Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.

In America, Rescuing a Piglet Makes You a Terrorist but Shooting Up a Concert Doesn't

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday October 12 2017, @07:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the oink-I-say dept.

CoolHand writes:

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."

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
In America, Rescuing a Piglet Makes You a Terrorist but Shooting Up a Concert Doesn't | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 95 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @06:50PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @06:50PM (#581283)

    (Not same AC)

    Question: did someone who is really bitter about the whole LGBTQ+ crowd challenge your worldview with an opposing opinion or something? You seem really bitter about people who are bitter about the LGBTQ+ crowd. Most people don't care.

    ...Or maybe it's possible that neither your pocket of the world nor anyone else's represents "most people" and that nobody can accurately say what "most people" care about. Maybe the LGBTQMNOP+++ crowd is not something you can just handwave as being noncontroversial to "most people."

    But please, mod me down and tell me how stupid I am. Score some major *social justice* points and enlighten a (in your mind) worthless, backwards deplorable who is far less equal and diverse than you. Show me some good ol' modern progressive peace'n'love'n'acceptance.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @07:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @07:02PM (#581290)

    You seem really bitter about people who are bitter about the LGBTQ+ crowd. Most people don't care.

    But at least you, you hot and slinky AC, care, don't you! Why are you so bitter about thinking that some people are bitter about how bitter the anti-LGBTQ+ crowd are? Let's stay away from crowds. Let's just keep it between ourselves, AC to AC. Here, let me massage your shoulders, you seem tense. Is that better?