5 ms·
> ‘Terrorism’ itself is described as involving ‘violent acts or acts dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure’ which ‘appear to be intended to intim
by mfoy_ 11y ago
> ‘Terrorism’ itself is described as involving ‘violent acts or acts dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure’ which ‘appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population’ or ‘to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion’
An act that is dangerous to property or infrastructure and appears intended to influence the policy of a government is an act of terrorism.
So all protesters could be classified as terrorists under this definition? Am I misreading this?
- danharaj 11y agoProtesters are frequently classified as terrorists. Protesters frequently escalate their tactics when non-violent methods fail.
- Mickydtron 11y agoAre there statistics on how often non-violent protesters escalate to violence in the face of failure?
- danharaj 11y agoSounds like a difficult to quantify phenomenon; I don't think statistics would increase clarity. A historian has a better claim to understanding whether or not it is true but I am not one. In other words, I'm full of shit unless someone backs it up.
- nefitty 11y agoYeah, there's an edit button for a reason.
- logfromblammo 11y agoAnd to be fair, police frequently escalate their tactics when faced with non-violent protesters. Those videos are all over YouTube. Less frequent are videos of the peaceful protesters identifying violent or disruptive elements within the protest as police employees. It takes a lot of willpower to keep to the moral high road when you can see the folks walking on it ahead of you getting their asses kicked. The rights to free speech and petition for redress in the U.S. are not universally respected by those targeted by the criticism. In that context, placing a protester on a watchlist has all the appearance of malicious retaliation for exercise of a protected right.
- danharaj 11y agoOh I totally came off the wrong way. I fully understand and find it morally permissible for the aggrieved to escalate their tactics when less disruptive activities fail. The riot is the language of the unheard and all that. People commit violent acts because they feel like they are morally obligated to be violent, not because they are evil or malicious.
- logfromblammo 11y agoOne of the reasons why such rights as speech and petition for redress are supposedly protected is that retaliation in response to peaceful protest discourages that particular expression of discontent, and yet the discontent itself remains. Discontent will generate some form of expression, whether you like it or not. So if you will arrest angry people for blocking vehicular traffic and disturbing the peace, there is less incentive for them to march in the streets, and a greater incentive to do things less subject to identification and retaliation. For instance, someone might instead violate health codes when the state's agents are ordering food from their restaurant. The more you close off and punish the relatively less harmful means of venting discontent, the more likely you are to see more harmful means, such as riots. And likewise, if those less harmful means are seen as relatively ineffective, people will do other things. So putting protesters on a terrorist watchlist is, in a way, a form of self-fulfilling prophecy.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- anonbanker 11y agoConsidering that Cheney used exactly this justification for the "free speech zones" that were the hallmark of Bush Jr's. administration, you're not misreading anything. welcome to the sad reality of our "democracy".
- andrewla 11y agoThe definition given might be overreaching a little, but I do believe that you are misreading here. An act that is dangerous to property or infrastructure and appears intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. The "by intimidation or coercion" seems to rule out most protests; although protests may result in the damage of property or infrastructure, said damage is most likely not intended to be coercive or intimidating.
- MaysonL 11y agoWell, the Laborer's International Union just got sued under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for an email & voicemail campaign against a company that they felt had unfair labor practices. After the district court threw it out as not applicable, the 6th Circuit appeals court found that there was sufficient cause for a suit.[0] If an email/telephone campaign to protest a company's actions can be called computer fraud or abuse, thinking that a broad definition of terrorism can be applied to protests of various sorts is quite likely. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulte_Homes,_Inc._v._Laborers%27_International_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulte_Homes,_Inc._v._Laborers%...
- sliverstorm 11y agoShould violent or coercive protesters not be? If picketers outside of a Planned Parenthood were to, say, violently assault women trying to enter the building to instill fear and keep women away. Is that not terrorism? Remember terrorism is much broader than foreign nationals crashing planes and planting roadside bombs.
- vacri 11y ago> So all protesters could be classified as terrorists under this definition? You're heavily stramanning the definition. Nowhere near all protesters endanger human life, property, or infrastructure, and showing where voting desires are is clearly not what is meant by 'intimidation'. The vast majority of protesters do not do any of these things, hence the vast majority do not satisfy the quoted definition.