-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
What makes a terrorist?
- Thread starter 6thGen
- Start date
Uncle Timmy
Beach Fanatic
I am going off this definition:
Terrorism:
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism ?
In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
?activities that involve violent? or life-threatening acts? that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and? appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and? (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States? [or]? (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?"
Since the street gangs aren?t intending to intimidate or coerce the government or general population; they are just common criminals. The target for most of their violence is other street gangs, or their crime victims.
But let?s look at your example of botulism. Is it really that easy to make and deploy? I?ll bet that it is harder than you think if you only had access to industrial age technology. Or for that matter, didn?t have access to modern medical knowledge regarding botulism.
I don?t have an answer regarding using coordinated arson as a possible terrorist method. It would certainly weaken the suggestion that access to modern technology is a ?root cause? of terrorism. As I stated earlier, the KKK was already a contradiction to the theory.
However, I am still intrigued by the nexus between terrorism and the technology that clearly enables a large percentage of it.
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
I'm not so certain that the definition of terrorist includes trying to coerce an entire civilian population. If they try to coerce part of a city, I would think that would serve the definition of the word. Now obviously, I know nothing about gangs, other than what I learned from the movie, "Colors," but I think they do try to scare the ba-geezers out of people in their hood, and on the outskirts, by physical intimidation. Ever get those emails about the gang peeps flashing the headlights to try to make you flash yours back, then they hunt you down and beat you to death? The only reason you get those is because they do scare the ba-geezers out of some people. I would be a little more than terrified if I lived in a community filled with gang violence.
As for spreading food born illnesses, there are plenty of text books available on how to prevent food born illnesses, so no high tech needed there. Statistics show that if you leave your chicken at room temp for long enough period of time, salmonella is very likely to grow. Contaminate food prep areas with raw pork or chicken and look out. You don't even need a petri dish. Just use unsanitary methods while at work. A little stool in the restaurant's food, should get many people sick. It ain't rocket science, and guess who is to blame if the govt cannot prove a conspiracy? That's right, the restaurants and possibly the local Health Depts.
rapunzel
Beach Fanatic
I disagree that terrorism was born of technology. According to the definition of terrorism Uncle Timmy cites, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terror. It was an act of violence designed to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coersion. More, it was an inexpensive way of garnering a disproportionate amount a attention. The Sons of Liberty were definitely a terrorist organization. Granted, I've never come across a primary source document referring to the founding fathers as 'terrorists,' but that is probably because the word didn't exist at the time. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word first appeared in the late 1790's and was used to refer to government by intimidation vis a vis post-revolution, reactionary France. The meaning of the word itself changed in the late twentieth century, as the rise of terror as an act of resistance began to reemerge in the early 1970's.
When we ask what makes a terrorist, we should ask what provoked a return to terrorism over peaceful resistance given the strides made by Ghandi and King in the mid-twentieth century? Why did the Palestinians and Irish terrorists of the 1970s choose to turn to violence when resistance through non-violence was effective and philosophically avant-garde?
UT does take my thinking in a new direction, however -- maybe it's that technology enables demagoguery to reach greater numbers of people. People with small ideas and political aspirations can cast a wider net to find people swayed by there message. How much easier is it to find a few malcontents willing to blow themselves up than whole communities willing to be sprayed by fire hoses?
Last edited:
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
I agree with punzy about our founding fathers...
On another thought about terrorists, although big businesses are not usually dumb enough to get caught acting violently to politicians and Judges, by Uncle Timmy's gov't definition, plenty of big businesses would be considered, terrorists. ;-)
On another thought about terrorists, although big businesses are not usually dumb enough to get caught acting violently to politicians and Judges, by Uncle Timmy's gov't definition, plenty of big businesses would be considered, terrorists. ;-)