• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Election Month Thread: COUP falls short, nothing to see here

Kudos to Hawley for devoting himself to fair labor practices and living wage legislation.
 
WakeandBake said:
I don’t know what the fuck you are saying.

Jesus Christ the guy blew up 2 random people and a building. He’s a terrorist to me, just like mass shooters and people flying planes into buildings. You guys and parse the meanings of the words until you are blue in the face, that fucker and Dylan roof and Muhammad Atta - terrorists in my book.
Click to expand...

You know very well what I’m saying. The term “terrorism” has a definition, and you’re using it incorrectly. That might be meaningless for you, but it’s very fucking detrimental to our society to demand that law enforcement agencies expand their jurisdiction because you’ve been incorrectly socialized to associate bombs with terrorism. Bombs are already illegal, murder - also illegal. What’s the endgame of calling this event “terrorism”? The FBI is going to start spying on all people who purchase RVs? It’s not helpful.
 
Official Election Month Thread: Pubs foment insurrection

It’s actually very misguided to analogize this bombing with Dylan Roof - Roof was a known white supremacist and wrote a goddamn manifesto about intending to incite a race war. Conflating Dylan Roofs actual politically motivated mass murder with a senseless bombing takes focus away from the mission to monitor hate speech.
 
Last edited:
my bad, I just feel like using bombs to kill random people shows intent to maximize death, destruction, mayhem, and fear and the word terrorism suits that kind of activity.

I understand the strict definition and the law enforcement responses are different.
 
For the record and as a peace offering heading into the new year, I would like to point out that I am in agreement with mdmh's posts on a politics thread.
 
WakeandBake said:
my bad, I just feel like using bombs to kill random people shows intent to maximize death, destruction, mayhem, and fear and the word terrorism suits that kind of activity.

I understand the strict definition and the law enforcement responses are different.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion here, and I’m not trying to be a contrarian just arguing to argue. I think our entire nation, since 9/11 (maybe earlier) has been conditioned by our government and security state, to over-zealously use the term terrorism, which allows for law enforcement to militarize, for war efforts to expand, and for intelligence agencies to spy on us and curtail our freedoms using the patriot act.

Our society treats white criminals differently than black & brown criminals, and that includes an asymmetrical use of rhetoric - but the response to that inequality should not be *more* punitive and reactionary.
 
That's awesome, you guys should burn one down together.

I've never really researched it and was just shooting from the hip on this thread, but a quick Wiki read shows that the debate about what qualifies as "terrorism" has been going on for a long time, and it appears different US agencies define it differently. FEMA does not require political motivation, and would seem to includes this asshole's bombing, but hey you guys are the experts

United States
See also: Domestic terrorism in the United States
U.S. Code (U.S.C.)
Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:

[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.[60]

Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:

(1) [T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that —

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction 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 outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum".[61]
Commenting on the genesis of this provision, Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq (under Jimmy Carter) and former ambassador to Mauritania said:

In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress [passed] U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331 ... the US definition of terrorism. […] one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. […] And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.[62]

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "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" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

U.S. Department of Defense
The U.S. Department of Defense recently changed its definition of terrorism. Per Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism, (24 November 2010), the Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political."

The new definition distinguishes between motivations for terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and goals of terrorism ("usually political"). This is in contrast to the previous definition which stated that the goals could be religious in nature.

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contains a definition of terrorism, which reads:

Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. Terrorists often use threats to:

Create fear among the public.
Try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent terrorism.
Get immediate publicity for their causes.

The new definition does not require that the act needs to be politically motivated. The FEMA also said that terrorism "include threats of terrorism; assassinations; kidnappings; hijackings; bomb scares and bombings; cyber attacks (computer-based); and the use of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons" and also states that "[h]igh-risk targets for acts of terrorism include military and civilian government facilities, international airports, large cities, and high-profile landmarks. Terrorists might also target large public gatherings, water and food supplies, utilities, and corporate centers. Further, terrorists are capable of spreading fear by sending explosives or chemical and biological agents through the mail."[63]

U.S. National Counterterrorism Center
The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) define terrorism the same as United States Code 22 USC § 2656f(d)(2). The Center also defines a terrorist act as a "premeditated; perpetrated by a sub-national or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a non-combatant target."[64]

U.S. national security strategy
In September 2002, the U.S. national security strategy defined terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."[65] This definition did not exclude actions by the United States government and it was qualified some months later with "premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".[66]

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 defines domestic terrorism as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. 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 U.S."

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act
Section 102(1)(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act contains a definition of terrorism in order for insurance companies to provide coverage to all prospective policy holders at time of purchase and to all current policyholders at renewal and requires that the federal government pay 90 percent of covered terrorism losses exceeding the statutorily established deductible paid by the insurance company providing the coverage. It reads:

(1) ACT OF TERRORISM-

(A) CERTIFICATION- The term 'act of terrorism' means any act that is certified by the Secretary [of Treasury], in concurrence with the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General of the United States--
(i) to be an act of terrorism;
(ii) to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to--
(I) human life;
(II) property; or
(III) infrastructure;
(iii) to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside of the United States in the case of--
(I) an air carrier or vessel described in paragraph
(5)(B); or
(II) the premises of a United States mission; and
(iv) to have been committed by an individual or individuals as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States Government by coercion.[67]
Click to expand...
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I respect your opinion here, and I’m not trying to be a contrarian just arguing to argue. I think our entire nation, since 9/11 (maybe earlier) has been conditioned by our government and security state, to over-zealously use the term terrorism, which allows for law enforcement to militarize, for war efforts to expand, and for intelligence agencies to spy on us and curtail our freedoms using the patriot act.

Our society treats white criminals differently than black & brown criminals, and that includes an asymmetrical use of rhetoric - but the response to that inequality should not be *more* punitive and reactionary.
Click to expand...

You and I will forever agree on those points. I was not arguing for a particular response to guys in campers, but trying not to give white guys a break when they terrorize. not my best troll but Im a little out of practice with the holidays and whatnot
 
Official Election Month Thread: Pubs foment insurrection

thanks for explaining.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

i agree, why has this not been dealt with yet? some sort of law to protect people that have to make really difficult decisions for their community. you will never make everyone happy, but also those unhappy minority should not be carrying weapons sitting in your front yard. it's just trying to intimidate/scare but eventually someone will be killed.
 
Oh well...definitely some states (including allies and non-allies) overuse fighting “terrorism” as an excuse to oppress dissent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top