News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism

[Informal Logic]

If they were bombing clinics while they were open, in order to scare people away from getting an abortion, or doctors and nurses from performing them, than I would agree that they are terrorizing people and would support the additional charge of terrorism. If however, they only bombed the buildings to render them inoperable, after making sure that they were empty, I would not agree that their actions constitute terrorism.

If attacking a particular group such as abortion clinics, I would still classify this as a hate crime. If someone was killed in a particular group, for example African Americans, and regardless of weapon used I would still classify this as murder. IMO, when the general population lives in fear of a coordinated attack against random civilians by a known organization, then it is terrorism.

 

[Skyhunter]

If attacking a particular group such as abortion clinics, I would still classify this as a hate crime. If someone was killed in a particular group, for example African Americans, and regardless of weapon used I would still classify this as murder. IMO, when the general population lives in fear of a coordinated attack against random civilians by a known organization, then it is terrorism.

I agree. but if they are only attacking the facility, and taking care to not harm anyone, I would not consider it terrorism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If they were bombing clinics while they were open, in order to scare people away from getting an abortion, or doctors and nurses from performing them, than I would agree that they are terrorizing people and would support the additional charge of terrorism. If however, they only bombed the buildings to render them inoperable, after making sure that they were empty, I would not agree that their actions constitute terrorism.

Why must people be targeted for you to consider it terrorism if people can be terrorized and coerced via indirect attacks?(and thank you for starting to answer some of my questions)

If attacking a particular group such as abortion clinics, I would still classify this as a hate crime.

That's interesting. "Hate Crime" is usually reserved for those that are targeted due to ethnicity/religion, more or less attacks against a particular social grouping. How would you legally justify attacks against abortion clinics as having to do with social grouping. You would have to generalize quite a bit for that wouldn't you?

IMO, when the general population lives in fear of a coordinated attack against random civilians by a known organization, then it is terrorism.

This makes sense for international terrorism where an organization from a particular country or culture has a problem with another country/culture on that scale. But what about domestic terrorism? I have the feeling that you probably don't recognize such as terrorism. But are the motivations not the same just on a smaller scale?
As for terrorizing the general population, does it not make more sense for an organization who has a problem with a particular group of people to terrorize those who they have a problem with in particular? If someone is anti abortion does it really make much of a statement or do much good to simply target random people? I can't see this as really promoting their goals or helping to reach their aims.
And on the Hate Crime issue. It would seem to me that Hate Crime is supposed to encompass attacks along ethnic/religeous lines while terrorism is supposed to cover attacks made for political/ideological purposes. Hate crime charges are to show that attacking people based on racial/religeous prejudice is intolerable. Terrorism charges are to show that the use of violence to meet political/ideological ends is intolerable(I am well aware that this would be contradictory to such things as war and I am not arguing such things here so please I would prefer that no one side track us in that direction thank you).

 

[Skyhunter]

Why must people be targeted for you to consider it terrorism if people can be terrorized and coerced via indirect attacks?(and thank you for starting to answer some of my questions)

The department of homeland security can terrorize the nation by raising the terror alert. It comes down to intent. Even if the bombings don't harm anyone, they have the potential to. So if people are being harmed, then even an attack were no one is harmed would still be a terrorist act.

In the case of the so called "eco terrorists" there is a track record of taking great care not to harm anyone. I suppose people could still be terrified, but would be a somewhat irrational fear, since there is no intent to harm them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The department of homeland security can terrorize the nation by raising the terror alert. It comes down to intent. Even if the bombings don't harm anyone, they have the potential to. So if people are being harmed, then even an attack were no one is harmed would still be a terrorist act.
In the case of the so called "eco terrorists" there is a track record of taking great care not to harm anyone. I suppose people could still be terrified, but would be a somewhat irrational fear, since there is no intent to harm them.

The legal definitions in review by the UN include terrorism perpetrated by a state.
My arguments have been purely based on intent. If you think that the US is terrorizing it's citizens then maybe you should send a plea for help to the UN.
As far as this fear supposedly being irrational none of the "victims" can know that these people don't want to hurt them. They can't even know for sure that the perpetrators of the crime were in fact members of an organization who had their best interests in mind. All they know for sure is that someone bombed their work place. Most people would consider worry over such an event a rather legitimate fear and the law considers it as such too.

 

[Skyhunter]

The legal definitions in review by the UN include terrorism perpetrated by a state.
My arguments have been purely based on intent. If you think that the US is terrorizing it's citizens then maybe you should send a plea for help to the UN.

Like it would do any good. The US would just veto any action the UN might take. My point is that there are all types of methods to scare people. That doesn't make it terrorism.

As far as this fear supposedly being irrational none of the "victims" can know that these people don't want to hurt them. They can't even know for sure that the perpetrators of the crime were in fact members of an organization who had their best interests in mind. All they know for sure is that someone bombed their work place. Most people would consider worry over such an event a rather legitimate fear and the law considers it as such too.

Well 1200 incidents and no one got hurt. I guess they could think that they are grossly incompetent.

If your argument is based on intent then if the intent is not to terrorize how can you call it terrorism?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If your argument is based on intent then if the intent is not to terrorize how can you call it terrorism?

