By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Look, the attack would have been an act of terrorism whether it was a coordinated, premeditated assassination or an act of semi-spontaneous violence centered around an organized rally.

There's too much loading going on behind the meaning of the word "terror," here.

That said, Obama should have hammered on the fact that Republicans have been starving the State Department of essential funds to help prevent just this sort of thing.

Like I mentioned in the thread you specifically created about that... it wouldn't work, because Romney would then just point out how much security is wasted in countries with competent defense.

 

Also... I wouldn't say killing people in a riot is an act of terroism.

 

I mean... if the Chinese ambassador to the US is in New York... and some people are protesting chinese jobs overseas and a riot happens, that eventually leads to the death of the chinese ambassador...

I don't think anybody would consider that terrorism.

At least I wouldn't.

I would. Those people clearly came with the intention to start shit up, and if it gets violent, then it moves into the realm of terrorism.

It's like, second-degree terrorism. Not planned or plotted, but still violence with the intent to send a message of some sort, which is terrorism.


So... just to be clear then.. you'd also consider the anti-WTO anarcist protestors as terrorists since they often get violent intentionally.

As well as the various Occupy Wallstreet groups who got agressive and started throwing stones and such.

Essentially, any protest that gets violent = terrorism.

Pretty much, yes. "Incidental terrorism." Just like how a fight where someone happens to kill someone else in a fit of rage is still murder, but it still fits the means and motive of terrorism, just without the scale or planning.


I... guess I just disagree.  Don't even know where to go to from there then.  I hope your definition never makes it into legal precedent.

That would more or less make any mob violence terrorism... which is an extremely terrifying precedent since essentially that means any protest of the government could be seen or it atleast eaisly made to be "Terrorism"... alowing american citizens to be detained under the NDAA.  All you would need to do is put one or two plants in.  Start violence.  Bam suddenly everyone in the mob, even those minding their buisness is a terroirst/supporting terroism/suspected terrorist" and can be held indefinitly without trial.