gergroy said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
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.
|
I think you guys are moving away from what actually happened here. The original story was that it was a demonstration that turned ugly when somebody pulled out an RPG and shot it at the consolate. I don't know about you, but what angry mob or demonstration has an RPG handy?
|
In the middle east? It's probably more likely then you'd expect.
Espiecally in a country that just had it's government overthrown by a bunch of random armies with weapons.
Though granted... to bring it to the consulate would suggest some level of premediation no doubt.
However though... if say, instead of that an angry mob just overwhelmed and killed someone. I wouldn't call that terrorism i'd call that mob violence and prosecute it through the normal justice system, and not arrest people for terrorism.
