News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism

[Informal Logic]

I guess this is my fault for keeping myself honest by including definitions that don't entirely correspond with the definition I have been using but if you take a look more than one of the definitions I quoted and were discussed in the links included references to not only the civilian population in general but "groups" and "persons" as well.

Then we agree you or I may not completely agree with anyone definition, and is that not the problem? The portion I quoted is my perception of terrorism, and it is not how I would describe envrionmentalists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you for the compliment (I like you too ). I have answered your question, which was that definitions don't mean much to me. I am more interested in debating the effects and direction of definitions (the bigger picture).

I'm calmer now.
This is the thing. More than one person, including you, has stated that you do not believe that it is legitimate to refer to certain people as terrorists. This is what I have taken issue with and what I have been trying to discuss. If you don't want to discuss that then you shouldn't have said it and no you don't have to respond to any question I have asked but it is only polite and proper form in such a discussion that your replies to what I say are in regards to what I am saying.
I think that people who bomb and set fire to things as a form of political protest should be charged as terrorists (regardless of affiliation or ideology). If you don't agree then please explain why(and ofcourse you don't have to answer if you don't want to). If you think that only those who target persons should be considered terrorists then please explain why. Ect.
Unless you would like to explain to me the virtue in a court of hypocracy, bias, or preference the ideology of the criminal (and hence the usage of terms as propoganda against certain groups) is completely irrelevant to my questions.

consuming a lot of time and effort with nothing being accomplished.

The discussions on this political forum are really just a bunch of mental masturbation. All we accomplish here is enlightening one another about our perspectives, when people do not answer each others questions and do not respond to what each other are saying we're not even accomplishing that.

Since these groups are not targeting people I do not believe they should be charged with terrorism. Whether or not it is legal to do so is not the point.

I've asked a couple times already but why is it necessary to target people in order for something to be considered terrorism? You and others have asserted it but I have not read an argument so far as to why that should be the case. I could take a que from you and respond "Well if they kill people then they are murderers. There's no need to call them terrorists. There's no need to call anyone terrorists. They're just murderers, arsonists, and bombers. We have laws that cover this already. Calling them terrorists is just a bunch of propaganda."
Would you advocate not calling anyone terrorists? Do you think that there would be a problem in this due to a lack of charging people appropriately for the nature of their crimes? Should we repeal all laws that adjust penalties and not charge people with being involved in gang activities, organized crime, or hate crimes either?

The term ecoterrorist is not a legal term, it is a propaganda term meant to associate environmental activists with real terrorists that do target people. Like anti-abortionists who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. When it was just Rush Limbaugh and his 20 million ditto-heads it was bad enough. Now the FBI is has declared 'ecoterrorists the #1 domestic threat without providing any real evidence to support the contention. I believe this is another step by corporatists to stifle any opposition to their access to the worlds resources.

As I've already stated I don't care what politicians say. All I care about are what the crimes were that were commited by the perpetrators. If they bomb a building to make a political statement then I consider them terrorists. If they kill people in the process then they are murderers too.
As far as the FBI goes it seems that the particular individual who went before the Senate was basing his assertion off of numbers of incidents and the overall price tag for the damages done. There also does not seem to be a consensus even among the FBI on the matter. You're talking about one particular man and his campaign. If you take a look you'll see that Osama Bin Laden is still on the top ten along with an anti-abortion terrorist. I don't believe any tree hugging hippies are on there whether they are the kind that throw molotov cocktails or not. The FBI also considers rightwing terrorists and anti-abortion terrorists to be big threats. They have been giving these sorts of groups more and more attention as well. People blowing up abortion clinics, university labs, government facilities, ect all need to be investigated and brought to justice regardless of affiliation don't you think? If certain sorts of targets are being hit more frequently then the FBI should be paying more attention to those sorts of targets then don't you think?

But I can never agreee with applying the "terrorist" criminal sentence to a young person who has dented a freaking front loader.

And niether would I. I've already made this abundently clear. Why do you keep bringing it up?

