Author Topic: Poll: Should radical groups in the US be treated as terrorists? (Read 897 times)

Fatty · « **Reply #15 on:** January 31, 2002, 12:49:53 PM »

RICO should apply to them already.

streakeagle · « **Reply #16 on:** January 31, 2002, 01:12:00 PM »

As long as a group constrains itself to legal means for promoting its objectives, i.e. discussion and voting, I wouldn't call them "radical" or terrorists.

For instance, being an active member of the Communist Party should never have been a crime as long as the party believed the process of changing this country into a Communist one should be achieved democratically. However, people who supported that party (especially by giving donations) were backing people that were doing everything in their power to destroy the U.S. both militarily and ecomnomically.

IMHO, when a group gets together and openly commends people who use violence to achieve their objectives or state that their objective is to destroy the U.S. and kill Americans in the name of their cause, they become terrorists. Just like someone who threatens to kill someone else at an individual level, they have already committed a crime even though they may not have actually hurt anyone yet.

So, if the "radical" in "radical group" means they are using violence or even threatening to use violence, I would treat them as any other "terrorist" group that has done the same.

miko2d · « **Reply #17 on:** January 31, 2002, 01:36:10 PM »

ELF guidelines are pretty specific that in any action taken, no human or animal should be physically harmed.

Economic sabotage and property destruction are permissible within the above restriction.

I am not sure what the difinition of terrorism is. ELF does not inspire terror in me becasue I expect them to take all precautions to protect my life (setting a fire at night, to facilities unlikely to contain people, etc.)

Anyway, as GW said, the security measures taken against real terrorists (total surveillance, ID tracking, etc.) will be very usefull against all regular kinds of crime including drug smuggling, robbery, ELF, ALF, etc.

miko

Nifty · « **Reply #18 on:** January 31, 2002, 01:52:11 PM »

Throw the semantics out of the window. ELF is claiming responsibility for arson. Arson is a crime in every state in this country (I'd hope so, and any rate!) Therefore, ELF is condoning, encouraging, and claiming criminal behavior. Arrest them all...

Now here is the semantics, as I see it. They are not terrorists in the sense of striking fear into the heart of the average citizen that they (average citizen) might be harmed. They are terrorists in the sense that they are attempting to strike fear into the companies who have practices that ELF opposes. It's terror directed at an entire industry, or individual corporations in that industry.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #19 on:** January 31, 2002, 02:13:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
ELF guidelines are pretty specific that in any action taken, no human or animal should be physically harmed.

Economic sabotage and property destruction are permissible within the above restriction.

I am not sure what the difinition of terrorism is. ELF does not inspire terror in me becasue I expect them to take all precautions to protect my life (setting a fire at night, to facilities unlikely to contain people, etc.)
miko

Oh ya, nothing like putting firemen in harms way, what if one of them dies? What about the lumberjack that gets killed not knowing about a nail driven into a tree?

You call it what you want...but if you(ELF or others) are trying to further your "cause" via a criminal act, sabatoge, etc. then you are indeed a domestic terrorist.

Udie at Work · « **Reply #20 on:** January 31, 2002, 02:16:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
What about the lumberjack that gets killed not knowing about a nail driven into a tree?

Or the entire family of a lumberjack who nearly lost his life to a spiked tree. Try and understand that at 13 yrs old......

miko2d · « **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2002, 02:45:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
You call it what you want...but if you(ELF or others) are trying to further your "cause" via a criminal act, sabatoge, etc. then you are indeed a domestic terrorist.

No argument about the criminality of their act - even if they are only directed against property.
However there is no need to commit a crime against English language and/or truth by misusing the perfectly good words:

ter·ror·ism
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

ter·ror
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Violence is appied to human, or at least living things. Property can only be subject to vandalism, destruction or sabotage - all perfectly good words.
Playing loose with words is a common trait among evildoers - ELF, nazis and others. I would prefer that people on my side not stoop to that level.
So if you do not mind, I will not call it "what I want" but what it is - English language is good enough for me

Of course our media is constantly coming out with the new terms by devaluing old concepts, like eco-terrorism (instead of eco-sabotage) - so the definition in the dictionary may well change one day.

