can property crimes be considered terrorism?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

like cross-burning, or defacement of jewish cemetaries? what if its not meant to express a physical threat, like anarchists vandalizing starbucks & mcdonalds, or keying SUVs? does terrorism require the harm or threat or harm to an actual person?

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:22 (twenty years ago)

what about blowing up an embassy if there's nobody in it? that'd probably count!

although should embassy bombings be considered terrorism? they're arguably military targets...

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:27 (twenty years ago)

good question. in the uk just recently they almost banned the 'glorification, exaltation or celebration' of acts of terror committed in the last 20 years *and of a further list of acts of terror from the entirety of history*.

given that mandela was involved in 'property terrorism' in the early '60s, this might have caused trouble. i think property crimes can easily be called terrorism -- given that terror, rather than physical harm per se, is the aim of terrorism.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:29 (twenty years ago)

who blows up an embassy when theres nobody in it? i think that would fall under threat of harm or intent to harm, more than keying an SUV at least

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:30 (twenty years ago)

Oh god, could I get arrested for going on about Great Uncle George? He'd definitely qualify as a terrorist.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:31 (twenty years ago)

well yeah enrique but what the hell is this floating, abject "terror" unconnected to physical harm that you speak of? you mean the "terror" that someone will fuck with your stuff? is that "terrorism"?

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:31 (twenty years ago)

how are yall gonna celebrate guy fawkes day?!?

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:31 (twenty years ago)

That's celebrating the thwarting of terror.

― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:33 (twenty years ago)

really i shouldnt have included cross-burning because that historically that involves clear threats and coercion, usually to leave a white neighborhood or produce a scapegoat for lynching

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:33 (twenty years ago)

maybe 100 years from now we'll have jose padilla day or something

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)

No popery! Burn down some gin distilleries! Storm the gaols and the Bank of England!

(Will I be arrested now?)

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)

yeah, the idea of terrorists was to terrorize people so that public opinion-type pressure would force the government to act. baader meinhof killed tiny numbers of people (even smaller than AQ) but got a disproportionate reaction because of the fear they instilled.

really i shouldnt have included cross-burning because that historically that involves clear threats and coercion, usually to leave a white neighborhood or produce a scapegoat for lynching
-- _ (...)

no you *should* have included that!

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)

well when i say 'property crimes' i meant stuff that doesnt actually disrupt the lives of ordinary people, like spraypainting fur coats or whatever not burning someones house down and and making them fear for their life

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:37 (twenty years ago)

who blows up an embassy when theres nobody in it? i think that would fall under threat of harm or intent to harm, more than keying an SUV at least

i know i know!! i'm tired

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:39 (twenty years ago)

I am a bit dubious of people proposing a general theory of what "terrorists" are trying to do. The RAF, for instance, were not trying to terrorize people per se, but to light the spark that would overthrow capitalist society. They had no interest in forcing the government to act in any particular direction, save in specific cases where they kidnapped people in an effort to secure the release of their prisoners.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:40 (twenty years ago)

i dont want to derail this thread into gawking at censorious british legislation but that "glorification of terror" law is really insane, im no teary-eyed constitution jizz freak but i thank james madison every day over my corn flakes for that 1st amendment

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:41 (twenty years ago)

not that we dont have laws that frequently defy it, but its still free-er speech than 99% of the world

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:42 (twenty years ago)

fortunately the govt had to back down.

The RAF, for instance, were not trying to terrorize people per se, but to light the spark that would overthrow capitalist society.

haha genius psychology all round then! a bit like sayingthe *other* RAF The RAF, for instance, were not trying to terrorize people per se, but to light the spark that would overthrow Nazi society.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:43 (twenty years ago)

> how are yall gonna celebrate guy fawkes day?!?

but isn't guy fawkes day about celebrating his failure, not the attempt?

― koogs (koogs), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:53 (twenty years ago)

i will celebrate it by watching 'v for vendetta'.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:54 (twenty years ago)

i guess we just celebrate his attempt over here

― _, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 14:57 (twenty years ago)

(ah, that'll teach me to only read the bottom of threads)

(v trailer looks surprisingly ok. i look forward to seeing it on tv in 3 years time...)

― koogs (koogs), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 15:05 (twenty years ago)

Only monarchists should purchase fireworks in a week or so.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 15:08 (twenty years ago)

I would, but I hate fireworks. They scare the crap out of me.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 15:22 (twenty years ago)

He was going to blow up parliament as well as the king, so you could see burning the poor sod's efigy as a staunch backing of democracy over terrorism.

On a similar theme to the original post, can a crime be considered homophobic if the victim is straight but the attackers thought he was gay? Happened recently to a friend of mine and the CPS are unsure what to do with it.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 16:00 (twenty years ago)

http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror.htm

Not the best link, but I found it quick...

Basically, the gov't considers ecoterrorist groups that wrench bulldozers and shit to be terrorist, despite the fact that many (though by no means all) of their sabotage attempts involved disabling machinery in a non-violent, non-harmful manner (as opposed to spiking trees, for instance, which could very easily harm a logger).

Not sure about spraying furcoats. You'd probably just get done for assault. Although, since it's obviously a politically motivated form of assault, they MIGHT be able to get you on terrorism.

...is it safe to assume that, even in America, politically motivated crime = terrorism?

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 16:04 (twenty years ago)

politically motivated crime = terrorism?

pretty much. remember, over here, they tried to replace "War on Terra" with "Global Struggle Against Extremism." And since we have extremists in our own borders, well...

― kingfish neopolitan sundae (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 16:06 (twenty years ago)

So, then, throwing red paint on someone in a fur coat is an act of terrorism...?

Is Critical Mass a terrorist activity, then? I mean, sure, you're free to assemble, but you're not free to run red lights and drink beer and ride down the wrong side of the road, right? And since one could very conviningly argue that CM IS politically motivated, does that make it terrorism?

...anyone know what the NYPD's legal rationale was for arresting all those CMers a month or two ago?

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 16:12 (twenty years ago)

I think calling someone who keys an SUV a terrorist is giving him too much credit

― emilys. (emilys.), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 22:42 (twenty years ago)

a month or two ago? it all started with the rnc last year. and yet, the majority of new yorkers (not to mention ilxors who live in new york) will vote bloomberg. shameful.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 22:56 (twenty years ago)

I guess I only heard about it a month ago, sorry.

I can't believe NYPD can get away with that...especially with something that's been around for so long.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 23:05 (twenty years ago)

Intimidation needs to be involved in some way to call it terrorism, I think.

― it was a different shark (wetmink2), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 23:08 (twenty years ago)

people have different reasons for keying an suv. it might be because they object to the environmental impact of the vehicle, but it might be because they want to intimidate the person who drives it. intimidation can be subtle! but does it matter how it's received by the owner of the property? i'm not sure but i think in the end it comes down to intent - it can be considered terrorism if it was intended as a (politically motivated) physical threat.

― minna (minna), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 04:01 (twenty years ago)

He was going to blow up parliament as well as the king, so you could see burning the poor sod's efigy as a staunch backing of democracy over terrorism.

-- Hello Sunshine (fiver_the_bunn...), October 18th, 2005

lol, wtf, what a fine democracy we had 400 years ago!!!!

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 07:29 (twenty years ago)

anyone who thinks keying an SUV is a political act fkn *deserves* to get hit by bull-bars.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 07:31 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.