5 ms·
Agree, The way I see it is that if its a criminal act against the government it because terrorism. Had he been out to kill someone in that building it would hav
by CoryMathews 17y ago
Agree, The way I see it is that if its a criminal act against the government it because terrorism. Had he been out to kill someone in that building it would have been a criminal act. This was terrorism.
- grandalf 17y agoWhy is it terrorism? Are you now living in terror that it will happen again?
- mos1 17y agoBy that definition there are pretty much no terrorists, anywhere. I'm not in a state of terror about Osama, are you?
- grandalf 17y agoI'd argue that terrorism is largely a term to describe an opponent whose tactics go beyond what its adversary's population regards as appropriate... and so the term is mostly intended to marginalize an opponent and paint him and his cause as morally bankrupt. The term can be used to describe asymmetrical warfare techniques whose objective is more to motivate fear in the target population than to achieve a classic military objective, but if you think about it, the neighbor kid being sent home from the front lines in a body bag also has that effect, albeit a bit more indirectly. I think by definition an asymmetrical conflict that doesn't result in the weaker side quitting outright must include some sort of different moral standard about things like civilian life, soldier sacrifice, etc.
- CoryMathews 17y agopersonally no, but I wasn't for 9/11 either. But not sure if I can say the same for those people in the building.
- DannoHung 17y agoTerror? No, but I'm reasonably sure that there will be a large number of off-balance nutters who are upset about corporations and taxes and the gubment who will use this event as a rallying call for further violence.
- grandalf 17y agoYou hit on an important characteristic of asymmetrical conflict, which is the propaganda aspect of a particular campaign (contrary to the traditional military objective of capturing territory, causing large scale surrender, etc.) I think the guy is nuts, and i think the best description is that he chose a really screwed up way of committing suicide.
- scott_s 17y agoIneffective terrorism is still terrorism.
- grandalf 17y agoWho was the attack intended to strike terror in?
- olefoo 17y agoThose who work for the IRS? Politicians and bureaucrats? Anyone who ever dismissed Joe Stack as a bitter has-been?
- jcromartie 17y agoPoliticians who put laws on the books at the whim of a monied few special interests instead of listening to their constituents, and who insist on ceaselessly driving the wedge between rich and poor in their own back yard instead of pursuing policies that would lift up the whole country?
- danieldon 17y agoIt's terrorism because it's directly in line with 18 USC 2331: (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
- grandalf 17y agoBy clause A someone speeding on the highway could be considered a terrorist. By clause B a person who writes his congressman and threatens not to vote/donate in the next election cycle is a terrorist (threat/coercion). If the key is intent, then a poet who writes an anti-government poem is a terrorist.
- robotblake 17y agoif a and (b1 or b2 or b3) and c terrorist = true end
- grandalf 17y ago(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State So an attack designed to destroy an unoccupied building would not be terrorism under the structure you describe above.
- pyre 17y agoI think that the law would still hold detonating a bomb in an unoccupied building as 'dangerous to human life' if you didn't follow all of the safety precautions that a real building demolition would have to follow. If you put a bomb in an abandoned building at set to detonate in 2 hours and then flee the scene, there's not guarantee that someone won't enter the building in the interim.
- alanstorm 17y agoThe most common definition of is usually along the lines of the one I found on google [http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=terrorism http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&...]. > Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something. This was a single, possibly mentally unstable, man crashing a plane into a building. He may have thought he was trying to achieve something politically or to force the government to do something, but without any larger organization behind him it seems silly to label this as a domestic terrorist attack. It's giving the guy far more credit than he deserves.
- scott_s 17y agoThat definition says nothing about the perpetrator needing to be a part of an organization. If his act meets the definition - which I think it clearly does - then we have to call it terrorism.
- alanstorm 17y agoI can see your point of view here, but if you're trying to "achieve political aims or to force a government to do something" it's implicit that there's going to be people around after your death to push your agenda, (or that you're going to survive whatever you plan is) to push it forward.
- pyre 17y agoSo which organization was behind the Oklahoma City bombing?
- alanstorm 17y agoThe militia movement in rural parts of the US, which the federal government more or less neutered after the bombing.
- ninjac0der 17y ago