All that context on the page is the difference. The lack of everything else actual terrorists do to everyone and why. If that doesn't convince you and you boil it all down to "they took a building and broke the law" then of course there's no difference. If that page of facts is in error then it's a different story.
The context on the page, if true, all boils down to "but they had legitimate grievance against the government." Terrorists are not terrorists because their causes are wrong; they're terrorists because their methods are wrong. It was wrong to take a building and break the law, wrong to threaten violence, wrong to destroy and steal federal property. Whether they had a legitimate grievance or not, there's a difference between peaceful protest and what these people did. In fact, according to all the information about the occupation cited below the prior facts on the page, they had a peaceful protest and then went on to occupy the building (as opposed to "the peaceful protest continued into the building").
Also, I doubt that this list of contextual items is true, because the only citations on the page are an affidavit some dude wrote (I don't who this dude is and Google only turns up people linking to his affidavit) and a link to http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/ which is the place the words were copied from. That blog has no actual citations for anything in that section.
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
No indiscriminate targeting (killing) of civilian populations to instill terror in order to reach a political objective.
I disagree with their acquittal, or more the reckless prosecution if it's true, but terrorism has some specific elements of definition.
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
The distinct lack of mass murder? Come the fuck on dude, you're better than this.
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
The distinct lack of mass murder? Come the fuck on dude, you're better than this.
The planted explosives tell me the intent wasn't lacking...
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
The distinct lack of mass murder? Come the fuck on dude, you're better than this.
The planted explosives tell me the intent wasn't lacking...
Is there a source for explosives being found?
The only thing I've read is a vague claim that "firearms and explosives" were found, but no clarification after that. If they had reloading equipment with them the components could have been called "explosives", which is distinctly different from the group lugging some ANFO, TATP, or even Tannerite (legal to possess under a certain limit, can't remember if it's 25 or 50 lbs), into the building. And I imagine that would have been a huge part of the trial because unlawful possession of explosives carries a hefty penalty (up to 20 years). Even the transmission of knowledge on the production of explosives or explosive devices is illegal if it's with intention to further a criminal action.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
The distinct lack of mass murder? Come the fuck on dude, you're better than this.
The planted explosives tell me the intent wasn't lacking...
Is there a source for explosives being found?
The only thing I've read is a vague claim that "firearms and explosives" were found, but no clarification after that. If they had reloading equipment with them the components could have been called "explosives", which is distinctly different from the group lugging some ANFO, TATP, or even Tannerite (legal to possess under a certain limit, can't remember if it's 25 or 50 lbs), into the building. And I imagine that would have been a huge part of the trial because unlawful possession of explosives carries a hefty penalty (up to 20 years). Even the transmission of knowledge on the production of explosives or explosive devices is illegal if it's with intention to further a criminal action.
Doesn't matter if they had explosives, the jury would've let them walk anyway.
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
The distinct lack of mass murder? Come the fuck on dude, you're better than this.
The planted explosives tell me the intent wasn't lacking...
Is there a source for explosives being found?
The only thing I've read is a vague claim that "firearms and explosives" were found, but no clarification after that. If they had reloading equipment with them the components could have been called "explosives", which is distinctly different from the group lugging some ANFO, TATP, or even Tannerite (legal to possess under a certain limit, can't remember if it's 25 or 50 lbs), into the building. And I imagine that would have been a huge part of the trial because unlawful possession of explosives carries a hefty penalty (up to 20 years). Even the transmission of knowledge on the production of explosives or explosive devices is illegal if it's with intention to further a criminal action.
Doesn't matter if they had explosives, the jury would've let them walk anyway.
The way it sounds the trial went the way it did possibly because there wasn't strong enough evidence for the charges filed.
If they had possession of actual explosives that's a yes/no question regardless of intent. And if evidence existed prosecution could provide it.
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
Check the body counts
...That's not a very good metric, though. Finnicum, for example, tried to live out his fantasy of pulling the ultimate Max Payne slo-mo quick draw on the feds; if he'd had it his way, there would've been motorway filled with dead police. Is he not a terrorist because his zipper got stuck, then?
The number of people that ultimately die in a situation is of relevance, but that figure has to also be considered alongside likely intent / motivation. Nobody died at the low income housing complex that the gang of white supremacists intended to attack a few weeks back, for example, but the intent to kill many people there was quite plain & would have likely taken place if not for intervening police action.
Consider that one of the recurring messages from Y'all Qaeda while they documented their occupation was that sympathetic persons should have grabbed their guns, come to the sanctuary and 'get some' while killing any intervening police. Nobody answered that call because America isn't a failed state - but if the requested posse had assembled, do you not think that things would have escalated from there into a tragedy?
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
The distinct lack of mass murder? Come the fuck on dude, you're better than this.
The planted explosives tell me the intent wasn't lacking...
Is there a source for explosives being found?
