Jump to content

What Exactly is Terrorism?


Jim Naseum

Recommended Posts

So under "domestic terrorism"

 

"Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"

 

 

So people texting while driving at the same time are terrorists? (in my state anyway)

 

 

How about drinking and driving? All terrorists I guess.

 

What says the jury, even though not of your peers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Terrorism is the use of violence, or threat of violence to further a political or religious agenda.

 

I think that's correct, providing by violence, you mean interpersonal violence.  I wouldn't consider damage to property terrorism, as in the instance when the kid was charged with terrorism when he blew up someone's mailbox, or when someone takes a sledge hammer to an unoccupied car.  That's vandalism, even when it is done to further a political or religious agenda.  To be terrorism it has to inspire terror relative to loss or injury of human beings, not material loss.

 

AH!  Now you are hitting at the modus operandi of the weather underground.  Unfortunately eventually someone did get killed but it was not their stated objective to harm people physically.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Terrorism is the use of violence, or threat of violence to further a political or religious agenda.

 

Here's a tidbit.  This law has been on the books in Texas for ages.

 

Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;

(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;

(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance, or other public place;

(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;

(5) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or

(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

 

You just have to love it.

That is what you get charged with for making a bomb threat. You also get charged with that if you tell someone you are going to drive by and shoot them. But then we have this other whacky statute that says it is ok to respond to a threat of deadly force by going to meet the person with deadly force. That is how David Koresh was acquitted in the shooting of the person he replaced.

The federal statute makes that statute look tame. There in no intent requirement. You can make a joke about a bomb in an airport and if you are overheard you can be detained and charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Carl von Clausewitz said that war was the continuation of politics ‘by other means’.

I view terrorism as the continuation of war ‘by other means’.

There is no Geneva Convention to follow in this way of way of waging war.

Well despite your views, there are most definitely laws, conventions and treaties that apply, even in war, any type of war, let alone conflicts or police actions. The Law of War is pretty well defined. So is the manner in which we would declare one if we ever decided to go that route. Edited by dwilawyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Carl von Clausewitz said that war was the continuation of politics ‘by other means’.

 

I view terrorism as the continuation of war ‘by other means’.

 

There is no Geneva Convention to follow in this way of way of waging war.

Well despite your views, their is most definitely laws, conventions and treaties that apply, even in war, any type of war, let alone conflicts or police actions. The Law of War is pretty well defined. So is the manner in which we would declare one if we ever decided to go that route.

 

The law is implemented by the winners.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It's similar to the question, "What makes a hate crime?"  Hell if I know.

Our hate crime statute is an enhancement, not an actual seperate crime. It is titled,The James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act. The whole Country knows that name, and the whole Country was keenly aware, if they were not before, that hate exists in America after that incident.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Terrorism is the use of violence, or threat of violence to further a political or religious agenda.

I would agree with that, very well stated. However, sometimes the political or religious agenda can only be inferred, and is sometimes never fully known. Additionally, a religion can consist of just a very few people, and a political agenda includes hate groups which can consist of a single person.

This would include the Manson Family

Timothy McVeigh

Ku Klux Klan

Unibomber

A tossup would be Zodiac killer, he sent letter to media saying he was going to hijack school bus and kill kids on it. Parents drove their kids to school all over the Bay Area for months.

Don't terrorists usually claim responsibility for their actions in order to effectuate either a change, or protect the status quo (regardless of how misguided it may be)? Should that be part of the definition to distinguish it from a mass murderer?

Is terrorism ever justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Carl von Clausewitz said that war was the continuation of politics ‘by other means’.

 I view terrorism as the continuation of war ‘by other means’.

 There is no Geneva Convention to follow in this way of way of waging war.

Well despite your views, their is most definitely laws, conventions and treaties that apply, even in war, any type of war, let alone conflicts or police actions. The Law of War is pretty well defined. So is the manner in which we would declare one if we ever decided to go that route.

The law is implemented by the winners.

That is certainly true. But the law established at Nuremberg by the Allies, for example, is generally considered to be good law and had been adopted by all Convention countries.

The onky problem with the Law of War is that you have to fight a whole lot of them over many centuries to develope the body of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Bernardino Questions

Why do all these police wear military desert camouflage?

Why do all the reporters keep referring to "long guns" even after the weapons were identified as AR 15 style rifles? A couple reporters even called the hand guns, "short guns?"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Bernardino Questions

Why do all these police wear military desert camouflage?

Good question. If I was a cop, I'd dress to look like a building or a lamp post.

Why do all the reporters keep referring to "long guns" even after the weapons were identified as AR 15 style rifles? A couple reporters even called the hand guns, "short guns?"

I don't see any significance.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do all the reporters keep referring to "long guns" even after the weapons were identified as AR 15 style rifles? A couple reporters even called the hand guns, "short guns?"

 

Long guns refer to shoulder fired (rifle) and short guns refer to hand fired (pistol).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do all these police wear military desert camouflage?

It's pretty stupid to me. Considering they like night raids and are typically in an urban setting, black or at least urban camo would actually work better if concealment were the goal. The only possible explanations are cost due to getting surplus items for free, intimidation, or their desire to feel like a badass/soldier. I'm friends with two swat team members, they show me pictures that aren't released to the public, here in Paducah they use army style camo quite a bit, not desert camo, like the army's version of it where there's a lot of dark brown and green. Down in Nashville there's a lot of solid army green. Makes no sense to me.

 

Why do all the reporters keep referring to "long guns" even after the weapons were identified as AR 15 style rifles?

Gun guys use the term "long gun" all the time, I wouldn't have batted an eye if they used that term. However, be careful in falling for the whole AR-15 thing the media is trying to push. They were using AK-74's very similar to AK-47's. The media wants us to think it's AR-15's. Yes it's still a semi-auto rifle with high capacity mags but they like to villify AR-15's as if us rednecks who like to shoot paper are the problem. It's not quite the same.

Edited by MetropolisLakeOutfitters
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do all the reporters keep referring to "long guns" even after the weapons were identified as AR 15 style rifles? A couple reporters even called the hand guns, "short guns?"

Long guns refer to shoulder fired (rifle) and short guns refer to hand fired (pistol).

Got it. I'd never heard that expression before during other incidents.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police seem to keep ramping up their militarization to keep pace with the armament of civilians.

The town I live in just got given some military surplus anti-land mine people movers. They're huge. They look like a giant bulldozer or something. And the police department said they would be using the giant vehicles... Yes more than one! For drug raids or hostage situtations...

They wear Kevlar vests and camo to feel more bada$$ than they really are. You're a cop, not some rainbow 6 warrior.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...