4 ms·

The terror angle is that someone tried to disrupt a major component of the electrical grid. It’s hard to imagine a motive for such an attack that doesn’t involv

The terror angle is that someone tried to disrupt a major component of the electrical grid. It’s hard to imagine a motive for such an attack that doesn’t involve trying to cause major panic to a community. That’s definitely qualifiable as terrorism. Just because they didn’t attempt again (that we know of) doesn’t mean that they weren’t terrorists to begin with. Also noted in the article, investigators later believed it to be an inside job. This goes into wild speculation, but if the attackers worked at DHS, they may have known how close an investigation came to revealing them and opted not to try again. We’ll probably never know why though.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
Terrorism is any use of violence or intimidation for the purpose of furthering a political goal. The political motive is a necessary element of terrorism. While you could presume terrorism as being the most likely explanation, it’s not the only one, as state sponsored acts tend not to be classified as terrorism (depending on the perceived legitimacy of the state in question). Of course is a politically loaded word, so people will redefine it to suit whatever their political agenda is. But that’s it’s original definition at least.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  This is such a unnecessary nitpick since yourself seem to understand by calling it terrorism, people are explicitly declaring their belief that it was to political ends. It's like people calling a bush fire arson, then you giving the definition of arson and saying "arson refers to the deliberate act of setting a fire"... That's kind of the whole point of implicating it was arson, to further narrow the cause/motivation of an incident. Also the nitpick isn't internally consistent, if you want to be literal and say terrorism any use of violence for the purpose of furthering a political goal, how is a state sponsored attack not a terrorist attack? Are geopolitics excluded from your definition then? >State sponsered acts tend to not be classified as terrorism Says who??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_state-sponsored_ter... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponso... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_te... https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/
  - Lammy 6y ago
    I think it's a very appropriate nitpick in this case since it seems like the perpetrators wanted to use violence to call attention to the electrical grid's vulnerability more than actually damage/disrupt it. It seems most likely to me that the goal of the attack was to spur the very conversation we're having.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      You mean, you think someone used violence to spur a conversation on a system our government runs and how it's being mishandled? Maybe seeking some sort of action be taken through some sort of political channels to shore up these systems? Like a kind of political action? Definitely sounds like terrorism to me...
      - Beldin 6y ago
        I'm missing "terror" in your outline. Not the word itself per se, but the effect on the general population. I'm still struggling to see how something is terrorism if it isn't intended to instill widespread fear. Not widespread worries, like the managers had. Actual fear.
        BoorishBears 6y ago
        How are you struggling to see terrorism doesn't have to cause widespread fear in the general population to be terrorism? > the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The nitpick was pretty much saying "you need to have a political aim to do terrorism!" My rebuttal is, by calling things terrorism, the implication is there was some political tilt even if said tilt is unknown. That's the whole point of calling it terrorism. Whether that was geopolitical, or anti-government, or a protest against the lack of action the national security risk that is our power grid, these reasons are all some form of political motivation. With the level of sophistication shown, this rises above of trying to create fear for the sake of fear or mischief. In fact, part of why the fear caused by this was somewhat limited was an initial effort to keep it secret which was later abandoned. Do you really think a team of coordinated gunmen using advanced scouting techniques, cutting communications lines in an anticipation, showing intimate knowledge of a substation wouldn't have caused widespread fear in a community? Most people wouldn't even care about the substations, just the idea of coordinated professional gunmen attacking targets would be scary enough... it certainly was for the government
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  A key point is that terrorism needs to intentionally cause terror in the furtherance of the political goal.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    This is certainly not a relevant point at all. All mainstream definitions of terrorism center around the type of acts that are included in the definition (eg violence against people vs violence against property), and the types of motive (political, ideological, religious, revolutionary for example, though all of those could reasonably be described as ‘political’). Whether or not the perpetrator intended to strike terror into people’s hearts is irrelevant to the definition, because it is presumed that the types of acts covered by the definition are terrorizing. A revolutionary destroying infrastructure with the sole intention of disabling the capabilities of the state would would fit into almost all definitions of terrorism, even though terrorizing people may have played no role in the perpetrator‘s motive.
    - alasdair_ 6y ago
      I completely disagree and, while I don’t consider myself an expert in “all mainstream definitions of terrorism”, I’d suspect Merriam Webster would be “mainstream” enough for many readers: “ Definition of terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism
spideymans 6y ago
>It’s hard to imagine a motive for such an attack that doesn’t involve trying to cause major panic to a community. Disgruntled customer or employee? Conspiracy nutjob? Someone (foreign state across, perhaps) testing for vulnerabilities?

