I mean, I completely understand what you’re saying here, and I agree. It’s best to have a measure by which we define terrorism, otherwise anything can become an act of terrorism. I get it. I just feel like it’s provable that guy’s intent was to cause terror in the American Muslim populace, and therefore this should be treated as a domestic terror plot.
You also have the advantage of living in a situation where terrorism is more of an abstract concept than a likely means of death for you or your loved ones. For example, it’s very unlikely you’ll ever need to decide whether it’s worth the risk of sending your daughter to school when a huge portion of the school-going girls in your village are raped, beaten or killed for doing so.
5 Likes
Evidence of what, exactly? No, it is not evidence of a crime unless it is specified who might incur this possible damage. I have often heard people in law enforcement use the same kind of language to describe their goals. And there are a lot more of them, with more weapons, killing many more people. When the same people who are supposed to be relied upon to fix the problem use the same methods and motivations as those who cause them, them the distinction between them is not meaningful - it exists for somebody’s perceived “convenience”.
Meanwhile, I think justice is better served by making terms as unambiguous as possible, and assuming the barest minimum. Prosecute criminal acts, rather than criminal ideas, feelings, etc.
ETA: In case it’s not clear, the guy sounds like a threat to me, and I would be surprised if he didn’t get some fair prison time. But IMO arguing about whether or not it can/should be called “terrorism” is neither helpful nor productive.
The US Code has a slightly more specific definition. Paraphrased, the acts must be dangerous, illegal, and intended to intimidate the population or affect/influence the government to be terrorism. Domestic terrorism occurs primarily within the US; international terrorism primarily outside.
2 Likes
It’s evidence of intention to inflict psychological damage and get the attention of America.
Do you need a quote from him saying “We are undergoing this action to send a message of terror!” or what?
3 Likes
Because we don’t want Christians to question their hate and suspicion of Muslims – that would hurt support for the war effort! And the lie that there is a war on Christianity.
2 Likes
Can you clarify what populations you are talking about?
1 Like
I thought it would be clear that I was not talking about any specific populations, rather, I was being critical of the pervasive methodology of assessing risks by means of emotional reactions. Injustice needs to be met with clarity, rather than sensationalism.
How about humanistic compassion?
2 Likes
How about it? I was discussing how the cultural narrative of “terrorism” seems to be a tool of a dishonest and unaccountable agenda, rather than existing to enforce equitable relations. This causes more damage than the acts themselves do. It is not the machinery of the state which feels for human suffering, but other people. This is why the legal processes for dealing with such threats need to be accountable, because they are likely to be affected by bias. The more emotional the language it is framed in, the more probable the biases will be. Prosecution is supposed to be an impartial process.
1 Like
Kinda the same way all our imports come from other countries?
2 Likes
Sure you betcha “terrorism” the word is abused, highly abused by assholes with agendas.
That ship has sailed, so I’d recommend corrective course adjustment, like demanding that if we have terrorism laws and a buncha freaky media slavering over every LEO mention of the word, that they all be applied equally. Be nice to just be rid of it all and call crime crime but how likely is that?
This guy was a terrorist, the fact that no one official or media seems to want to characterize him as such, or utilize these handy dandy laws on the books definitely indicates the bias you mention, and it’s being called out. Not terribly effectively…but again, what can we do?
3 Likes
Nothing is going to change the “narrative” or injustice in this world unless we expand our collective expression and receptivity to human compassion.
Holy fuck, America!
If fox news hadn’t already assured me that systemic racism doesn’t exist, I would be worried about you.
Luckily, this is just another bad apple in a position of power…
4 Likes
Gonna step out here and say that it’s unlikely that the folks doing said crossing and dotting most definitely aren’t black Muslim Americans.
Oh FFS. Sounds identical to stuff from those murderous bastards in ISIS.
3 Likes
I think it’s probably time to retire this ‘judge’ and send him off to the ‘home’, where he can do no more harm.
There are two separate sections in the code defining those two terms. I’m no lawyer but from my reading they seem a little more nuanced than the paraphrasing I gave. If someone in Canada took control of a US government drone and used it in an act of terror against a target in the US or against a US registered ship, I think that would be considered an act of domestic terrorism since it took place “mainly in the US”, even though the perpetrator was in another country. Similarly, I think someone in the US triggering a bomb that exploded in another country would be an act of international terrorism.
And you are right. Yet the evidence is there to support terroristic intent. Impartiality is needed, yes. Ignoring evidence is not.
Again, I see and appreciate what you are saying. It applies here. The evidence suggests terrorism. He should be tried as such in a court of law. All I’m saying.
1 Like
The decadent, the weak, the corrupt, yada yada yada yada.
1 Like
The the actual threat would depend on whether or not the post is internet-tough-guy posturing or serious planning(given that he actually went to the trouble of pulling the guns and ammo together, and at least attempting to recruit a posse and case the target; it appears that the answer is ‘actually serious, if not necessarily able to field 20 “expert gunners”’). The facts of this guy’s case appear to be more damning than is typical; but in isolation talk is cheap and online talk is cheaper.
Given that the recent Tunisian beach attack was pulled off by one guy, and the Mumbai attacks in 2008 were the work of only 10(albeit better trained and directed than your usual weekend warrior, and with access to some grenades as well as rifles); so I’d go with “Wow, you think 20 gunmen could do a lot of damage? Medal for tactical insight there.” So, if he actually had a remotely plausible plan involving something of that scale, he’d be a serious risk.
2 Likes