The only thing I've read is a vague claim that "firearms and explosives" were found, but no clarification after that. If they had reloading equipment with them the components could have been called "explosives", which is distinctly different from the group lugging some ANFO, TATP, or even Tannerite (legal to possess under a certain limit, can't remember if it's 25 or 50 lbs), into the building. And I imagine that would have been a huge part of the trial because unlawful possession of explosives carries a hefty penalty (up to 20 years). Even the transmission of knowledge on the production of explosives or explosive devices is illegal if it's with intention to further a criminal action.
Doesn't matter if they had explosives, the jury would've let them walk anyway.
The way it sounds the trial went the way it did possibly because there wasn't strong enough evidence for the charges filed.
If they had possession of actual explosives that's a yes/no question regardless of intent. And if evidence existed prosecution could provide it.
One of the guys was arrested driving a stolen truck and was not guilty of that theft charge. I don't have any confidence that any other charges would have stuck with that jury.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
Check the body counts
...That's not a very good metric, though. Finnicum, for example, tried to live out his fantasy of pulling the ultimate Max Payne slo-mo quick draw on the feds; if he'd had it his way, there would've been motorway filled with dead police. Is he not a terrorist because his zipper got stuck, then?
The number of people that ultimately die in a situation is of relevance, but that figure has to also be considered alongside likely intent / motivation. Nobody died at the low income housing complex that the gang of white supremacists intended to attack a few weeks back, for example, but the intent to kill many people there was quite plain & would have likely taken place if not for intervening police action.
Consider that one of the recurring messages from Y'all Qaeda while they documented their occupation was that sympathetic persons should have grabbed their guns, come to the sanctuary and 'get some' while killing any intervening police. Nobody answered that call because America isn't a failed state - but if the requested posse had assembled, do you not think that things would have escalated from there into a tragedy?
1. He's not a terrorist because his intent was to attack "security forces".
2. That incident, regardless of success, was terrorism because the intent was to attack a civilian target.
Civilian LEOs are civilians in that they aren't military, but in the context of an attack on Police they aren't part of the "civilian population". They are an enforcement arm of the state providing a domestic policy enforcement function, in the same way the US Military performs a foreign policy enforcement function.
Targeting and attacking Police is not the same as targeting and attacking civilian targets indiscriminately. Indiscriminate is also a key element of the definition.
This doesn't mean that if LEOs are killed in an attack it isn't terrorism. If I paid/forced someone to drive a VBIED into a county fair because I want the county government to outlaw fairs, and a few police who were providing security die as a result, that's still terrorism. If I do the same but the target is a police station in an area in which civilians are likely to be because I disagree with civil forfeiture laws, and civilians die, that's still terrorism.
If I deliberately shoot an LEO, or multiple LEOs, and only LEOs, because they are interfering with me going to or from somewhere that's not necessarily terrorism. The method and target isn't indiscriminate.
So I could lay waste to an entire police precinct house, ala The Terminator... and that wouldn't be terrorism, as long as the civilian casualties were 0.0?
So I could lay waste to an entire police precinct house, ala The Terminator... and that wouldn't be terrorism, as long as the civilian casualties were 0.0?
So I could lay waste to an entire police precinct house, ala The Terminator... and that wouldn't be terrorism, as long as the civilian casualties were 0.0?
So I could lay waste to an entire police precinct house, ala The Terminator... and that wouldn't be terrorism, as long as the civilian casualties were 0.0?
Again, it's dependent on your goals and whether your targeting was indiscriminate or not. That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It's not necessarily terrorism in a similar way that someone shooting up their local Pizza Hutt because they finally snapped after getting the wrong order for the Nth time, or shooting up their workplace because they were laid off, isn't terrorism.
Shooting police and only police because of a grievance or if they attempt to stop you from otherwise committing another crime, or arrest you is not necessarily terrorism because you're missing the indiscriminate targeting. And if you're shooting at LEOs because they are attempting to stop you from moving from one place to another they are an instrumental target, not symoblic.
Shooting up your work place because you were laid off or Pizza Hutt because they messed up your order aren't terrorism because you're missing a different element, the political (or social, depending on the typology) goal.
The usual accepted operational definitions tend to include key elements:
Political Goal
Indiscriminate Targeting of a population
Symbolic target over Instrumental target
US legal definition is
"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
but even by this definition Finicum successfully shooting and killing one of the LEOs who stopped the vehicle he was in wouldn't meet that definition, he wouldn't be attempting to intimidate or coerce the government by shooting an LEO attempting to arrest him, he would just be trying not to get arrested.
If we start including any crime in which someone shoots at Police as terrorism then the definition starts to lose any point.
And there are, I suspect, some very specific reasons for the way the US definition is structured the way it is. Specifically that use of force against property that doesn't otherwise harm a person is outlined to allow the US Government to charge and prosecute Eco Terrorist groups which tend to commit property destruction.
So I could lay waste to an entire police precinct house, ala The Terminator... and that wouldn't be terrorism, as long as the civilian casualties were 0.0?
Again, it's dependent on your goals and whether your targeting was indiscriminate or not. That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It's not necessarily terrorism in a similar way that someone shooting up their local Pizza Hutt because they finally snapped after getting the wrong order for the Nth time, or shooting up their workplace because they were laid off, isn't terrorism.
