So we've all heard about how animal rights activism groups are the most dangerous terrorists in America...here's a chance to talk about bogus "terrorism" claims in your area.

A boy around metro Atlanta stood on the side of the road and shot passing cars. One teenage girl got hit, was sent to the hospital, and released that day. Get this - the boy is being charged with "terroristic acts".

My mouth dropped open. I was like, that's not terrorism, that's some stupid kid who thinks it's funny to shoot at cars!

My radically conservative stepmother was like, It is TOO terrorism!

I said, terrorism serves an agenda! What was his agenda? Not get people to drive on that road?

She said, Terrorism is about causing FEAR.

I said, That's silly. Then every crime ever is terrorism because they all, to a certain extent, cause fear. Terrorism is causing FEAR to obtain a desired result.

She said, Well they had to charge him with something.

>_>

Only one year left in this house. :tired:

LOL actually a DJ this morning was saying something about how we're so paralyzed with fear. He said it's time to uncurl from the fetal position and crawl out from under the table...it'll be ok. :lol:

Terrorism is quite simply an act which is designed to cause fear. I consider the act you described to be terrorism. Car jackings cause fear, but that is not the point of the car jacking. Terrorism is a deliberate attempt to make people afraid, there does not need to be an agenda, although there often is.

Okay, so lets get this straight...

terrorism means causing fear.
terroristic acts means acts that cause fear.

so, someone could say that if you disagree with the stance of the present government, you are causing fear, which is a terroristic act....

:\

I would say an act is terrorist only if it involves violence or the threat of violence and once again it has to be done for the express purpose of coercing people's behavior through fear.

>>Terrorism is quite simply an act which is designed to cause fear. >>

So the relevant question, then, is should we codify this distinction into the legal system? Why would acts which are done with the express purpose of creating fear warrant different punishments from other, similar acts?

ebola

>>Terrorism is quite simply an act which is designed to cause fear. >>

So the relevant question, then, is should we codify this distinction into the legal system? Why would acts which are done with the express purpose of creating fear warrant different punishments from other, similar acts?

ebola

No, we should not. The boy in question should be charged as an adult for attempted murder for each shot he fired and spend several years in federal prison, no terrorism charges required.

I said, terrorism serves an agenda! What was his agenda? Not get people to drive on that road?

She said, Terrorism is about causing FEAR.

I said, That's silly. Then every crime ever is terrorism because they all, to a certain extent, cause fear. Terrorism is causing FEAR to obtain a desired result.
Yes, most definitions of terrorism I've seen include ideological or religious motivation or goals.

Terrorism is the hot word of the moment, so everything that can be terrorism will be terrorism. It is obviously forcing the a situation into the definition.

20 years from now, people will say, "Remember the 1st decade after 2000, back when terrorism was this big fad?"

This country has been bunged up about terrorism since Sep '01, and nothing has happened here since. Yet we still have regular terror alerts and news stories about terrorism. People, if you like being afraid, we have amusement parks for that kind of thing.

Jeez.

:rolleyes:

The Rev

was the oklahoma city bombing was a terrorist act? how many have to die before you call it that?

i'd say it's fine to put any sort of label you like on someone who shoots at vehicles randomly. whatever it takes to get them off the streets for many years.

and while i'd agree that the term "terrorist" is being overused, i'm more interested in the substance of getting this kook locked up than worrying about what we call him.

I think what we call it is VERY important. If you throw a word that serious around, you're devaluing it. Terrorism is VERY real, and yes, while shooting at people is horrible, real terrorism is much worse...say for example, threatening people with nuclear weapons to get an agenda accomplished, etc. I agree that he should be charged for attempted murder, because that's what it WAS. To call it terrorism is just...dirty...and wrong...IMO. And it's something radical conservatives ride the coattails of.

I believe that not only do terrorists benefit when we are scared of them, but so does the American administration. THAT'S scary.

ETA: What was the reasoning behind the Oklahoma bombing?

