How do you define terrorism?

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

You are one of my favorite people on this forum, do you know that? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Mine as well. I think he would be one of my best friends in real life lol

Always good to have some serious dialogue on a forum //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[davidfre21 5,000+ posts]

a dark skinned middle eastern guy wearing a turbin... and dynamite

 

[Dallon 10+ year member]

anyone that isn't a protestant caucasion republican.

like this guy

 

[sctattooer 10+ year member]

Interesting thread of opinions. At the risk of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", You might want to do a bit of research on the Patriot Act.. The Act is 350 pages that updates more than 50 federal statutes and uses the term "acts of terrorism" countless times.

According to the Patriot Act, if you are charged with suspicion of an act of terrorism, the authorities (the word "authorities" is undefined and could include anyone considered in a position of authority, right down to a teacher at school, in an extreme case) could, theoretically, detain a person indefinitely, without the right to a phone call, or the opportunity to speak to a lawyer, or even the right to trial. If you are suspected of a terrorist act, under the Patriot Act, all your assets can be seized, your children taken, and you could be potentially locked up for life without ever being tried at all. This could also happen if you're charged with conspiracy to commit terroristic acts. Having a cup of coffee with someone being watched automatically creates reasonable cause, whether you know this guy or just met him.

Sounds serious, huh?

The most frightening thing in the whole document is that nowhere in the document does it actually define the words "terrorism" or "terroristic act". Without a clear definition this leaves everything wide open to interpretation. Mouth off to a cop, and have that cop decide to really make a bad day for you, he can just file you in under suspicion. You don't even get to call Mom for bail, cause there isnt any. See ya in twenty, maybe.

I know this is extreme, but actually quite plausible. No suspicion of conspiracy, this is pure, disturbing fact. A fact that the American people allowed to happen under the guise of "Homeland Security".

Good luck finding a proper definition to terrorist, it seems even the Congress of the United States, and even the President can't define it, either.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

According to the Patriot Act, if you are charged with suspicion of an act of terrorism, the authorities (the word "authorities" is undefined and could include anyone considered in a position of authority, right down to a teacher at school, in an extreme case) could, theoretically, detain a person indefinitely, without the right to a phone call, or the opportunity to speak to a lawyer, or even the right to trial. If you are suspected of a terrorist act, under the Patriot Act, all your assets can be seized, your children taken, and you could be potentially locked up for life without ever being tried at all. This could also happen if you're charged with conspiracy to commit terroristic acts. Having a cup of coffee with someone being watched automatically creates reasonable cause, whether you know this guy or just met him.

There too much myth about the patriot act for me to trust these claims, please provide references.

The most frightening thing in the whole document is that nowhere in the document does it actually define the words "terrorism" or "terroristic act". Without a clear definition this leaves everything wide open to interpretation. Mouth off to a cop, and have that cop decide to really make a bad day for you, he can just file you in under suspicion. You don't even get to call Mom for bail, cause there isnt any. See ya in twenty, maybe.
I know this is extreme, but actually quite plausible. No suspicion of conspiracy, this is pure, disturbing fact. A fact that the American people allowed to happen under the guise of "Homeland Security".

Good luck finding a proper definition to terrorist, it seems even the Congress of the United States, and even the President can't define it, either.

Terrorism is thoroughly defined in numerous places by US Code. Title VIII section 802 of the patriot act amended the standing definition of domestic terrorism under US Code Title 18 to:

As used in this chapter—(1) the 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

© 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;

(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—

(A) declared war;

(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

© armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws 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

© occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html

I haven't read the whole thing and dont plan on it, but if you want to continue lecturing people on the act then you should be someone who has read it.

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

 

[MmatsDude 10+ year member]

Interesting thread of opinions. At the risk of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", You might want to do a bit of research on the Patriot Act.. The Act is 350 pages that updates more than 50 federal statutes and uses the term "acts of terrorism" countless times.
According to the Patriot Act, if you are charged with suspicion of an act of terrorism, the authorities (the word "authorities" is undefined and could include anyone considered in a position of authority, right down to a teacher at school, in an extreme case) could, theoretically, detain a person indefinitely, without the right to a phone call, or the opportunity to speak to a lawyer, or even the right to trial. If you are suspected of a terrorist act, under the Patriot Act, all your assets can be seized, your children taken, and you could be potentially locked up for life without ever being tried at all. This could also happen if you're charged with conspiracy to commit terroristic acts. Having a cup of coffee with someone being watched automatically creates reasonable cause, whether you know this guy or just met him.