Shooting police and only police because of a grievance or if they attempt to stop you from otherwise committing another crime, or arrest you is not necessarily terrorism because you're missing the indiscriminate targeting. And if you're shooting at LEOs because they are attempting to stop you from moving from one place to another they are an instrumental target, not symoblic.
Shooting up your work place because you were laid off or Pizza Hutt because they messed up your order aren't terrorism because you're missing a different element, the political (or social, depending on the typology) goal.
The usual accepted operational definitions tend to include key elements:
Political Goal
Indiscriminate Targeting of a population
Symbolic target over Instrumental target
US legal definition is
"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
but even by this definition Finicum successfully shooting and killing one of the LEOs who stopped the vehicle he was in wouldn't meet that definition, he wouldn't be attempting to intimidate or coerce the government by shooting an LEO attempting to arrest him, he would just be trying not to get arrested.
If we start including any crime in which someone shoots at Police as terrorism then the definition starts to lose any point.
And there are, I suspect, some very specific reasons for the way the US definition is structured the way it is. Specifically that use of force against property that doesn't otherwise harm a person is outlined to allow the US Government to charge and prosecute Eco Terrorist groups which tend to commit property destruction.
weren't they trying to coerce the government into giving land rights to private entities?
So I could lay waste to an entire police precinct house, ala The Terminator... and that wouldn't be terrorism, as long as the civilian casualties were 0.0?
Again, it's dependent on your goals and whether your targeting was indiscriminate or not. That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It's not necessarily terrorism in a similar way that someone shooting up their local Pizza Hutt because they finally snapped after getting the wrong order for the Nth time, or shooting up their workplace because they were laid off, isn't terrorism.
Shooting police and only police because of a grievance or if they attempt to stop you from otherwise committing another crime, or arrest you is not necessarily terrorism because you're missing the indiscriminate targeting. And if you're shooting at LEOs because they are attempting to stop you from moving from one place to another they are an instrumental target, not symoblic.
Shooting up your work place because you were laid off or Pizza Hutt because they messed up your order aren't terrorism because you're missing a different element, the political (or social, depending on the typology) goal.
The usual accepted operational definitions tend to include key elements:
Political Goal
Indiscriminate Targeting of a population
Symbolic target over Instrumental target
US legal definition is
"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
but even by this definition Finicum successfully shooting and killing one of the LEOs who stopped the vehicle he was in wouldn't meet that definition, he wouldn't be attempting to intimidate or coerce the government by shooting an LEO attempting to arrest him, he would just be trying not to get arrested.
If we start including any crime in which someone shoots at Police as terrorism then the definition starts to lose any point.
And there are, I suspect, some very specific reasons for the way the US definition is structured the way it is. Specifically that use of force against property that doesn't otherwise harm a person is outlined to allow the US Government to charge and prosecute Eco Terrorist groups which tend to commit property destruction.
weren't they trying to coerce the government into giving land rights to private entities?
Had they bombed a police station to do so, I think the argument that they are the American equivalent of DAESH would be a lot more accurate.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
aside from the explosives and firearms?
edit: I've read several articles that mention both explosives and firearms were found, but not the amount. Either way, they weren't there before the militia took over.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
aside from the explosives and firearms?
edit: I've read several articles that mention both explosives and firearms were found, but not the amount. Either way, they weren't there before the militia took over.
That's not force. Those are weapons, and I'm skeptical of the explosives claim because possession of explosives, regardless of intent, is a crime punishable up to 20 years.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
aside from the explosives and firearms?
edit: I've read several articles that mention both explosives and firearms were found, but not the amount. Either way, they weren't there before the militia took over.
That's not force. Those are weapons, and I'm skeptical of the explosives claim because possession of explosives, regardless of intent, is a crime punishable up to 20 years.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
Yes and yes.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
In some perverse way it concerns me that this will encourage groups to do this, but that they won't first realize that this was an anomalous outcome. Normally, when people go someplace with a bunch of guns and the federal government gets involved versus "an occupying group", bad shit happens. While I do not particularly care about the welfare of some assclowns who want a chance to use the items they bought from the army-navy surplus store and fantasize about using. I am concerned about the people who live in the places they may decide to "bring freedom". Cleanup costs a lot of money, and everyone knows of Waco Texas and "The Oregon Wildlife Place" it's kind of a shit deal for the folks who have to wake up and exist in a place every day that some fools came to and shit all over because 'murica.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
aside from the explosives and firearms?
edit: I've read several articles that mention both explosives and firearms were found, but not the amount. Either way, they weren't there before the militia took over.
That's not force. Those are weapons, and I'm skeptical of the explosives claim because possession of explosives, regardless of intent, is a crime punishable up to 20 years.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
aside from the explosives and firearms?
edit: I've read several articles that mention both explosives and firearms were found, but not the amount. Either way, they weren't there before the militia took over.
That's not force. Those are weapons, and I'm skeptical of the explosives claim because possession of explosives, regardless of intent, is a crime punishable up to 20 years.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
aside from the explosives and firearms?
edit: I've read several articles that mention both explosives and firearms were found, but not the amount. Either way, they weren't there before the militia took over.
