No Bodily Harm (or threat thereof), No Terrorism

Well, it has scared me and lots of other first responders that starting with the Atlanta abortion clinic secondary device, ELF, ALF and other groups have been discussing and publishing information on IEDs. These devices have no purpose other than to kill or injure first responders.

What if you and your family are on their way home, and you don’t see the police car responding to an incident, it hits your car and one of your family is killed? Were it not for someone starting that fire, the officer would not have been responding, and you/yours therefore become a direct casualty of that incident.

Even if she wasn’t gonna be in the house when the burned it down?

That’s kind of a far fetched hypothetical.

Cite that ELF or ALF are advocating the use of incendiary devices against human beings.

Doh! “They,” not “the”.

I ask because you saying that would be terrorism seems to conflict with your previous statements that bodily harm (or the threat thereof) was a necessary prerequisite for terrorism.

I would consider burning down an actual household to be an act of terrorism.

FWIW Metacom this is the US DOJ definition: A violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any segment to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Sounds like my definition.

As I said before, we both know that the authorities don’t stand around and watch an incident. They become involved, and people get hurt. To say that it was only aimed at property is disingenuous.

Um, no, it’s nothing like your definition.

The first sentence says “a violent act or an act dangerous to human life.” An act can be violent without endangering human life. That’s probably why their definition lists the two things seperately, and implies that either (but not both) is a necessary prerequisite for terrorism. Yours seems only to include the latter condition (dangerous to human life) with an exemption for “actual households”.

I think it’s pretty obvious that the definition meant violence directed at humans.

What other kind of violence is there?

You suffer from an acute lack of imagination [/darth vader voice]

Must we resort to the dictionary?

vi·o·lence §Pronunciation Key(v-lns)
n.

  1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
  2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
  3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
  4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
  5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
  6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing. Doesn’t say anything about who or what the violence is directed against. My mother works in a metal hospital. They have to do write up on patients who have violent outbursts. Doesn’t mean they hurt anyone. Could mean they broke a mirror. That’s a violent outburst.

All of which is getting away from the point i think, because as i said I don’t think the definition of terrorism is about violence, it’s about fear. Which doesn’t have to be physical.

You’re being intentionally obtuse. Violence can occur against property. Burning down a construction site at 0300 only directly risks the lives of first responders. Ditto for the SUV dealership, the abortion clinic, and for that matter the church or synagogue.

That said, the act is a message, whether it’s don’t build, be eco friendly, pro-life, or get your fucking asses out of our town. In addition to being a message, it’s a threat, the threat being that if you don’t do as we want, the stakes will get higher.

I think what we have is a difference between terrorism and criminal activity. DtC specifically said tht ALF and ELF’s actions were criminal. This is obvious: they violate laws.

Terrorism as used in a political-science context often means use of violence to change the policies or actions of a state, not individuals or corporations. DtC’s definition comports with this. The target and aims of the act is the distinguishing factor, not the form of the action.

The original question: “Would you then acknowledge that your personal definition of “terrorism” seems to differ from that of the world at large?” does not have a factual answer. What are we going to do: conduct a world-wide survey where people are asked to choose between different model definitions?

If rephrased to “…your personal definition…differs from most ordinary Americans?”, then the answer is undoubtedly “Yes”. There are, however, other groups and contexts where his definition makes perfect sense.

For instance, it is necessary to distinguish between groups tryying to overthrow America from a person pissed at his landlord, correct? Even if both of them blow up an apartment building, the response by law-enforcement to these groups is going to be different.

There is, in fact, a growing problem where laws specifically aimed at foreign terrorists passed after 9-11 are being used for regular law-enforcement uses. This usage twists the definition of terrorist in the opposite direction, to apply it to persons most of us agree are not terrorists.

Why would you only apply it to “foreign”?

If a citizen of a nation tries to destabilize his nation from within then that person is not a terrorist?

**DTC[/]
Throwing paint on someone’s coat in order to bring a person to modify his behaviour, otherwise again risking to be exposed at such attacks… How do you see that as not trying to instill fear with as goal that the person changes his way of life/behaviour.

Salaam. A

Because the legislators passing those laws spoke at length about “keeping the terrorists out” and “defending the borders” and other comments that made it clear the legislative intent was to address al-Quaeda and other foreign terrorists, not Timothy McVie. I was speaking about the laws, not the abstract definition.

I think a missing component may be if we agree with their aims. The french resistence meet all the criteria for terrorism listed above, but I wouldn’t describe them as ‘terrorist’ because I think what they did was necessary. (Presumably the government there would.) However, I think there’s some groups which fall into the gray area of “I agree with their aims, but think the violence they use is wrong as it’s too disproportionate,” which things like this fall into.