I think what we call it is VERY important. If you throw a word that serious around, you're devaluing it. Terrorism is VERY real, and yes, while shooting at people is horrible, real terrorism is much worse...say for example, threatening people with nuclear weapons to get an agenda accomplished, etc. I agree that he should be charged for attempted murder, because that's what it WAS. To call it terrorism is just...dirty...and wrong...IMO. And it's something radical conservatives ride the coattails of.

I believe that not only do terrorists benefit when we are scared of them, but so does the American administration. THAT'S scary.

ETA: What was the reasoning behind the Oklahoma bombing?

were the washington snipers terrorists? i'd say yes. was the use of anthrax terrorism? i'd say yes.

i don't think the term applies exclusively to muslims plotting against the us government.

and i believe the oklahoma bombing was carried out by men suffering from delusions. that made their act of terror no less an act of terror.

if you murder randomly, you may get charged with terrorism. i don't see how that's a big deal. the circumstances of each case are reviewed on an individual basis. if you kill 50 people, is it an act of terrorism?

when something blows up or people get shot randomly, the same teams have to respond no matter if the person was affiliated with a "terror" group or was just an isolated crazy. i have no problem charging these folks with the same crime - terrorism.

ETA: What was the reasoning behind the Oklahoma bombing?

The men involved in the Oklahoma city bombing were extreme federalists. This is why they targeted a federal building.

were the washington snipers terrorists? i'd say yes. was the use of anthrax terrorism? i'd say yes.

i don't think the term applies exclusively to muslims plotting against the us government.

and i believe the oklahoma bombing was carried out by men suffering from delusions. that made their act of terror no less an act of terror.

if you murder randomly, you may get charged with terrorism. i don't see how that's a big deal. the circumstances of each case are reviewed on an individual basis. if you kill 50 people, is it an act of terrorism?

when something blows up or people get shot randomly, the same teams have to respond no matter if the person was affiliated with a "terror" group or was just an isolated crazy. i have no problem charging these folks with the same crime - terrorism.

So, the "war on terror" is a war against all who kill randomly? Wow! I thought a war against those who use terror to achieve a goal was impossible enough.


The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

It requires intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments ... not individuals. The reality of it is that the government is forcing a vague definition on everything. They have a hammer, and everything is a nail. Allowing them to chuck that definition on any criminal they see fit isn't right, fair or just.

That guy isn't a terrorist. He is a unstable murderer. Just call him what he is.

They are probably charging him with terrorism in an effort to increase his potential sentence. Unless they can prove that he wanted to actually kill someone, they can't get him on attempted murder. He may have told the police that he was trying to scare people, but not actually hurt anyone. If the jury buys that, in the absence of the terrorism charge, they could not find him guilty of much more than assault.

It is called overcharging to force a plea bargain.
Throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks.

Yup.

It is called overcharging to force a plea bargain.
Throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks.
Fair enough. I just hope the precedent isn't set that this kind of thing is a terrorism.

ug333, if he gets charged for terrorism, then the precedent already IS set.

And for the record, I don't think it matters if two billion people are killed - if it's not a crime meant to impose terror to influence large groups of people, it's not terrorism.

Are there different levels of terrorism? If not, that's just ****ing stupid. If so, it's just another stupid legal term now.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The actual definition . . .

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism

ug333, if he gets charged for terrorism, then the precedent already IS set.

And for the record, I don't think it matters if two billion people are killed - if it's not a crime meant to impose terror to influence large groups of people, it's not terrorism.

No it isn't. I was talking of a legal precedent by having a judge actually convict him based on that argument.

I agree with your second statement. I was saying that so long as a legal precedent isn't set for charging and convicting people of these kinds of crimes, it is really not a big deal. Then it was just a DA who was charging someone with a crime that wasn't relavent.

ug333, if he gets charged for terrorism, then the precedent already IS set.


If the precedent being set is that people who shoot at cars should to prison for a long time then I am all for it. I don't see my liberties being curtailed because I can be charged with terrorism for shooting at cars.

He's an asshole, **** for brains ****head who deserves to spend the rest of his life before a firing squad or at the end of a rope, but he's not a terrorist.