That's not force. Those are weapons, and I'm skeptical of the explosives claim because possession of explosives, regardless of intent, is a crime punishable up to 20 years.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
so is basically everything they did there =P
also, how is threatening violence not force?
The "loophole" that was apparently argued for possession of firearms on federal property was whether they were intent to commit a crime with those firearms otherwise.
There is no potential argument for the illegal possession of explosives. There is no place that you can legally possess explosives (as defined by the BATFE and US law) unless you are a licensed dealer or user. And if you are not, regardless of whether you intend to use them in a separate criminal act, the mere possession is criminal.
Even the transmission of explosives knowledge is a crime if it's transmitted to another person with the intent to further a criminal act.
They were threatening to respond with violence if an attempt to storm the building happened. That alone doesn't make it terrorism. Unless you want to argue that anyone who has ever barricaded themselves in a building and threatened force on responding LEOs is committing terrorism.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
the branch Dravidians weren't seeking political change and did not go invade public property and keep other people out by force.
various actions taken by members of the black panthers...? yeah probably terrorism. hell, i thought they were responsible for some pretty serious property damage, and were seeking political change, and intimidating people and the government probably could be seem as among their methods.
edit:ehh... naw not souch with what i. finding for the BPP, thought they were tied up with sone of the ROTC arson stuff, and the like.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
the branch Dravidians weren't seeking political change and did not go invade public property and keep other people out by force.
various actions taken by members of the black panthers...? yeah probably terrorism. hell, i thought they were responsible for some pretty serious property damage, and were seeking political change, and intimidating people and the government probably could be seem as among their methods.
Murdering someone or getting in a shootout with police doesn't make one a terrorist.
Just as the Branch Davidians meeting BATFE and FBI attempts to enter the property with force doesn't make them terrorists.
If you can complete this sentence while inserting the name of a group, it's probable they meet most definitions:
________ conducted an indiscriminate attack on ______________ (usually symbolic target) within or around which civilians were present, in order to coerce the ________ government to change ___________ policy.
Members of a cell run by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of Al Qaeda conducted an indiscriminate attack on The World Trade Center within or around which civilians were present, in order to coerce the US government to change Middle Eastern Foreign policy.
NSDFRand on
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
What definition are you using for "indiscriminate"?
A whole lot of terrorism is extremely precise in who and what it is targeting, I wouldn't call it indiscriminate at all.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
What definition are you using for "indiscriminate"?
A whole lot of terrorism is extremely precise in who and what it is targeting, I wouldn't call it indiscriminate at all.
Indiscriminate in that the actor isn't concerned with the harm experienced by those who aren't the intended target (usually government the actor wishes to influence). The indiscriminate nature of the attack can also be by design (e.g. Group A kidnaps and assassinates a member of Congress may not have as great an effect as Group A blows up a member of Congress with a VBIED while he's out at a lunch meeting).
The intended target changes, of course, dependent on where the actor and their motivations fall within a typology. Repressive groups like the KKK which seek to prevent or counter act social change, aren't necessarily intent on the government changing a policy (though they could be), but systematically attack a specific population for racial reasons.
I'm being a little lenient with my definition as Systematic could also be thrown in as a component of the definition in general.
All that context on the page is the difference. The lack of everything else actual terrorists do to everyone and why. If that doesn't convince you and you boil it all down to "they took a building and broke the law" then of course there's no difference. If that page of facts is in error then it's a different story.
It's not only that they took a building and broke the law - it's their intention which was inherently political and to start a literal revolution. As deluded as that is. How does that not rate as terrorism? They weren't serial killers or murderers, they weren't robbing the place, and they sure as shit weren't protesting by any definition I know of. What's more they were brazenly up front about this on camera and on the internet. White terrorism is a thing, and America has a big problem with acknowledging it.
Think about it from this perspective - if they were brown, black, Middle Eastern, Muslim etc how do you think the media and authorities would have reacted? Do you think they would have called it terrorism?
I somehow missed all this until now and read the first link I found on it that obviously slants the other way than here, but if all that is accurate:
Comparing them to ISIS and terrorists is why they got off. Because they aren't.
They seized federal land by force with the intent to lay permanent claim to it. How is that any different to the way ISIS carved out their own territory other than scope?
Check the body counts
A terrorist doesn't have to have a body count to be a terrorist.
So I could lay waste to an entire police precinct house, ala The Terminator... and that wouldn't be terrorism, as long as the civilian casualties were 0.0?
Again, it's dependent on your goals and whether your targeting was indiscriminate or not. That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It's not necessarily terrorism in a similar way that someone shooting up their local Pizza Hutt because they finally snapped after getting the wrong order for the Nth time, or shooting up their workplace because they were laid off, isn't terrorism.
Shooting police and only police because of a grievance or if they attempt to stop you from otherwise committing another crime, or arrest you is not necessarily terrorism because you're missing the indiscriminate targeting. And if you're shooting at LEOs because they are attempting to stop you from moving from one place to another they are an instrumental target, not symoblic.