Sounds serious, huh?

The most frightening thing in the whole document is that nowhere in the document does it actually define the words "terrorism" or "terroristic act". Without a clear definition this leaves everything wide open to interpretation. Mouth off to a cop, and have that cop decide to really make a bad day for you, he can just file you in under suspicion. You don't even get to call Mom for bail, cause there isnt any. See ya in twenty, maybe.

I know this is extreme, but actually quite plausible. No suspicion of conspiracy, this is pure, disturbing fact. A fact that the American people allowed to happen under the guise of "Homeland Security".

Good luck finding a proper definition to terrorist, it seems even the Congress of the United States, and even the President can't define it, either.

Yeah, thats why I advice him to conclude his own definition. Also the department of defense has the most pathetic defenition of it too. Lol.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

Yeah, thats why I advice him to conclude his own definition. Also the department of defense has the most pathetic defenition of it too. Lol.

I quoted US Code, not the DoD. US Code is federal law drafted by Congress. The definition i quoted has been the standing definition under title 22 since 1983.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

I think a clear, concise definition of terrorism is this: the methodical use of violence to instill terror in an individual or group of individuals for some socio-political/economic goal.

No offense, but this definition doesn't seem like much more than a verbose version of the OP definition.

"Targeting innocent civilians to advance a political or military agenda."

Under this definition, I think we can point to enough morally irreprehensible acts committed by the United States Government to label them terrorists (e.g. Guantanamo Bay, Panama, Iran Contra, and really the list is endless. I once read a 15 page-long LIST of all the messed-up stuff that the US has done to acheive their goals). Hope that helps

Also, i think you need to be careful about how accurate your examples are when accusing the US govt of terrorism. I can think of a number of cases where the govt is guilty - by their own definition - but i dont think i would consider any of your examples as one.

 

[stangman67 10+ year member]

I'm reading a book in my college English class called "Rereading America" (horrible liberal book, don't waste your time). So we are talking about patriotism, terrorism, etc. The following case was brought up.
The United States was attacked on September 11th. These were acts of terrorism, pending you aren't some conspiracy theorist, so please work with me here.

This authors (Mark Hertsgaard) definition of terrorism is "Targeting innocent civilians to advance a political or military agenda."

SO, was the US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki(sp?) with the atomic bombs acts of terrorism? By his definition, yes. By mine, no. They didn't do it out of an act of hatred, BUT we did put the Japs in concentration camps during WWII. I'm not sure how to plead my case ny giving an alternate definition of terrorism.

help? thoughts?

I sort of agree with that definition, but I would add that the group is extremist and not officially aligned with a government of a country.

 

[funkyab 10+ year member]

PerfexionX makes some very good arguments.

It seems to me that there is a lot of speculation here with a bunch of people using google resources as a substitute for actual understanding of the different laws and statutes that exist within US law, US military law and International Law.

People spend years in PhD programs trying to decipher small points of even small subsections that could have consequences unanticipated by those that originally drafted it.

 

[funkyab 10+ year member]

I sort of agree with that definition, but I would add that the group is extremist and not officially aligned with a government of a country.

See... Here is an example of uneducated bandwagon speculation. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[stangman67 10+ year member]

Let's see, that was an example of an opinion //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[MmatsDude 10+ year member]

I quoted US Code, not the DoD. US Code is federal law drafted by Congress. The definition i quoted has been the standing definition under title 22 since 1983.

I meant the DOD, I wasnt saying you were stating the DOD.

 

[MmatsDude 10+ year member]

No offense, but this definition doesn't seem like much more than a verbose version of the OP definition.





Also, i think you need to be careful about how accurate your examples are when accusing the US govt of terrorism. I can think of a number of cases where the govt is guilty - by their own definition - but i dont think i would consider any of your examples as one.

That is just one definition I could come up with in similarity to the OP's, but yes I do some what I agree with it to a certain point.

I wasnt stating that the US was commiting terrorism in those situations nor was I acusing anyone with terrorism, I should of being more clearer on my part. I was just stating that I have read a couple insidents were the US has done bad.