Challenge: Define terrorism

[VivaRevolution]

I challenge anyone here to define terrorism.

I believe the word terrorism is a trojan horse to create thought crime.

I believe that actions are crimes, and that motivation can be a compounding factor, increasing the degree of the same crime.

What we have done with the phrase terrorism, is create new crime based on motivations.

I cut off a guy's head because he pissed me off. Murder.

I cut off a guy's head because I am brainwashed by Saudi propaganda, and I am a terrorist(unless in Syria, then it's a moderate rebel)

Terrorism has no meaning. It is the definition of a Orwellian phrase, and babble speak.

What we call terror acts, are actually crimes.

Discuss.........

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Any act/ threat of violence for a political purpose

 

[VivaRevolution]

Any act/ threat of violence for a political purpose

So terrorism is a thought crime?

Is the US military terrorists?

 

[jonharrison]

Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

 

[bobgeese]

Any act/ threat of violence for a political purpose

Next thread.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

So right there. It says it. Terrorism is a thought crime.

I kill a guy it is murder.

I think about Islam while doing it, and I am a terrorist.

That seem like a good idea to you?

 

[abiG]

"Terrorist" is a politicized term used to justify the mass killing of mostly innocent people behind the guise of "fighting terror." The label is placed upon anyone who won't cooperate with the powers that be. Many of today's "terrorists" were at one time considered 'the good guys' or 'freedom fighters.' We are seeing this play out right this second in Syria where the Russians have been trying to protect the Syrian people from the very same terrorists that were connected to 9/11 and are now being supported by the US for the benefit of Israel.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Next thread.

So you support thought crime?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

So terrorism is a thought crime?

Is the US military terrorists?

What idiotic reasoning is that?
That's an absurd response that follows the "Don't start a reply with so..." rule. Leave that to women.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

If you cut off the last six words I endorse the definition.

The last six words just give cover to superpowers who have the capacity to move unilaterally against sovereign nations and send in uniformed military to target the civilian populations.

 

[VivaRevolution]

What idiotic reasoning is that?
That's an absurd response that follows the "Don't start a reply with so..." rule. Leave that to women.

I'm asking for clarification.

By that definition, if I kill a guy, it is murder.

If I do it for Islam, it is terrorism.

Isn't that the definition of a thought crime?

 

[jonharrison]

So right there. It says it. Terrorism is a thought crime.

I kill a guy it is murder.

I think about Islam while doing it, and I am a terrorist.

That seem like a good idea to you?

You’re confusing sentencing guidelines with classification of crime. If you murder your wife, with premeditation, it’s first degree murder and charged accordingly. If you murder an abortion doctor, with premeditation, it’s still first degree murder and you’re still sentenced accordingly. The difference is the classification between domestic homicide and terrorism, which is actually important as there are distinct root causes to each.

 

[jonharrison]

If you cut off the last six words I endorse the definition.

The last six words just give cover to superpowers who have the capacity to move unilaterally against sovereign nations and send in uniformed military to target the civilian populations.

Those are classified as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Terrorism is small scale. If a nation state does it, the classification is different.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You’re confusing sentencing guidelines with classification of crime. If you murder your wife, with premeditation, it’s first degree murder and charged accordingly. If you murder an abortion doctor, with premeditation, it’s still first degree murder and you’re still sentenced accordingly. The difference is the classification between domestic homicide and terrorism, which is actually important as there are distinct root causes to each.

I need you to talk to me like I'm stupid. Let's keep it simple.

2 guys commit the same action that is illegal.

Give me an example of this crime, where the motivation changes not the degree of the crime, but what the crime itself is.

Where else does that exist in Western law?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Those are classified as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Terrorism is small scale. If a nation state does it, the classification is different.

Which I would hope you would admit is completely arbitrary. Terrorism is this, unless this, but if this.

If the definition of terror looks like Java code with a bunch of if, and, and statements, seems kind of flimsy.

 

[jonharrison]

I need you to talk to me like I'm stupid. Let's keep it simple.

2 guys commit the same action that is illegal.

Give me an example of this crime, where the motivation changes not the degree of the crime, but what the crime itself is.

Where else does that exist in Western law?

I’m saying the crime itself doesn’t change. The crime is still first degree murder in either scenario, full stop. The classification is a tool of criminology to study the different motivations for different crimes. It’s like saying someone who kills another person through the use of fire shouldn’t be called an “arsonist” but rather just a murderer. I can see the point you’re trying to make, but it only applies to crimes like “making terroristic threats” where it gets vague, although those crimes are usually sentenced even without political motivation. Essentially I’m arguing that you can’t be sentenced for just “terrorism”. It’s merely a tool to catalogue behavior based on similarities for ease of understanding.

 

[jonharrison]

Which I would hope you would admit is completely arbitrary. Terrorism is this, unless this, but if this.

If the definition of terror looks like Java code with a bunch of if, and, and statements, seems kind of flimsy.

Once again, only in the sense that ANY classification is arbitrary. What truly differentiates a truck from a car? Both have four wheels and an engine, and get you from point A to B. They are classified differently, though, to make it easier to classify items into smaller groupings for ease of academic understanding

 

[VivaRevolution]

I’m saying the crime itself doesn’t change. The crime is still first degree murder in either scenario, full stop. The classification is a tool of criminology to study the different motivations for different crimes. It’s like saying someone who kills another person through the use of fire shouldn’t be called an “arsonist” but rather just a murderer. I can see the point you’re trying to make, but it only applies to crimes like “making terroristic threats” where it gets vague, although those crimes are usually sentenced even without political motivation. Essentially I’m arguing that you can’t be sentenced for just “terrorism”. It’s merely a tool to catalogue behavior based on similarities for ease of understanding.

This is just untrue. Terrorism is it's own crime.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Once again, only in the sense that ANY classification is arbitrary. What truly differentiates a truck from a car? Both have four wheels and an engine, and get you from point A to B. They are classified differently, though, to make it easier to classify items into smaller groupings for ease of academic understanding

You aren't grouping, you are redefining, and creating a entirely new category.

 

[jonharrison]

This is just untrue. Terrorism is it's own crime.

It isn’t. It’s a classification that many different crimes fall under. If someone threatens to blow up a synogauge, specifically to cancel a service, they will not be charged with the same offense as if they murdered the rabbi to achieve the same goal. Yet both acts are classified as terrorism.