Shooting up your work place because you were laid off or Pizza Hutt because they messed up your order aren't terrorism because you're missing a different element, the political (or social, depending on the typology) goal.
The usual accepted operational definitions tend to include key elements:
Political Goal
Indiscriminate Targeting of a population
Symbolic target over Instrumental target
US legal definition is
"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
but even by this definition Finicum successfully shooting and killing one of the LEOs who stopped the vehicle he was in wouldn't meet that definition, he wouldn't be attempting to intimidate or coerce the government by shooting an LEO attempting to arrest him, he would just be trying not to get arrested.
If we start including any crime in which someone shoots at Police as terrorism then the definition starts to lose any point.
And there are, I suspect, some very specific reasons for the way the US definition is structured the way it is. Specifically that use of force against property that doesn't otherwise harm a person is outlined to allow the US Government to charge and prosecute Eco Terrorist groups which tend to commit property destruction.
weren't they trying to coerce the government into giving land rights to private entities?
Had they bombed a police station to do so, I think the argument that they are the American equivalent of DAESH would be a lot more accurate.
Wait, your only factor in agreeing is the they didn't have a body count? They were tremendously close to doing that on multiple occasions, and wanted a shoot out with police. Terrorism is broader than body counts, it's about political intent and trying to create fear. Failing to do does not mean they get a pass on trying to be terrorists. Plus, y'know, white people.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
aside from the explosives and firearms?
edit: I've read several articles that mention both explosives and firearms were found, but not the amount. Either way, they weren't there before the militia took over.
That's not force. Those are weapons, and I'm skeptical of the explosives claim because possession of explosives, regardless of intent, is a crime punishable up to 20 years.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
so is basically everything they did there =P
also, how is threatening violence not force?
The "loophole" that was apparently argued for possession of firearms on federal property was whether they were intent to commit a crime with those firearms otherwise.
There is no potential argument for the illegal possession of explosives. There is no place that you can legally possess explosives (as defined by the BATFE and US law) unless you are a licensed dealer or user. And if you are not, regardless of whether you intend to use them in a separate criminal act, the mere possession is criminal.
Even the transmission of explosives knowledge is a crime if it's transmitted to another person with the intent to further a criminal act.
They were threatening to respond with violence if an attempt to storm the building happened. That alone doesn't make it terrorism. Unless you want to argue that anyone who has ever barricaded themselves in a building and threatened force on responding LEOs is committing terrorism.
That doesn't make what they did legal.
This didn't answer Paquin's question - how is bringing explosives and are power to a standoff with police not a show of force? It's not like they were standing outside with placards only, they came to party with fire power. They wanted to die as martyrs to get their glorious race war revolution started.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
the branch Dravidians weren't seeking political change and did not go invade public property and keep other people out by force.
various actions taken by members of the black panthers...? yeah probably terrorism. hell, i thought they were responsible for some pretty serious property damage, and were seeking political change, and intimidating people and the government probably could be seem as among their methods.
Murdering someone or getting in a shootout with police doesn't make one a terrorist.
No, but that is something that occurs with terrorists. Terrorists do get into shootouts wth authorities and murder people.
Just as the Branch Davidians meeting BATFE and FBI attempts to enter the property with force doesn't make them terrorists.
If you can complete this sentence while inserting the name of a group, it's probable they meet most definitions:
________ conducted an indiscriminate attack on ______________ (usually symbolic target) within or around which civilians were present, in order to coerce the ________ government to change ___________ policy.
redx covered this.
Members of a cell run by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of Al Qaeda conducted an indiscriminate attack on The World Trade Center within or around which civilians were present, in order to coerce the US government to change Middle Eastern Foreign policy.
If they failed to do that without a body count would you still consider them terrorists?
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
aside from the explosives and firearms?
edit: I've read several articles that mention both explosives and firearms were found, but not the amount. Either way, they weren't there before the militia took over.
That's not force. Those are weapons, and I'm skeptical of the explosives claim because possession of explosives, regardless of intent, is a crime punishable up to 20 years.
They were using force to try to coerce the government. They are terrorists.
What force did they use?
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
so is basically everything they did there =P
also, how is threatening violence not force?
The "loophole" that was apparently argued for possession of firearms on federal property was whether they were intent to commit a crime with those firearms otherwise.
There is no potential argument for the illegal possession of explosives. There is no place that you can legally possess explosives (as defined by the BATFE and US law) unless you are a licensed dealer or user. And if you are not, regardless of whether you intend to use them in a separate criminal act, the mere possession is criminal.
Even the transmission of explosives knowledge is a crime if it's transmitted to another person with the intent to further a criminal act.
They were threatening to respond with violence if an attempt to storm the building happened. That alone doesn't make it terrorism. Unless you want to argue that anyone who has ever barricaded themselves in a building and threatened force on responding LEOs is committing terrorism.
That doesn't make what they did legal.
They were more heavily armed then the terrorists who committed 9/11. Which was with bolt cutters.
It's why they committed those actions which make them terrorists. They weren't doing this for a prank, or a robbery gone wrong. They knew exactly what they were doing when they bought their weapons and supplies. It's difficult to hold a place when the police come calling without weapons, no?