AmericanChopper 6y ago

Terrorism is any use of violence or intimidation for the purpose of furthering a political goal. The political motive is a necessary element of terrorism. While you could presume terrorism as being the most likely explanation, it’s not the only one, as state sponsored acts tend not to be classified as terrorism (depending on the perceived legitimacy of the state in question). Of course is a politically loaded word, so people will redefine it to suit whatever their political agenda is. But that’s it’s original definition at least.

BoorishBears 6y ago
This is such a unnecessary nitpick since yourself seem to understand by calling it terrorism, people are explicitly declaring their belief that it was to political ends. It's like people calling a bush fire arson, then you giving the definition of arson and saying "arson refers to the deliberate act of setting a fire"... That's kind of the whole point of implicating it was arson, to further narrow the cause/motivation of an incident. Also the nitpick isn't internally consistent, if you want to be literal and say terrorism any use of violence for the purpose of furthering a political goal, how is a state sponsored attack not a terrorist attack? Are geopolitics excluded from your definition then? >State sponsered acts tend to not be classified as terrorism Says who??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_state-sponsored_ter... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponso... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_te... https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/
- Lammy 6y ago
  I think it's a very appropriate nitpick in this case since it seems like the perpetrators wanted to use violence to call attention to the electrical grid's vulnerability more than actually damage/disrupt it. It seems most likely to me that the goal of the attack was to spur the very conversation we're having.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    You mean, you think someone used violence to spur a conversation on a system our government runs and how it's being mishandled? Maybe seeking some sort of action be taken through some sort of political channels to shore up these systems? Like a kind of political action? Definitely sounds like terrorism to me...
    - Beldin 6y ago
      I'm missing "terror" in your outline. Not the word itself per se, but the effect on the general population. I'm still struggling to see how something is terrorism if it isn't intended to instill widespread fear. Not widespread worries, like the managers had. Actual fear.
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        How are you struggling to see terrorism doesn't have to cause widespread fear in the general population to be terrorism? > the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The nitpick was pretty much saying "you need to have a political aim to do terrorism!" My rebuttal is, by calling things terrorism, the implication is there was some political tilt even if said tilt is unknown. That's the whole point of calling it terrorism. Whether that was geopolitical, or anti-government, or a protest against the lack of action the national security risk that is our power grid, these reasons are all some form of political motivation. With the level of sophistication shown, this rises above of trying to create fear for the sake of fear or mischief. In fact, part of why the fear caused by this was somewhat limited was an initial effort to keep it secret which was later abandoned. Do you really think a team of coordinated gunmen using advanced scouting techniques, cutting communications lines in an anticipation, showing intimate knowledge of a substation wouldn't have caused widespread fear in a community? Most people wouldn't even care about the substations, just the idea of coordinated professional gunmen attacking targets would be scary enough... it certainly was for the government
alasdair_ 6y ago
A key point is that terrorism needs to intentionally cause terror in the furtherance of the political goal.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  This is certainly not a relevant point at all. All mainstream definitions of terrorism center around the type of acts that are included in the definition (eg violence against people vs violence against property), and the types of motive (political, ideological, religious, revolutionary for example, though all of those could reasonably be described as ‘political’). Whether or not the perpetrator intended to strike terror into people’s hearts is irrelevant to the definition, because it is presumed that the types of acts covered by the definition are terrorizing. A revolutionary destroying infrastructure with the sole intention of disabling the capabilities of the state would would fit into almost all definitions of terrorism, even though terrorizing people may have played no role in the perpetrator‘s motive.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    I completely disagree and, while I don’t consider myself an expert in “all mainstream definitions of terrorism”, I’d suspect Merriam Webster would be “mainstream” enough for many readers: “ Definition of terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

spideymans 6y ago

>It’s hard to imagine a motive for such an attack that doesn’t involve trying to cause major panic to a community. Disgruntled customer or employee? Conspiracy nutjob? Someone (foreign state across, perhaps) testing for vulnerabilities?