SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Newsweek has this article on America's skewed definition of terrorism:
What is terrorism? According to the FBI, animal activists who stole two piglets from a farm were terrorists. As of now, Stephen Paddock, who killed 58 people at a country music concert in Las Vegas two weeks ago, has not been labeled a terrorist by the federal security organization.
In a viral story posted on The Intercept, journalist Glenn Greenwald details an account of federal agents investigating animal activists and scouring farm-animal sanctuaries to find two missing piglets that allegedly had been stolen from a farm. The FBI devoted such resources to finding these two piglets because their alleged theft and the capturing of undercover videos of the farm's conditions count as terrorism.
Why is the piglet theft classified as terrorism, but not the Las Vegas shooting? The distinction is rooted in the definition of the term. In spite of the emotions the word "terrorist" might elicit, the definition is not "mass killer" or "Muslim extremist" or "very bad person." The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 12 2017, @12:48PM (4 children)
?
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you placing me on the side of FBI apologists, and that's a bad thing, or that I'm a critic and that's a bad thing? Or is it a blanket condemnation of America and the direction it's take over the last 18 years?
I don't recall off the top of my head what the PATRIOT acronym stands for. I knew once. Now it's in a dusty drawer labeled "Orwellian doublespeak" next to "Homeland Security."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 12 2017, @01:01PM (1 child)
No, I'm not, apologies if this is a meaning that can be derived from my post, it's not what I intended.
I'm saying that's too late to think that "Are we gonna let those terrorists win?" makes sense, because you lost this battle long time ago. So, rather this one:
is closer to (but not an exact match of) what I meant.
Perhaps asking "Are we going to let them keep what they won?" is a better form for your question?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 12 2017, @01:30PM
You're always gonna be playing a game of catch up when you're so deeply betrayed by an insider you entrusted with such an important role. We trusted the FBI, NSA, CIA, Congress, the Whitehouse, the police, etc with so much money and power to perform the duties the People required them to do, and they used it to work directly against the Constitution we swore them in to uphold. Thus they are vile, perjured wretches.
The Rule of Law and public scorn have shown little effect in bringing them to heel, so eventually it's going to take revolution. If they don't receive the ultimate penalty for their betrayal of their oaths, and for violating the freedom and the rights of the People, then the Constitution and its precepts have no meaning and no teeth. When that happens is anyone's guess.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 12 2017, @01:11PM (1 child)
(I can see why the '?'. No, I used "you/your" as the plural. Apologies once again)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 12 2017, @01:31PM
No need to apologize. Thanks for clarifying.
Washington DC delenda est.