Oh ya, nothing like putting firemen in harms way, what if one of them dies? What about the lumberjack that gets killed not knowing about a nail driven into a tree?

According to ELF doctrine, they are not putting any firemen in the harms way because carefull selection of target/time ensures that there should be no people in danger to risk firemens' lifes for.
Likewise, their goal is to stop logging, not endanger the lumberjack with a spike. So I suppose they take all precautions to notify people that the trees have been spiked - by placing posters, notifying authorities, etc.

By trying to present ELF as extremely evil through false accusations, you draw the attention from the fact that the enemy is extremely insidious, smart and well-organised.
Their real activities are damning enough - and deserve more carefull study.

I could come up with many ways how ELF behaviour causes deaths and suffering as secondary effects, but by the same token your driving a car puts others in the harms way and your buying food drives it's price up - making it less affordable for the third world countries.

P.S. I would vote for the law to sentence them to capital punishment for what they do - so no disagreement here. They should be definitely treated as terrorists.

miko

Ripsnort · « **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2002, 03:00:02 PM »

Quote

ter·ror·ism
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

ter·ror
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or
government into granting their demands

Thank you. By your definition, they are terrorists. I knew we thought alike.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2002, 03:02:59 PM »

So if WTC and the planes were empty except for the Al Qaeda on 911 it wouldnt be terrorism?

Thats cute, do you wanna reconsider?

midnight Target · « **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2002, 03:16:14 PM »

Quote

You call it what you want...but if you(ELF or others) are trying to further your "cause" via a criminal act, sabatoge, etc. then you are indeed a domestic terrorist.

Not that simple at all. What if you use illegal non-violent means of protest? Not all criminal acts would fall under the definition of terrorism. For instance:
Laying in the street in front of a shipment of biologically enhanced tomatoes. Is that a terrorist act or just civil disobedience? A group may advocate breaking the law to achieve their goals (Depriving minorities of their civil rights like the KKK) without being labeled terrorist. How do we safeguard the rights of all citizens without a careful consideration of the definitions we use for terrorist.

"Anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither" - Ben Franklin

Udie at Work · « **Reply #25 on:** January 31, 2002, 03:30:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
"Anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither" - Ben Franklin

I'd say a full 75% or more of our nation don't deserve liberty or security. I use that quote all the time too

It's a shame it's not taught to everybody. What ever hapened to give me liberty or give me death?

I think this is the very reason T. Jefferson was correct when he talked about the tree of liberty needing to be fed by the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time....

-dead- · « **Reply #26 on:** January 31, 2002, 03:36:10 PM »

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ter·ror·ism
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

ter·ror
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or
government into granting their demands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you. By your definition, they are terrorists. I knew we thought alike.

Ripsnort, by his definition the US's action in Afghanistan is terrorism too...
So think carefully before you accept simplistic solutions to really complicated problems

Thrawn · « **Reply #27 on:** January 31, 2002, 04:35:09 PM »

Wait I think I got it! Okay, a terrorists is whatever the hell you want it to be. And the war on terrorism is actually the war on terrorism that affects the US. Sweet deal. Looks like your're on your own Britain! Because, ya know those IRA aren't REALLY terrorists, because it's all domestic and stuff. But those arsonists...secretly, they're terrorists.

Cripes, whatever.

streakeagle · « **Reply #28 on:** January 31, 2002, 05:51:03 PM »

I don't know if the actions in Afghanistan really fall into the category of terrorism, but I will never deny that the U.S. has funded and supported terrorism. Apparently, the U.S. definition of terrorism only includes people opposing us. Certainly not our own organizations since everything we do is righteous and just in the eyes of God

I find it ironic to listen to the President talk about these evil countries that seek weapons of mass destruction and support terrorism as if we haven't been doing the same for the last 50 or 60 years

But, if your terrorist activities are in response to such activities being done to you, isn't that "counter-terrorism", which is "just" under international law as reaffirmed recently in the United Nations in response to September 11. So if a handful of extremists from any given country manage to piss off your entire country, aren't you allowed to invade that country and remove its government? Israel wants clarification on this, because surely they wouldn't want to invade Palestine and kill as many Arabs as possible without the blessing of the U.S.

