I understood you the first time around. But, as I explained, “terrorism” does not seem to be very meaningful, so I would rather people stick to prosecuting actions rather than ideas. Quite a few people in the topic have repeated that this could be considered terrorism, but I have yet to read any clear explanations about why this distinction matters.
I cannot trust a justice department to prosecute somebody with a supposedly damning (but yet vague) charge which also describes how they themselves conduct their daily business. Do you honestly suppose even for a moment that US police pistoleros and snipers don’t strive to - and even boast - to cause both physical and psychological damage? One stated purpose for law enforcement agencies “making their presence felt” is deterrence. Which, in this case, pragmatically means intimidating the populace - to coerce them to fall into line with this (minority) group’s agenda. I have heard this out of their own mouths. So no, I do not think the court has sufficient moral high ground to apply this term to anybody.
It would be dishonest to suggest that since I don’t believe in terrorism, as it is usually defined, that I don’t consider the guy a threat. I wonder if this is what people imply, by confronting me on this. That if I do not agree that it was terrorism, that he did nothing wrong? I think I explained with some clarity in my other posts that there are plenty of charges the guy can be unambiguously nailed with. Beyond that, feel free to disagree.
The police defend and encourage murderers within their own ranks, so therefor we shouldn’t apply the term murderer to anyone, nor charge them for it.
The police allow child molesters within their own ranks, so therefor we shouldn’t apply the term child molester to anyone, nor charge them for it.
I don’t really get the thought process here. It can be true that this guy was a terrorist AND the police are terrorist also. They don’t need to be mutually exclusive.
They don’t need to be, but by definition, they are. Being part of the government and their agenda does not preclude one of theirs from being a murderer or molester. But does preclude them from being defined (by us) as terrorists. The fact that they see this as “just doing their job” is what they see as a pass, but I see as actually far worse, because I am actually paying them to do it in my name. The notion of Westphalian sovereignty purports to be based upon participation, but this is superficial, and the pragmatics are achieved by the violent subjugation and intimidation of their own people. So “terrorism” is glib, because it is the very stratum that the state monopoly on violence is founded upon. To some people, this may sound far more abstract than immediate, but this depends upon how one lives. It is not my intention to convince anyone about this here. I am sure that quite a few people accept this without my reservations.
Also, as I alluded to, charges of terrorism often completely overlap with many other, more well-established codes and statutes. Conspiracy, soliciting to destroy property, possibly murder, transporting weapons across state lines, acting to deprive protected categories of people their rights, etc. It’s already poor law to invent new, redundant charges for acts which are already covered elsewhere.
Anyway, I prefer to not swamp the discussion with my opinions and ideas. Feel free to address other specifics in separate topics or PM me.
Funnily enough, I heard a paper recently discussing this very topic, how drugs and satan came to be a major aspect of right-wing Christian thought in the 80s, which had the effect of pushing some other conservative groups to the margins.