I believe that the intent is to scare and coerce those people into not doing the things that they are involved in. The defense that they were only destroying the means of accomplishing the deed which they found offensive can not hold up. The means can be replaced and activities resumed. The only way to really stop the activities is to scare and coerce the persons involved into not resuming them. This IS their goal.

My point is that there are all types of methods to scare people. That doesn't make it terrorism.

True, and their are names for those tactics. The particular tactics I am referring to are generally called terrorism.

Well 1200 incidents and no one got hurt. I guess they could think that they are grossly incompetent.

Are you dense? I just said that the "victims" can know nothing for certain except that their place of work, their property, what have you was bombed and that it is reasonable enough for them to fear for their safety or feel coerced. ANY court of law would agree with this assessment.
If I bombed your place of work then told you that I don't have any intention of hurting you or scaring you at all but "hey you probably shouldn't be working there you know because you're commiting crimes against man and nature" would you be worried? Would you feel as though I were coercing you?

 

[Skyhunter]

I believe that the intent is to scare and coerce those people into not doing the things that they are involved in. The defense that they were only destroying the means of accomplishing the deed which they found offensive can not hold up. The means can be replaced and activities resumed. The only way to really stop the activities is to scare and coerce the persons involved into not resuming them. This IS their goal.

That is your opinion and makes little sense. There would always be others willing to step in and continue the practice as long as there is a profit to be made. The only way to really stop the activities is to make them unprofitable or illegal.

True, and their are names for those tactics. The particular tactics I am referring to are generally called terrorism.

Even when no one is harmed or threatened.

Are you dense? I just said that the "victims" can know nothing for certain except that their place of work, their property, what have you was bombed and that it is reasonable enough for them to fear for their safety or feel coerced. ANY court of law would agree with this assessment.
If I bombed your place of work then told you that I don't have any intention of hurting you or scaring you at all but "hey you probably shouldn't be working there you know because you're commiting crimes against man and nature" would you be worried? Would you feel as though I were coercing you?

No I am not. I would appreciate you not resorting to name calling.

How many do you think are jazzed that they get paid time off from work?

I agree that some might feel coerced, but if the intent is to make the activity unprovitable, without harming any persons, it is not IMO terrorism and there is no way you will convince me that in some abstract way it is. Since you are obviously frustrated and will not even consider my view, I am done with this discussion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That is your opinion and makes little sense. There would always be others willing to step in and continue the practice as long as there is a profit to be made. The only way to really stop the activities is to make them unprofitable or illegal.

My opinion makes quite a bit of sense. The idea that sporadic vigilante attacks on various different sites owned by people with large amounts of money and insurance coverage is going to make their operations either unprofitable or illegal is what makes little sense.

Even when no one is harmed or threatened.

Violent acts such as setting fire to or blowing up the property of others are threatening by nature regardless of whether or not someone is hurt. The law recognizes this. Most people do. It's a fact of human psychology. Why you don't agree with this I do not know.

No I am not. I would appreciate you not resorting to name calling.

I apologize.

How many do you think are jazzed that they get paid time off from work?

Lol... and how many do you think are angry when they are fired for not going to work because people use your logic and tell them they are being illogical?

I agree that some might feel coerced, but if the intent is to make the activity unprovitable, without harming any persons, it is not IMO terrorism and there is no way you will convince me that in some abstract way it is. Since you are obviously frustrated and will not even consider my view, I am done with this discussion.

See above.

 

[Skyhunter]

My opinion makes quite a bit of sense. The idea that sporadic vigilante attacks on various different sites owned by people with large amounts of money and insurance coverage is going to make their operations either unprofitable or illegal is what makes little sense.

People with lots of money, as a general rule do not invest in unprofitable enterprises. Making abortions illegal, for example would be incentive for many doctors to stop performing them.

Insurance companies will refuse to cover facilities at high risk. When the capital risk becomes too high, and insurance is difficult to obtain and the margins of profit decrease, investors will find other enterprises to invest their money. If the capital return is great enough, there will always be people willing to take the risk.

Violent acts such as setting fire to or blowing up the property of others are threatening by nature regardless of whether or not someone is hurt. The law recognizes this. Most people do. It's a fact of human psychology. Why you don't agree with this I do not know.

I do agree with this. I feel that violence, except in the case of self defense is always wrong. I just do not believe that those who attack property should be put in the same category and face the same penalties as those that attack and kill people indiscriminately.

I apologize.

Thank you. I was a little surprised by your comment.

I know that you like to play the devils advocate and I appreciate having my views and opinions challenged.

Lol... and how many do you think are angry when they are fired for not going to work because people use your logic and tell them they are being illogical?
See above.

I don't follow.

Why would they not go to work according to my logic?

If the building they work in is gone they would have a few days off until they are relocated or whatever.

 

[Mk]

Even when no one is harmed or threatened.

I would think this is highly debateable. I haven't read the many pages of this thread, but we may have discussed large automobile dealerships being burned down, and entire apartment buildings. Which cost quite a bit of money. Though it is not bodily harm, it is harm. What if you were the owner of a 12-story apartment, and it was burned down? Would you still say there was no harm or threat to you?