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: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @10:23AM (1 child)
FWIW I don't consider the mass shooting a terrorist act either unless there was some message or demand.
If those people stealing a pig were doing terrorist acts before stealing a pig then they're a terrorist whether they stole a pig or not. e.g. knowingly joining a terrorist group makes you a terrorist even if you haven't done anything yet (e.g. signing up with ISIS).
If the terrorist robbed the farmer of his pigs then yes it's a terrorist act - since there's violence or threat of violence and it was part of the terrorist campaign. But if a terrorist secretly steals a pig without threats or violence, it should be considered stealing a pig not a terrorist act.
I don't think that all crimes committed as part of terrorist campaign should automatically be considered terrorist acts. The crimes should still be considered crimes and potentially add to their sentence if they get caught. But to consider all such crimes as terrorist acts seems a dangerous and a slippery slope.
Anti-terrorism laws tend to be rather powerful, so let's not make it easier for those in power to use them or expand their coverage and scope.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @04:13AM
That word means that violence was used or threatened.
That didn't happen.
I challenge you to produce evidence that violence against humans has -ever- been used by the animal liberation folks.
TFS was a tiny part of the article.
(I read TFA before it was submitted here.)
The really good stuff was omitted from TFS.
There was no one around attending the animals.
It appeared that had been true for some time.
The piglets couldn't be sold as pets because they were in such poor condition.
It is unlikely they would have made it to market as meat because of their poor health: either they would have died or an inspector would have rejected the diseased animals.
...and there were other piglets nearly who had died and their corpses were rotting.
If these critters had been dogs, this would have been called a puppy mill. [google.com]
(Don't support this business model. Don't buy animals from pet stores.)
Next time, RTFA.
terrorist
Use of that word also requires violence or the threat of violence.
You are way off the mark.
Again, I'm willing to see your evidence to the contrary WRT this lot.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]