3 ms·

> For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't wan

> For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't want to instill any fear. Pretty sure being on a plane while it's hijacked would be a fearful event.

roel_v 16y ago
This is a side product of the actual act. The primary purpose isn't to cause fear, it's to get the money or prisoners or whatever. That as a side effect fear is generated is irrelevant.
- mishmash 16y ago
  Interesting, but even if your goal lies elsewhere, why else would you choose to hijack a plane if it wasn't to at least present the appearance of some fatal outcome? And that's ignoring the very real secondary dangers to passengers that can occur during a hijacking. I think it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    The reason is to get money, the means is to threaten people with death. Robbing a bank: the goal is to get the money, the robber uses the threat of violence or death to compel the employees to give him money. I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing; what I was saying that the GP defined terrorism as something that requires a motive of instilling fear; i.e. a goal of the acts that the terrorists is to make people afraid. That's one definition but the INA defines it differently, which is just another definition. If you define all acts of highjacking as terrorism, you explicitly do away with the requirement of fear. And for good reason, because otherwise one would have to start proving state of mind, which is a legal snake pit. But if you restrict yourself to people with the intention to cause fear to discern a terrorist, you can't call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist, because your definition requires a different criterion, namely the objective of the highjacking. To conclude, "it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist." is meaningless because it's said in a vacuum, without a definition of who is a terrorist. This whole discussion is about the distinction between to definitions, and that under one definition some people are terrorists and under another they aren't. (I'm not taking a position, I don't know and I don't care, definition problems are boring; the fact that the OP failed to recognize this nuance, and effectively turned his argument into a straw man, is what bothers me.)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
fluidcruft 16y ago
Pretty sure being in a bank robbery/hostage situation would be a fearful event, too.
- shadowfox 16y ago
  Or having your neighbour's guard dog jump on you

roel_v 16y ago

This is a side product of the actual act. The primary purpose isn't to cause fear, it's to get the money or prisoners or whatever. That as a side effect fear is generated is irrelevant.

mishmash 16y ago
Interesting, but even if your goal lies elsewhere, why else would you choose to hijack a plane if it wasn't to at least present the appearance of some fatal outcome? And that's ignoring the very real secondary dangers to passengers that can occur during a hijacking. I think it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist.
- roel_v 16y ago
  The reason is to get money, the means is to threaten people with death. Robbing a bank: the goal is to get the money, the robber uses the threat of violence or death to compel the employees to give him money. I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing; what I was saying that the GP defined terrorism as something that requires a motive of instilling fear; i.e. a goal of the acts that the terrorists is to make people afraid. That's one definition but the INA defines it differently, which is just another definition. If you define all acts of highjacking as terrorism, you explicitly do away with the requirement of fear. And for good reason, because otherwise one would have to start proving state of mind, which is a legal snake pit. But if you restrict yourself to people with the intention to cause fear to discern a terrorist, you can't call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist, because your definition requires a different criterion, namely the objective of the highjacking. To conclude, "it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist." is meaningless because it's said in a vacuum, without a definition of who is a terrorist. This whole discussion is about the distinction between to definitions, and that under one definition some people are terrorists and under another they aren't. (I'm not taking a position, I don't know and I don't care, definition problems are boring; the fact that the OP failed to recognize this nuance, and effectively turned his argument into a straw man, is what bothers me.)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

fluidcruft 16y ago

Pretty sure being in a bank robbery/hostage situation would be a fearful event, too.

shadowfox 16y ago
Or having your neighbour's guard dog jump on you