A previous: up to one year, vandalism sentence is now: up to six years in prison. A twenty year sentence is now life imprisonment.

"Up to" being the operative words here I think. There is also such thing as parole. The man who murdered my uncle in cold blood was up for parole after less than ten years. I doubt there are any judges that will be putting an "eco-tagger"() away on "terrorist" charges let alone for a whole six year sentence and even if the person did do something bad enough to be subjected to such wrath they would likely be up for parole after a year or two.

But the majority of the eco people are not violent and they are a separate group entirely from the right wing extremists. People like Rudolph and McVeigh, have predominantly been the perpretators of violent true terrorist acts.
Eco protestors tend to commit acts of a vandalism nature. Many of them are young. Throwing them into the same bag with people like Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh, strictly at the behest of special interests, is an abomination of American justice.

I'm not talking about people who are non-violent, again this is something I thought I had made clear. I'm Talking About People Who Blow S*** UP and Set S*** ON FIRE! Get it now?
Now tell me please. What constitutes "true terrorism"? If in your opinion it means actual people are targeted then please refer back to the questions I posed Skyhunter?

Then we agree you or I may not completely agree with anyone definition, and is that not the problem? The portion I quoted is my perception of terrorism, and it is not how I would describe envrionmentalists.

Why does your perception of terrorism only include incidents that create wide spread fear among the general populace as a whole and not include specified target groups? And why not include those incidents that are not so much for the purpose of spreading fear but of coercing a group to conform with the "terrorist's" aims/demands? Bombing abortion clinics is supposed to spread fear among, and more importantly coerce, a certain group of people. Would you not classify this as terrorism?



Also, just incase it is necessary, I will repeat myself. I am not referring to "environmentalists" but rather "People who blow s*** up" regardless of whether they are environmentalists, christians, anarchists, I don't care. I wouldn't call tree spiking "terrorism" unless it is done in such a way as to insure that it will do damage to machinery and possibly injure the workers. I wouldn't call "eco-tagging" terrorism either. Throwing a rock at a protest... not terrorism in my book.
Now I hope that we are all clear on the fact that when I refer to "eco-terrorists" I am meaning people who blow s*** up and set s*** on fire and the like and am not a dittohead and do not share their views that all "environmentalist wackos" are "terrorists" ok? Thanks.

 

[Informal Logic]

Why does your perception of terrorism only include incidents that create wide spread fear among the general populace as a whole and not include specified target groups? And why not include those incidents that are not so much for the purpose of spreading fear but of coercing a group to conform with the "terrorist's" aims/demands? Bombing abortion clinics is supposed to spread fear among, and more importantly coerce, a certain group of people. Would you not classify this as terrorism?

Also, just incase it is necessary, I will repeat myself. I am not referring to "environmentalists" but rather "People who blow s*** up" regardless of whether they are environmentalists, christians, anarchists, I don't care. I wouldn't call tree spiking "terrorism" unless it is done in such a way as to insure that it will do damage to machinery and possibly injure the workers. I wouldn't call "eco-tagging" terrorism either. Throwing a rock at a protest... not terrorism in my book.

Now I hope that we are all clear on the fact that when I refer to "eco-terrorists" I am meaning people who blow s*** up and set s*** on fire and the like and am not a dittohead and do not share their views that all "environmentalist wackos" are "terrorists" ok? Thanks.

Because as others and I have stated, that kind of definition for terrorism is too broad. For example, “people who blow s*** up and set s*** on fire" could apply to the mob, gangs, or even juvenile delinquents, protestors, and so forth. In the case of environmentalists, the term is being used for individuals who do not even fit these criteria. If you do not want to agree that the term is too broad and therefore susceptible to misuse, than we should just agree to disagree.

 

[Skyhunter]

I've asked a couple times already but why is it necessary to target people in order for something to be considered terrorism? You and others have asserted it but I have not read an argument so far as to why that should be the case. I could take a que from you and respond "Well if they kill people then they are murderers. There's no need to call them terrorists. There's no need to call anyone terrorists. They're just murderers, arsonists, and bombers. We have laws that cover this already. Calling them terrorists is just a bunch of propaganda."