Your argument is ignoring the context for why they did what they did. Sure, not every criminal who does these things is a terrorist, that's obvious. But this group did use those elements for a terrorist action, including calling for a revolution. When a terrorist group like ISIS does this shit gets real real fast, yet I'm to believe some white, racist yokels in a stand off with police do it - it's totally cool man. Nope. Don't buy it.
Your argument is ignoring the context for why they did what they did.
No, I'm not.
An operational definition of terrorism usually includes these elements:
Political Motivation
Force
Indiscriminate Targeting
Systematic
You don't get to just pick one or two of these things and say that it is terrorism. You could, but then your definition is too vague to be operational and anything you say after that about terrorism can probably be safely ignored.
Sure, not every criminal who does these things is a terrorist, that's obvious. But this group did use those elements for a terrorist action, including calling for a revolution.
This group had the potential to use force, and threatened to use it under very specific circumstances towards Law Enforcement.
They did not commit an action that included indiscriminate targeting in order to coerce the government to do what they wanted.
When a terrorist group like ISIS does this shit gets real real fast, yet I'm to believe some white, racist yokels in a stand off with police do it - it's totally cool man. Nope. Don't buy it.
If you think I'm arguing that this isn't terrorism because they were white, you can go fuck yourself.
Just an FYI: When IS claims to be responsible for an attack, it's Paris or San Bernardino. This is not comparable to either of those in any meaningful way other than they are criminal acts.
Also, can you clarify what you mean about indiscriminate targeting? For example, it was pretty clear that the attacks on 9/11 or the uss cole bombings had very clear targets. So if those aren't included in your definition of terrorism....I guess that means we know what that means about what you say about terrorism?
Also, can you clarify what you mean about indiscriminate targeting? For example, it was pretty clear that the attacks on 9/11 or the uss cole bombings had very clear targets. So if those aren't included in your definition of terrorism....I guess that means we know what that means about what you say about terrorism?
I already did.
Indiscriminate targeting takes place when a terrorist group or individual is not concerned with the harm that is done to those who aren't the intended target of coercion.
Yes, the USS Cole and WTC were very clear symbolic targets. The attacks were indiscriminate in that the actors did not care about the harm experienced by those (the inhabitants of both) who weren't the intended targets to be coerced (US Government). They were also part of a systematic campaign.
Perhaps I can direct to the OP I created specifically about Terrorism. Unfortunately I haven't been able to update recently because I've been busy.
Define your terms. You are not using the standard English for "force" so you need to tell the thread what -IS- force when you use the word.
Attack or threat of attack.
In this case the threat wasn't indiscriminate. They outlined exactly under what conditions they would use force, and against whom. They did not say "We will bomb/shoot these people if the government doesn't do X", they said "If the Police assault this building we will respond with force".
Posts
The context on the page, if true, all boils down to "but they had legitimate grievance against the government." Terrorists are not terrorists because their causes are wrong; they're terrorists because their methods are wrong. It was wrong to take a building and break the law, wrong to threaten violence, wrong to destroy and steal federal property. Whether they had a legitimate grievance or not, there's a difference between peaceful protest and what these people did. In fact, according to all the information about the occupation cited below the prior facts on the page, they had a peaceful protest and then went on to occupy the building (as opposed to "the peaceful protest continued into the building").
Also, I doubt that this list of contextual items is true, because the only citations on the page are an affidavit some dude wrote (I don't who this dude is and Google only turns up people linking to his affidavit) and a link to http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/ which is the place the words were copied from. That blog has no actual citations for anything in that section.
No indiscriminate targeting (killing) of civilian populations to instill terror in order to reach a political objective.
I disagree with their acquittal, or more the reckless prosecution if it's true, but terrorism has some specific elements of definition.
Check the body counts
The distinct lack of mass murder? Come the fuck on dude, you're better than this.
Is there a source for explosives being found?
The only thing I've read is a vague claim that "firearms and explosives" were found, but no clarification after that. If they had reloading equipment with them the components could have been called "explosives", which is distinctly different from the group lugging some ANFO, TATP, or even Tannerite (legal to possess under a certain limit, can't remember if it's 25 or 50 lbs), into the building. And I imagine that would have been a huge part of the trial because unlawful possession of explosives carries a hefty penalty (up to 20 years). Even the transmission of knowledge on the production of explosives or explosive devices is illegal if it's with intention to further a criminal action.
Doesn't matter if they had explosives, the jury would've let them walk anyway.
The way it sounds the trial went the way it did possibly because there wasn't strong enough evidence for the charges filed.
If they had possession of actual explosives that's a yes/no question regardless of intent. And if evidence existed prosecution could provide it.
...That's not a very good metric, though. Finnicum, for example, tried to live out his fantasy of pulling the ultimate Max Payne slo-mo quick draw on the feds; if he'd had it his way, there would've been motorway filled with dead police. Is he not a terrorist because his zipper got stuck, then?
