the power it many times wishes when it substitutes its prejudices for a woman’s right to choose medical treatment she believes she needs it. That being said, the post above gives a Wonderland dimension to Mr. Bush’s screed that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home. Mr. Bush and his ilk have neglected to recognize our own form of homegrown terrorism. It has always been here, just waiting for the right time, and the right time seems to be Scalia’s doing this time. -Kevo

  • The only difference between bombing a clinic here and bombing a market in Baghdad (or Israel) is the fact that the bombers here are not as good at it. They plant shitty bombs and are too cowardly to blow themselves up. Otherwise? It’s fucking terrorism just like anywhere else.

  • I mean, they are not shy about throwing the t-word around when some hippies sabotage logging equipment…”They’re eco-terrorists!”

    But this is just women. It’s like domestic violence—move along, nothing to see here…

  • Sorry I’m too scattershot to put this in one post…

    I suspect it has less to do with the particular incidents (I mean a bomb is a BOMB) but I think the media is unwilling to call people in the pro-life movement “terrorists” even if that’s exactly what some of them are.

  • Funny how a bunch of idiots in Florida who couldn’t even afford army boots got so much attention awhile back. Contrast that to an actual attempted bombing…

  • Let’s compare two issues here: Some whack-job thinks it’s cool to blow up a doctor who performs abortions, because “he’s killing our babies.” But we still have to deal with a particularly dreadful whack-job in the WH, who thinks the War in Iraq is cool—so he’s sending America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way to prove his machismo.

    Thoes “sons and daughters” are people’s babies, too.

    So—if the whack-jobs on the fringe right say it’s justifiable to bomb and burn clinics, then first let them answer me this: What is the difference between a doctor who performs a legal medical procedure, and a politician who lies, cheats, and steals his way into an illegal war?

    Aren’t they both “baby-killers?”

  • Kind of makes a thoughtful person realize that all the PATRIOT Acting in the world won’t keep you safe from freaks with cuckoo clocks where the rest of us keep our brains.

    And yeah. It is terrorism. That chicken shit who blew up a clinic, a gay bar and a garbage can at the Atlanta games and then went to hide in the woods was a terrorist. One of the Beltway Snipers was convicted under VA’s terrorism statute. Made sense to me. But the Drum and Strange Corps at the White House doesn’t want you to look at it that way because all of that talk about auslanders starts to sound a bit off key.

  • Agreed it’s terrorism but CB, let’s not make up a controversy (“I should note that “ho-hum” does seem to apply to the media..”). There are plenty of real controversies out there!

    I just did a quick Google New search on “Austin Bomb” and I got 78 hits — including coverage by the major news orgs and papers. And let’s use a little common sense here… of course people aren’t pointing to Al Qaeda in this case as they would with a school or post office… as anybody with a brain can envision that the crime’s motive is the crazed beliefs pro-life of a pro-life nut job, who should not be confused with the peaceful throngs of pro-lifers (of which, I am not one of).

  • pro-life of a pro-life nut job, who should not be confused with the peaceful throngs of pro-lifers (of which, I am not one of). JRS Jr.

    So JRS, does that make you Pro-Choice or one of the terrorists?

  • Mr. Furious,

    …but I think the media is unwilling to call people in the pro-life movement “terrorists” even if that’s exactly what some of them are.

    Absolutely correct. As you point out, the media doesn’t hesistate to label activist environmentalist’s who sit in trees or spike trees “eco-terrorists” but no way will they label these anti-choice activists as “women-terrorists” even though they clearly are. Truly disgusting: both the violent actions of the anti-choice wingnuts and the compliant corporate media.

  • Terrorism USED to mean that the targets of the violence were not in a position to meaningfully take action to fulfill the terrorists’ goals.

    Now terrorism is any act of violence against anyone.
    The abortion clinic bombing was likely to harm people working at the clinic. Wrong, yes. Illegal, sure. Terrorism? Not by the traditional definition.

    When all violence is terrorism, what new name must we invent for attacking those that implement the policies one protests? What term can we use for the type of violence the word “terrorism” used to describe?

    Can any violence be considered legitimate?

    Regardless of your point of view, these questions should be answered if we’re to communicate effectively.

  • Terrorism USED to mean that the targets of the violence were not in a position to meaningfully take action to fulfill the terrorists’ goals.

    Now terrorism is any act of violence against anyone.
    The abortion clinic bombing was likely to harm people working at the clinic. Wrong, yes. Illegal, sure. Terrorism? Not by the traditional definition.

