SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-does-activism-become-terrorism dept.
I was saddened to hear that two individuals who released fur animals and vandalized fur farms across America were busted: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/fbi-arrests-activists-accused-of-releasing-mink/article_6c169b5d-dbbc-5dd1-adb0-534ee46af88b.html
But the arrest is sort of beside the point and there are two interesting tidbits in there. First and less interesting, is the ridiculous charge of terrorism under the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" -- seriously, what they did is just plain old crime. Before you know it, going 10 over on the freeway will be considered an act of terrorism.
More intriguing, despite a lack of details on how they got busted, is this tidbit:
The indictment states that they covered their tracks by avoiding phones or logging into known online accounts and email. Instead, they used public Internet computers and encrypted email and cash for purchases while traveling. They would allegedly withdraw hundreds of dollars while back home in the San Francisco Bay Area before another trip.
The FBI states that they drafted communiques and posted them online to publicize their actions on websites associated with "animal rights extremists."
I'm going to guess automatic license plate readers were involved. Pure guess.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @12:19PM
Terrorism consists of random acts of violence, with the goal of intimidating a population and/or a political process.
Criminal acts consists of targeted violence, usually but not necessarily with the goal of financial gain.
If these clowns had targeted post offices, school buildings, shopping centers, airports, electrical infrastructure, or other targets unrelated to the fur industry, then I would agree that they are terrorists. In this case, they narrowly targeted a single industry, making it a criminal enterprise in my mind.
That's similar to the kid who threatens to kill a teacher, and he's charged with terrorism. The word is cheapened by doing so, because the kid didn't threaten to kill random people in the community. In fact, he threatened an individual.
Ditto with bank robbers - we don't charge them with terrorism, primarily because they don't target random people in a community. They are targeting a bank, or possibly several banks. In general, bank robbers may cause the deaths of innocent bystanders, but those deaths weren't the intent. The intent was financial gain, thereby making the bank robbery and all related offenses (such as shooting a bystander) criminal offenses.
I simply cannot agree with the use of terrorism in TFS or TFA.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday July 27 2015, @02:04PM
Terrorism consists of random acts of violence
No. What I object to here is the claim that the violence has to be "random". That's nonsense.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @02:23PM
I think you'll agree that terrorists are rather partial to car bombs and suicide bombs. They like to set these bombs off in places like markets, where they kill anyone who happens to be standing around, or passing through. Often enough, these bombs are set off by Muslims, who simply don't care that they might kill a dozen of their own, for each of the "enemy" that they might kill. They don't care about age, gender, political affiliation, occupation, religious alignment, or much of anything else.
Those acts are very very different from these two yokels who targeted a very specific set of people and businesses, all of whom are involved in the fur trade.
These actions are most definitely criminal, but I simply can't call them terrorism. As noted already, doing so cheapens the impact of genuine terrorism.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday July 27 2015, @02:34PM
I think you'll agree that terrorists are rather partial to car bombs and suicide bombs. They like to set these bombs off in places like markets, where they kill anyone who happens to be standing around, or passing through. Often enough, these bombs are set off by Muslims, who simply don't care that they might kill a dozen of their own, for each of the "enemy" that they might kill. They don't care about age, gender, political affiliation, occupation, religious alignment, or much of anything else.
Oops. I disagree. I think there might be something to the accusations that you are in the habit of oversimplifying things. Just because you don't understand the strategy, doesn't mean that the strategy doesn't exist.
Those acts are very very different from these two yokels who targeted a very specific set of people and businesses, all of whom are involved in the fur trade.
Just because they are very different in some ways doesn't mean that they aren't similar in others. A key similarity here is that this is the use of force on targets which are not expected to deal with that sort of force.