The number of people that ultimately die in a situation is of relevance, but that figure has to also be considered alongside likely intent / motivation. Nobody died at the low income housing complex that the gang of white supremacists intended to attack a few weeks back, for example, but the intent to kill many people there was quite plain & would have likely taken place if not for intervening police action.
Consider that one of the recurring messages from Y'all Qaeda while they documented their occupation was that sympathetic persons should have grabbed their guns, come to the sanctuary and 'get some' while killing any intervening police. Nobody answered that call because America isn't a failed state - but if the requested posse had assembled, do you not think that things would have escalated from there into a tragedy?
One of the guys was arrested driving a stolen truck and was not guilty of that theft charge. I don't have any confidence that any other charges would have stuck with that jury.
1. He's not a terrorist because his intent was to attack "security forces".
2. That incident, regardless of success, was terrorism because the intent was to attack a civilian target.
Civilian LEOs are civilians in that they aren't military, but in the context of an attack on Police they aren't part of the "civilian population". They are an enforcement arm of the state providing a domestic policy enforcement function, in the same way the US Military performs a foreign policy enforcement function.
Targeting and attacking Police is not the same as targeting and attacking civilian targets indiscriminately. Indiscriminate is also a key element of the definition.
This doesn't mean that if LEOs are killed in an attack it isn't terrorism. If I paid/forced someone to drive a VBIED into a county fair because I want the county government to outlaw fairs, and a few police who were providing security die as a result, that's still terrorism. If I do the same but the target is a police station in an area in which civilians are likely to be because I disagree with civil forfeiture laws, and civilians die, that's still terrorism.
If I deliberately shoot an LEO, or multiple LEOs, and only LEOs, because they are interfering with me going to or from somewhere that's not necessarily terrorism. The method and target isn't indiscriminate.
Very.
I don't have a color, I have an albedo.
Again, it's dependent on your goals and whether your targeting was indiscriminate or not. That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It's not necessarily terrorism in a similar way that someone shooting up their local Pizza Hutt because they finally snapped after getting the wrong order for the Nth time, or shooting up their workplace because they were laid off, isn't terrorism.
Shooting police and only police because of a grievance or if they attempt to stop you from otherwise committing another crime, or arrest you is not necessarily terrorism because you're missing the indiscriminate targeting. And if you're shooting at LEOs because they are attempting to stop you from moving from one place to another they are an instrumental target, not symoblic.
Shooting up your work place because you were laid off or Pizza Hutt because they messed up your order aren't terrorism because you're missing a different element, the political (or social, depending on the typology) goal.
The usual accepted operational definitions tend to include key elements:
Political Goal
Indiscriminate Targeting of a population
Symbolic target over Instrumental target
US legal definition is
but even by this definition Finicum successfully shooting and killing one of the LEOs who stopped the vehicle he was in wouldn't meet that definition, he wouldn't be attempting to intimidate or coerce the government by shooting an LEO attempting to arrest him, he would just be trying not to get arrested.
If we start including any crime in which someone shoots at Police as terrorism then the definition starts to lose any point.
And there are, I suspect, some very specific reasons for the way the US definition is structured the way it is. Specifically that use of force against property that doesn't otherwise harm a person is outlined to allow the US Government to charge and prosecute Eco Terrorist groups which tend to commit property destruction.
weren't they trying to coerce the government into giving land rights to private entities?
Had they bombed a police station to do so, I think the argument that they are the American equivalent of DAESH would be a lot more accurate.
What force did they use?
aside from the explosives and firearms?
edit: I've read several articles that mention both explosives and firearms were found, but not the amount. Either way, they weren't there before the militia took over.
the threat of violence fits into the category of force.
That's not force. Those are weapons, and I'm skeptical of the explosives claim because possession of explosives, regardless of intent, is a crime punishable up to 20 years.
The threat of violence if LE attempted to expel them.
Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Were the Black Panther Party terrorists?
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't criminal, nor do I agree with them. I'm arguing that what they did doesn't necessarily meet the definition of terrorism per the comment that they are equivalent of the Islamic State.
Yes and yes.
so is basically everything they did there =P
also, how is threatening violence not force?
Care to explain?
The "loophole" that was apparently argued for possession of firearms on federal property was whether they were intent to commit a crime with those firearms otherwise.
There is no potential argument for the illegal possession of explosives. There is no place that you can legally possess explosives (as defined by the BATFE and US law) unless you are a licensed dealer or user. And if you are not, regardless of whether you intend to use them in a separate criminal act, the mere possession is criminal.
Even the transmission of explosives knowledge is a crime if it's transmitted to another person with the intent to further a criminal act.
They were threatening to respond with violence if an attempt to storm the building happened. That alone doesn't make it terrorism. Unless you want to argue that anyone who has ever barricaded themselves in a building and threatened force on responding LEOs is committing terrorism.
That doesn't make what they did legal.
the branch Dravidians weren't seeking political change and did not go invade public property and keep other people out by force.
various actions taken by members of the black panthers...? yeah probably terrorism. hell, i thought they were responsible for some pretty serious property damage, and were seeking political change, and intimidating people and the government probably could be seem as among their methods.
edit:ehh... naw not souch with what i. finding for the BPP, thought they were tied up with sone of the ROTC arson stuff, and the like.