Terrorism, by it's name means to terrorize people. You cannot terrorize things. ELF and ALF are primarily attacking the bottom line of corporations. I do not agree with their tactics, but since they are not harming people I don't think they should be in the same category as those who do target people. According to an as of yet unsubstantiated statement by the FBI, there have been 1200 incidents of "eco terrorism" and not one person was harmed. With a track record like this I would have to conclude that they definitely are not targeting people. IMO they are trying to stop practices that they deem to be hurting the environment and other living beings, by increasing the cost of continuing these practices. Spray painting SUVs, Spiking trees, blowing up labs where animal testing is being performed, etc.

I prefer the actions of PETA members who trespass to film what goes on in factory farms, they are still breaking the law, however it is justified by enlightening people to the suffering that goes into every chicken nugget. They are putting only themselves at risk for a cause that they believe in.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Terrorism, by it's name means to terrorize people. You cannot terrorize things. ELF and ALF are primarily attacking the bottom line of corporations. I do not agree with their tactics, but since they are not harming people I don't think they should be in the same category as those who do target people. According to an as of yet unsubstantiated statement by the FBI, there have been 1200 incidents of "eco terrorism" and not one person was harmed. With a track record like this I would have to conclude that they definitely are not targeting people. IMO they are trying to stop practices that they deem to be hurting the environment and other living beings, by increasing the cost of continuing these practices. Spray painting SUVs, Spiking trees, blowing up labs where animal testing is being performed, etc.

I already have agreed that there is a difference. The way people are charged and sentenced should, and I believe does, reflect this difference in that people who target persons are also charged with things such as murder, attempted murder, assault, ect. The people who do not target people are not going to be charged with these things. They will only be charged with their crimes with an addendum to the charges and penalties to reflect that the crimes they commited were an act of terror.

ALF and ELF have also been known to attack Universities. They don't just go after corporations. And even if they are going after Corporations, that shouldn't matter. A person is still charged with murder if they kill a child molester or with arson if they burn down the child molester's house. Just because the target of the violence, in what ever form, may be vile and disgusting, unethical, or even in the progress of a crime themselves does not mean they are or should be any less protected by the law. Such considerations lead to hypocracy and bias and are no longer justice.

"Terrorism, by it's name means to terrorize people. You cannot terrorize things"
There are people who own the things that are being fire bombed and work or are students at the locations that are fire bombed. People can get frightened rather easily. It doesn't matter if someone tells you that the people who bombed your place of work do not kill people you're more than likely still going to be uneasy going back there. I've had my workplace receive bomb threats before. They were just prank calls and I knew they were just prank calls but they still succeeded in putting me on edge and multiple of my co-workers went home because they were too frightened to stay at work. Imagine how they would have felt if someone had blown up part of our work place. You don't have to kill people to scare them and/or coerce them. So please explain to me why you think that people must be targeted for an act to be considered terrorism considering that people can be terrorised without ever being targeted directly or even actually being subjected to real violence.

 

[Skyhunter]

So please explain to me why you think that people must be targeted for an act to be considered terrorism considering that people can be terrorised without ever being targeted directly or even actually being subjected to real violence.

Just because someone is afraid doesn't necessarily mean they are being terrorized. My mother is afraid of caterpillars, and gets hysterical if one gets on her. I wouldn't call a caterpillar a terrorist though.

If their goal is not to cause indescriminate terror, why should their actions be considered terrorism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If their goal is not to cause indescriminate terror, why should their actions be considered terrorism.

