22 ms·

Sabotage sure, but I have a hard time seeing this qualified as terrorism - terrorism is an a violent act against civilians designed to instill fear in the gener

Sabotage sure, but I have a hard time seeing this qualified as terrorism - terrorism is an a violent act against civilians designed to instill fear in the general population. e.g., bombing trains, airports, buildings, poisoning food supplies, etc. Actions against the military establishment of a country can hardly be qualified as terrorism. That said, if the US had been on the pointy end of this stick I'm sure many politicians would not have hesitated to the use the T-word themselves...

gaius 14y ago
It would more usually be qualified as an act of war.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
> ...terrorism is an a violent act against civilians designed to instill fear in the general population. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-scientists-state-sponsored-murder http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-sci... http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news?lite http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10354553-is...
- ars 14y ago
  So I looked at your links and I don't see how those activities "instill fear in the general population". They instill fear in those working for the military, sure, but that's not the general population.
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    I intend no offense, but can we for once not be pedants? The January 11th incident happened in a public, civilian area (http://wikimapia.org/#lat=35.75663&lon=51.450485&z=18&l=0&m=b http://wikimapia.org/#lat=35.75663&lon=51.450485&z=1...), it was the fourth such incident (that I know of), and witnesses described a man on a motorbike that attached the bomb to the car. I'm pretty sure that if you happened to be a block away when a Livermore Lab nuclear scientist was killed by a focused car bomb delivered by a motorcyclist, you'd get a little jumpy and U.S. news reports would call it terrorism. And, U.S. officials are claiming that the bombings are being carried out by the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, a terrorist organization, and Iran's own vice-president called it an act of terrorism. For us to call this anything other than terrorism would be hypocrisy.
    - ars 14y ago
      Actually if I knew the target was specifically targeted and killed by a careful operation I would be more relaxed knowing that my country's enemy was so careful about killing. It's the same reason why people get in an uproar over a random murder, but barely care when the killing was targeting a specific person. Terrorism is random. Killing a person because of how they help the military is not terrorism even if done in public. You can call it assassination if you wish (which plenty of people condemn), but it's not terrorism. Remember Alexander Litvinenko? (The Russian spy who was killed with plutonium.) I don't remember any exclamations of terrorism.
      - thaumaturgy 14y ago
        When Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood in 2009, 60% of Americans wanted the crime prosecuted as a terrorist act [1], the Bipartisan Policy Center referred to it as a terrorist act in a report [2], and Wikipedia currently refers to it as a "non-state terrorist attack" [3]. While there is not an internationally-agreed-upon definition of "terrorism", according to U.S. law, terrorism is defined as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" [4]. Premeditated, politically-motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by clandestine agents ... the Iranian car bombings would legally qualify as terrorism under U.S. law. This is a very silly argument to be having here. I'd really rather be reading about some interesting technical aspect of the technological warfare against Iran, and I really don't want to keep on cluttering up the comments here with silliness. [1]: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2009/60_want_fort_hood_shooting_investigated_as_terrorist_act http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene... [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95190520/Assessing-the-Terrorist-Threat http://www.scribd.com/doc/95190520/Assessing-the-Terrorist-T..., search for "Fort Hood" [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting [4]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f, subsection (d), paragraph (2).
        ars 14y ago
ktizo 14y ago
terrorism is an a violent act against civilians designed to instill fear in the general population. It got legally redefined by the government. Is now the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Is now any unlawful forceful act with any wider motive, basically.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  The functioning definition is something like: > the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce the US government its allies, the US civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. See, when US does it is called "exporting democracy", "conducting an operation", "liberating", "collateral damage" -- basically anything but terrorism.
  - ForrestN 14y ago
    Why is this downvoted? Seems relevant and fairly apt, if a bit too pointed.

gaius 14y ago

It would more usually be qualified as an act of war.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

> ...terrorism is an a violent act against civilians designed to instill fear in the general population. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-scientists-state-sponsored-murder http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-sci... http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news?lite http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10354553-is...

ars 14y ago
So I looked at your links and I don't see how those activities "instill fear in the general population". They instill fear in those working for the military, sure, but that's not the general population.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  I intend no offense, but can we for once not be pedants? The January 11th incident happened in a public, civilian area (http://wikimapia.org/#lat=35.75663&lon=51.450485&z=18&l=0&m=b http://wikimapia.org/#lat=35.75663&lon=51.450485&z=1...), it was the fourth such incident (that I know of), and witnesses described a man on a motorbike that attached the bomb to the car. I'm pretty sure that if you happened to be a block away when a Livermore Lab nuclear scientist was killed by a focused car bomb delivered by a motorcyclist, you'd get a little jumpy and U.S. news reports would call it terrorism. And, U.S. officials are claiming that the bombings are being carried out by the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, a terrorist organization, and Iran's own vice-president called it an act of terrorism. For us to call this anything other than terrorism would be hypocrisy.
  - ars 14y ago
    Actually if I knew the target was specifically targeted and killed by a careful operation I would be more relaxed knowing that my country's enemy was so careful about killing. It's the same reason why people get in an uproar over a random murder, but barely care when the killing was targeting a specific person. Terrorism is random. Killing a person because of how they help the military is not terrorism even if done in public. You can call it assassination if you wish (which plenty of people condemn), but it's not terrorism. Remember Alexander Litvinenko? (The Russian spy who was killed with plutonium.) I don't remember any exclamations of terrorism.
    - thaumaturgy 14y ago
      When Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood in 2009, 60% of Americans wanted the crime prosecuted as a terrorist act [1], the Bipartisan Policy Center referred to it as a terrorist act in a report [2], and Wikipedia currently refers to it as a "non-state terrorist attack" [3]. While there is not an internationally-agreed-upon definition of "terrorism", according to U.S. law, terrorism is defined as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" [4]. Premeditated, politically-motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by clandestine agents ... the Iranian car bombings would legally qualify as terrorism under U.S. law. This is a very silly argument to be having here. I'd really rather be reading about some interesting technical aspect of the technological warfare against Iran, and I really don't want to keep on cluttering up the comments here with silliness. [1]: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2009/60_want_fort_hood_shooting_investigated_as_terrorist_act http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene... [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95190520/Assessing-the-Terrorist-Threat http://www.scribd.com/doc/95190520/Assessing-the-Terrorist-T..., search for "Fort Hood" [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting [4]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f, subsection (d), paragraph (2).
      - ars 14y ago

ktizo 14y ago

terrorism is an a violent act against civilians designed to instill fear in the general population. It got legally redefined by the government. Is now the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Is now any unlawful forceful act with any wider motive, basically.

rdtsc 14y ago
The functioning definition is something like: > the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce the US government its allies, the US civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. See, when US does it is called "exporting democracy", "conducting an operation", "liberating", "collateral damage" -- basically anything but terrorism.
- ForrestN 14y ago
  Why is this downvoted? Seems relevant and fairly apt, if a bit too pointed.