Murdering someone or getting in a shootout with police doesn't make one a terrorist.
Just as the Branch Davidians meeting BATFE and FBI attempts to enter the property with force doesn't make them terrorists.
If you can complete this sentence while inserting the name of a group, it's probable they meet most definitions:
________ conducted an indiscriminate attack on ______________ (usually symbolic target) within or around which civilians were present, in order to coerce the ________ government to change ___________ policy.
Members of a cell run by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of Al Qaeda conducted an indiscriminate attack on The World Trade Center within or around which civilians were present, in order to coerce the US government to change Middle Eastern Foreign policy.
A whole lot of terrorism is extremely precise in who and what it is targeting, I wouldn't call it indiscriminate at all.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Indiscriminate in that the actor isn't concerned with the harm experienced by those who aren't the intended target (usually government the actor wishes to influence). The indiscriminate nature of the attack can also be by design (e.g. Group A kidnaps and assassinates a member of Congress may not have as great an effect as Group A blows up a member of Congress with a VBIED while he's out at a lunch meeting).
The intended target changes, of course, dependent on where the actor and their motivations fall within a typology. Repressive groups like the KKK which seek to prevent or counter act social change, aren't necessarily intent on the government changing a policy (though they could be), but systematically attack a specific population for racial reasons.
I'm being a little lenient with my definition as Systematic could also be thrown in as a component of the definition in general.
It's not only that they took a building and broke the law - it's their intention which was inherently political and to start a literal revolution. As deluded as that is. How does that not rate as terrorism? They weren't serial killers or murderers, they weren't robbing the place, and they sure as shit weren't protesting by any definition I know of. What's more they were brazenly up front about this on camera and on the internet. White terrorism is a thing, and America has a big problem with acknowledging it.
Think about it from this perspective - if they were brown, black, Middle Eastern, Muslim etc how do you think the media and authorities would have reacted? Do you think they would have called it terrorism?
A terrorist doesn't have to have a body count to be a terrorist.
Wait, your only factor in agreeing is the they didn't have a body count? They were tremendously close to doing that on multiple occasions, and wanted a shoot out with police. Terrorism is broader than body counts, it's about political intent and trying to create fear. Failing to do does not mean they get a pass on trying to be terrorists. Plus, y'know, white people.
This didn't answer Paquin's question - how is bringing explosives and are power to a standoff with police not a show of force? It's not like they were standing outside with placards only, they came to party with fire power. They wanted to die as martyrs to get their glorious race war revolution started.
No, but that is something that occurs with terrorists. Terrorists do get into shootouts wth authorities and murder people.
redx covered this.
If they failed to do that without a body count would you still consider them terrorists?
They were more heavily armed then the terrorists who committed 9/11. Which was with bolt cutters.
It's why they committed those actions which make them terrorists. They weren't doing this for a prank, or a robbery gone wrong. They knew exactly what they were doing when they bought their weapons and supplies. It's difficult to hold a place when the police come calling without weapons, no?
Your argument is ignoring the context for why they did what they did. Sure, not every criminal who does these things is a terrorist, that's obvious. But this group did use those elements for a terrorist action, including calling for a revolution. When a terrorist group like ISIS does this shit gets real real fast, yet I'm to believe some white, racist yokels in a stand off with police do it - it's totally cool man. Nope. Don't buy it.
No, I'm not.
An operational definition of terrorism usually includes these elements:
Political Motivation
Force
Indiscriminate Targeting
Systematic
You don't get to just pick one or two of these things and say that it is terrorism. You could, but then your definition is too vague to be operational and anything you say after that about terrorism can probably be safely ignored.
This group had the potential to use force, and threatened to use it under very specific circumstances towards Law Enforcement.
They did not commit an action that included indiscriminate targeting in order to coerce the government to do what they wanted.
If you think I'm arguing that this isn't terrorism because they were white, you can go fuck yourself.
Just an FYI: When IS claims to be responsible for an attack, it's Paris or San Bernardino. This is not comparable to either of those in any meaningful way other than they are criminal acts.
Is anyone who participated in the riots motivated by police discrimination towards black citizens in the last two years a terrorist?
They used force, in many cases indiscriminately, and they had a political motivation (coerce the government to stop systemic discrimination).
I already did.
Indiscriminate targeting takes place when a terrorist group or individual is not concerned with the harm that is done to those who aren't the intended target of coercion.
Yes, the USS Cole and WTC were very clear symbolic targets. The attacks were indiscriminate in that the actors did not care about the harm experienced by those (the inhabitants of both) who weren't the intended targets to be coerced (US Government). They were also part of a systematic campaign.
Perhaps I can direct to the OP I created specifically about Terrorism. Unfortunately I haven't been able to update recently because I've been busy.
Attack or threat of attack.
In this case the threat wasn't indiscriminate. They outlined exactly under what conditions they would use force, and against whom. They did not say "We will bomb/shoot these people if the government doesn't do X", they said "If the Police assault this building we will respond with force".