(Score: 1) by maliqua on Monday July 27 2015, @03:33PM
because they chose to terrorise a minority population rather than a majority? It is the same they're using violence and intimidation to force their point of view on others
(Score: 3, Informative) by Oakenshield on Monday July 27 2015, @03:13PM
You need to check your definition. There is no random component in the definition. In fact, I'd say that randomness is at odds with the general goals.
terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]
IPA Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @03:33PM
I see. So - each and every victim was selected intentionally on 9/11/01.
The definition is somewhat lacking, in that terroristic acts almost always result in random passersby being killed.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Oakenshield on Monday July 27 2015, @03:44PM
The primary targets in 9/11 were the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the symbols of American Status, Authority and Might, not particularly the inhabitants. This was the case as it was in the 1993 WTC bombing with a (presumably) entirely different set of inhabitants. I will leave finding the definition of "Collateral Damage" as an exercise to the reader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @03:48PM
I believe that's called collateral damage.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday July 28 2015, @02:16AM
So - each and every victim was selected intentionally on 9/11/01.
Yes, they were by being on those planes that were intentionally hijacked. And the World Trade Center towers most certainly were not randomly selected.
The definition is somewhat lacking, in that terroristic acts almost always result in random passersby being killed.
A common consequence is not a definition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @12:09AM
So many things are political, and so many criminal acts are violence. Even the standard definition of terrorism is subjective and ridiculously overbroad.
It's just a term fearmongers like to use.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:35PM
That is a dictionary definition, but that is not the legal definition.
If that was the legal definition, you could file a suit against any current or retired soldier or commander of the US Military (yes, certainly including the President) and charge them with terrorism. And win quite easily. Because that's basically all the military does.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Monday July 27 2015, @05:55PM
DaFuq? Insightful? Really mods? You DO realize that by that definition the Klan burning black churches or neo-nazis destroying synagogues would NOT be terrorism because its not "random", yes? Sorry sparky but the entire point of terrorism is to install fear in a target and whether that target is a nation, a race, or a group DOES NOT MATTER. in this case they are trying to use fear to keep people from working in that industry, sorry but THAT IS TERRORISM by pretty much any standard dictionary definition I've seen.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @09:14PM
The Klan burning churches and crosses is indeed terroristic. And, it's somewhat randomized. The Klan didn't know or care who was in the building when they burnt it down. Burning a cross happened in one yard, but the burning affected the entire neighborhood - aimed at one and all who might pass by. I mean, they didn't put up an opaque barrier to prevent passersby from seeing it.
Yes, there is an element of randomness in the Klan's activities. The only time they targeted one single person, was for a lynching. And, I'm not real sure that they had to have the right man to hang - I've heard enough stories about a truckload of rednecks just driving around until they found some black guy to kill.
I'd have to search for the story, but some young rednecks did exactly that just a few years ago. They had never met the victim in their lives, they just saw some random black guy, beat the crap out of him, ran him over with their truck, and left him to die. That's pretty random.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday July 28 2015, @12:40AM
Sigh...it is NOT random, its is targeting a specific group and by your argument if a neo nazi says "We'll go kill Rabbi Goldfarb, scare the fuck out of them kikes" it wouldn't count because he didn't say "lets kill a random person".
Terrorism ALWAYS has a target, if you say it has to be "random" then by your logic there has never been a terrorist act because there is always a target from the US financial center and government in 9/11 to killing jews with rockets in Tel Aviv. If it were truly "random" then those rockets would be just as likely to be targeted at gaza, wouldn't they? Your failure in logic in thinking that terrorists care about individuals when the target of terrorism is nearly always institutions, be it the US military at the Ft Hood and Recruitment attacks, US government with the OKC bombing.
Its really simple friend, murderers target PEOPLE, while terrorists target groups and institutions. I mean why would the Klan care about targeting a specific black when any black hanging from a tree will instill the desired fear, while you are ignoring it HAS to be black, it won't instill fear in blacks if they kill a random person on the street who isn't black, now will it?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:36PM
I see no need for subjective, ambiguous, and overbroad words like "terrorism". We have other suitable terms. Murderer. Thief. Vandal. Criminal. Need I go on?