3 ms·
Destroying property for political reasons is still terrorism (like blowing up a parking lot of SUVs).
by cozzyd 6y ago
Destroying property for political reasons is still terrorism (like blowing up a parking lot of SUVs).
- happymellon 6y agoDestroying property for political reasons is not terrorism. You have to incite terror, if civilians are not scared then it isn't terrorism it is vandalism.
- bawolff 6y agoImagine having to drink coffee. Its pretty terrifying, especially for a Brit. More seriously - the people who own that property were civilians and probably scared. In usa terrorism is defined currently as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents". (Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f) The boston tea party was premeditated, politically motivated, the tea was not military (so non combatant) and it was done by a subnational group. Seems to fit to me.
- lovetocode 6y agoNon-combatant targets isn’t physical goods.
- whimsicalism 6y agoThe law pretty explicitly disagrees with your interpretation [0] if we've decided we're going to take the US govt definition as gospel. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-763651625-782330727&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:113B:section:2332b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
- bawolff 6y agoBased on what? IANAL, but just reading that, it sounds like non-combatant would mean someone non military, and violence against their "stuff" would be considered violence against that person.
- whimsicalism 6y agoYour syllogism is resting on an unstated argument about what frightens civilians that you haven't justified.