Ok... I have outlined a definition of terrorism, relatively basic as it may be, and cited several other definitions from sources whom deal with the law and legal definitions which for the most part agree with my definition. The general consensus seems to define "terrorism" as the use of violence on the civilian population to promote a political/ideological cause through fear and coercion. Most seem to include the targeting of cetain groups or subsections of persons instead of just the general population. Some include violence towards property and not just violence inflicted on a person and those that do not mention property are not very specific as to what constitutes violence towards persons which could include violence towards their property and facilities. Ofcourse that last part is unclear like I said and is what seems to be the main matter of contention here.
So I'm asking you please to make an argument on thsi matter. Let me know if you have any problems with the definitions I have cited. If so let me know what you have a problem with and give me your personal definition please and your reasoning as to why this should be the legally accepted definition.

 

[Skyhunter]

Ok... I have outlined a definition of terrorism, relatively basic as it may be, and cited several other definitions from sources whom deal with the law and legal definitions which for the most part agree with my definition. The general consensus seems to define "terrorism" as the use of violence on the civilian population to promote a political/ideological cause through fear and coercion. Most seem to include the targeting of cetain groups or subsections of persons instead of just the general population. Some include violence towards property and not just violence inflicted on a person and those that do not mention property are not very specific as to what constitutes violence towards persons which could include violence towards their property and facilities. Ofcourse that last part is unclear like I said and is what seems to be the main matter of contention here.
So I'm asking you please to make an argument on thsi matter. Let me know if you have any problems with the definitions I have cited. If so let me know what you have a problem with and give me your personal definition please and your reasoning as to why this should be the legally accepted definition.

I have no problem with the definition. It does not apply to the so called "eco terrorists". They are not using fear and coercion. They target labs where animals are the subjects of experiments in order to stop the experiments. They target property of corporations that they believe are committing crimes against man and nature. They should be punished when caught, but not for terrorism.

If the goal is not to terrorize why should they be labeled terrorists?

Why should they face terrorism charges when tried?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have no problem with the definition. It does not apply to the so called "eco terrorists". They are not using fear and coercion. They target labs where animals are the subjects of experiments in order to stop the experiments. They target property of corporations that they believe are committing crimes against man and nature. They should be punished when caught, but not for terrorism.
If the goal is not to terrorize why should they be labeled terrorists?
Why should they face terrorism charges when tried?

"I have no problem with the definition. It does not apply to the so called "Anti-Abortion terrorists". They are not using fear and coercion. They target clinics where people are the subjects of abortions in order to stop the abortions. They target property of organizations that they believe are committing crimes against man and nature. They should be punished when caught, but not for terrorism."
To say that eco-terrorists should be tried differently because they target corporations that they feel are commiting crimes against nature, and you presumably agree with them, is pure hypocracy.
Would you agree with your statement above which I have adjusted to what people probably used to say about the "anti-abortion terrorists"?
If you think that because certain of them target people and threaten people directly makes a difference then please explain to me why this makes a difference as to whether or not something is terrorism.
When an "eco-terrorist" bombs a lab or factory or some such thing they are attempting to coerce the owners into stopping what they are doing and coercing workers into leaving their jobs. These are the exact same aims and intentions of the individuals that bomb abortion clinics. Why should they be treated differently? Or do you think that neither should be charged with terrorism, and why?

 

[Skyhunter]

"I have no problem with the definition. It does not apply to the so called "Anti-Abortion terrorists". They are not using fear and coercion. They target clinics where people are the subjects of abortions in order to stop the abortions. They target property of organizations that they believe are committing crimes against man and nature. They should be punished when caught, but not for terrorism."
To say that eco-terrorists should be tried differently because they target corporations that they feel are commiting crimes against nature, and you presumably agree with them, is pure hypocracy.
Would you agree with your statement above which I have adjusted to what people probably used to say about the "anti-abortion terrorists"?
If you think that because certain of them target people and threaten people directly makes a difference then please explain to me why this makes a difference as to whether or not something is terrorism.
When an "eco-terrorist" bombs a lab or factory or some such thing they are attempting to coerce the owners into stopping what they are doing and coercing workers into leaving their jobs. These are the exact same aims and intentions of the individuals that bomb abortion clinics. Why should they be treated differently? Or do you think that neither should be charged with terrorism, and why?

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.

 

[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?