So my question with regard to this thread is what is a "radical group" and what is the international legal definition of terrorism (the dictionary doesn't count). Last I heard, the U.N. had no trouble in passing anti-terrorist laws, but would not define what terrorism is because no one could aggree on it. So countries are free to fill in the blank as long as no one more powerful than them disagrees. Of course the U.S. always has and probably always will do whatever it wants regardless of what the U.N. says and reserves the right to hold less powerful countries to a double standard.

As far as ELF warning potential victims to dodge liability in wrongful death claims for their "non-violent attacks" (maybe you need to look up the definition of violence, I suspect willful destruction of property using weapons still counts as violence whether loss of life is involved or not), ummmm.... the Germans tried that in WWI: Americans, we are in a state of war with Britain and consider all British ships (especially those hauling arms) to be targets, so do not board these ships or you risk death. Of course despite the fact that the Lusitania was hauling arms and had warning posters everywhere, Americans were outraged at the "ruthless" Germans for attacking defenseless ships with Americans on board.

One thing is for sure, the American public is consistent: give them even the slightest hint that some mean old bad guys killed even one American for no good reason and its grounds for war. American politicians and the media have done this so many times that it is the standard procedure for initiating U.S. military action. The U.S. proudly claims that it has never fought a war without being provoked, it just neglects to mention the fact that it in someway contributed to the provocation, including outright making it up if need be.

What I hate about getting involved in these O'Club threads is that they keep painfully reminding me how gray the world is and how my own country isn't even one of the lighter shades

It would be a lot simpler if I stuck to the U.S. official black and white version of the world: The U.S. and its intentions are always good and its people wear white. Anyone opposing the federal government is bad and wears black. Ahhhhh... life would be so much easier if I could swallow that without choking. It seems a large number of Americans don't choke very easily and the government and media know it

-dead- · « **Reply #29 on:** February 01, 2002, 12:52:12 AM »

Good points Streak,

Although I fear the counter-terrorism thing gets us no further - it seems to me a double-edged sword. No doubt the Al Qaeda loonies feel that 9-11 was a "just" response to US "terrorist" activity.
Indeed all terrorist causes must seen at least by the terrorists as "just" - after all, who wants to die for an unjust cause?
You certainly can't breed fanatical extremism based on relativistic principles - you have to use simplistic black & white principles - the other side MUST "be" wrong/evil. No one wants to give their lives for a leader who says: "X seems to me to be a country that contains some people in it who sometimes behaves in what I perceive as an evil way towards some of our people."
Hence: the US "is" Satan. Saddam Hussein "is" Evil. The Contras "are" freedom fighters. Al Qaeda "are" terrorists.
I'm not sure I'd classify the US action as terrorism either, but my point was that strictly speaking, according to the dictionary definiton proffered by miko2d, which most people (it seems to me) tend to put their faith in as "the" definition, the US government can also be classified a terrorist organization.This just means that the dictionary definition and what people mean by "terrorist" seem to differ.

I find it encouraging to find people still awake enough to actually ask the most important question about the so-called war on terrorism - ie "what do we define as terrorism?"

So to answer that question (sort of): I think the most honest definition of a terrorist in this day and age for people to use would be: "A freedom fighter whose cause I disagree with", to paraphrase the old adage.
Thus we'll have to bear in mind that just as "the War on Drugs" should more honestly be called "the War on Some Drugs" (I don't see alcohol, tobacco or aspirin on the list), "the War on Terrorism" should really be called "the War on Some Terrorism".
This definition may seem not particularly useful, but at least it stops us all getting embroiled in the semantic quicksand of assuming that some people "are" terrorists (the name "is" the thing, the menu "is" the meal). We merely call them that because we don't like or agree with their cause. If we like or agree with their cause they "are" freedom-fighters.
So this thread boils down to what you feel "are" the "just" causes and which "are" the unjust causes. Which seems to me largely a question of each individual's personal tastes.
So off we all post: ELF "are" terrorists... Right to lifers "are" good Xians... etc. etc.