    Based on your little rhetorical gambit here, I am guessing you are anti-choice. Let me see if I got it right…because the abortion clinic workers COULD stop performing abortions individually(I do not believe they have the power to stop all abortions in the country, but maybe you know something I don’t), then attempting to blow them up is not terrorism? Because whoever planted the bomb is not anti-choice in general, they are only specifically against this one abortion clinic? Terrorism is violence directed at a populace to further political goals…the political goal here being the elimination of abortion.

    When all violence is terrorism, what new name must we invent for attacking those that implement the policies one protests? What term can we use for the type of violence the word “terrorism” used to describe?

    Can any violence be considered legitimate?

    Why should we get into a discussion of what violence could be considered legitimate? Are you scared to make your own decisions about what is right and wrong? Are you too weak to make a decision and then stand up to the consequences if people disagree with your actions? Why not put forward what type of violence you find legitimate…just put it out here for all to see? Too afraid to say, “I think this was a legitimate attempt at murdering and maiming people. Violence against abortion clinics and their patients is okay with me.”? How can any punishment on Earth diminish the reward for performing God’s wishes by blowing up innocent people, right? Where is your faith sir?

  • re Bill Jacobs @ 11. My understanding of “terrorism” is simpler, along the lines of Webster: the systematic use of terror as means of coercion. If the object of the bombing was to intimidate women from entering that or similar places, I think that would qualify as terrorism. If the object was to intimidate other doctors from performing abortions, that too would qualify. (delayed reaction due to WordPress hissyfit)

  • Who the hell ever defined terrorism by whether the victims could avoid it or not? By that logic, just don’t ride the bus in Israel, go to the market in Baghdad.

    If your aim is to inflict casualties, with the broader effect of frightening, intimidating, or yes, terrorizing the populace (or a portion thereof), than it is terrorism. Bombing abortion clinics meets every one of those criteria. And you are tipping your hand.

  • Oops… here’s the quote I forgot to paste in:

    “In the 10 years since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, roughly 60 right-wing terrorist plots have been uncovered in the United States.”

  • Terrorism USED to mean that the targets of the violence were not in a position to meaningfully take action to fulfill the terrorists’ goals.

    Anyone care to translate? If this person means that the abortion clinics could take action to fulfill the terrorists goals (ie shut down) then by definition the attacks against the WTC or the Murrah Building weren’t terrorism. In fact, using this definition, there have been virtually no terrorist acts…ever.

    Maybe he (?) works for the White House. It sounds a lot like “People killed by car bombs don’t count.”

  • Another quote:

    On Sept. 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks that devastated our nation, a man crashed his car into a building in Davenport, Iowa, hoping to blow it up and kill himself in the fire.

    “I am a terrorist,” Waagner declared on the Army of God’s web site.

  • Terrorism USED to mean that the targets of the violence were not in a position to meaningfully take action to fulfill the terrorists’ goals. — @11

    *When* did it use to mean that? In my Oxford Dictionary I have this definition:

    Terrorist n.– one who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community; hence or cogn. ~ism

    It’s a 1964 revised edition but I doubt it had been all that different in 1911, when the dictionary was first published. And by that definitin, the scumbag who left the bomb at the clinic was — definitely — a terrorist.

    I think your problem is not really a problem of definitions. It’s that that scumbag is “your” kind of terrorist; one you approve of. Like Louis Posada — another terrorist whom some people protect, because he’s “our” terrorist. And you don’t like to have such a scumbag called a “terrorist”; you’d prefer a “hero”. You want to have your cake and to eat it too.

    Well, tough. You can’t.

  • I’d like to address #11 last question…”can any violence be consider legitmate? ” My answer would be NO. Not hitting people, not blowing up things or people, not wars, not spanking children, none of these violent acts are legimate…and if one were truly Christian one would agree with me. But for the record I am not christian or a beliver in mythical things.

  • I went to a Roman Catholic Nursing school and we discussed the abortion issue. As an RN, I am charged with caring for my patients irregardless of how I personally feel about what procedures they are undergoing. I have never been in the position to need an abortion and so do not know what I would do or what I would decide. BUT I do know, deep to my soul, that I would never want any woman’s ability to chose an abortion be restricted. No one knows what a woman goes through when she finds she is pregnant and no one, not even the Federal government or any of these religious groups should make the decision for her. The Government should get the hell out of woman’s uteruses and focus on other matters.

  • Let’s make no mistake: Christianity has always been exploited as an engine for hatred and genocide. The Founders were Deists, not Christians, and based their Revolutionary Government upon Enlightenment Principles, NOT THE BIBLE. Washington, Madison, Adams, Jefferson and others had notheing nice to say about the Christian Bible, nor religion.

    • Comments are closed.