ok, what "type" of crime would you consider firebombing someone's house while they and their family was inside? is the house firebombing terrorism but not the car? how would you classify it?

is one house too small-scale to classify as terrorism? what about a marketplace?

8/8/2008 4:10:13 PM

There's not an official Webster's decision tree available to classify terrorism. Sorry.

It's a matter of scale. Give me an all-encompassing definition for massacre, would you?

8/8/2008 4:15:46 PM

ok the term terrorism doesn't have a completely infallible cut and dry definition

but this particular crime...firebombing someone's house...explain why you don't think thats terrorism

8/8/2008 4:16:41 PM

if you bomb someones house when they're in it (or could be in it), or their car when they're likely to be near it, or a market place when people could possibly be around it... for the intent purpose of affecting political or social constructs ... thats terrorism, no matter whether someone dies.

and bombing the pentagon? hell no that's not terrorism. the PENTAGON is a MILITARY TARGET.

so, unless you want to say that every single military action is an action of terrorism, it's just more hyperbolic bullshit.




[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2008 4:17:07 PM

Quote :

"but this particular crime...firebombing someone's house...explain why you don't think thats terrorism"

It's not terrorism in the the sense 9/11 was terrorism.

8/8/2008 4:20:17 PM

that seems like a pretty shitty answer

by that logic, i guess there havent been any terrorist attacks on civilians or US troops in Iraq since the war started, since no individual attack was "in the sense 9/11 was terrorism"?

If I go shoot someone in the head, is that not murder in the sense that killing 10 people is murder?

8/8/2008 4:23:06 PM

It's murder.

Certainly isn't a "massacre." See what I mean?

8/8/2008 4:25:09 PM

i disagree. if you firebomb someones house who you disagree with politically because you want certain political or social change... especially if they are (or could be) in it....

thats terrorism.

your trying to instill terror in their mind (and others like them) that they are putting their lives in danger for doing whatever actions they have been engaging in.

its exactly the same as the anti-abortionist who were bombing clinics.

that was terrorism too.

8/8/2008 4:25:14 PM

i agree with most of your definitions schmoe

i'm not 100% sure i agree with you saying the Pentagon attacks werent terrorist attacks since it was a military target...are you forgetting the fact that they hijacked a plane of civilians and used it to carry out the attack?

8/8/2008 4:26:27 PM

I think this debate is a perfect example of why "The War on Terror" is an awful, awful idea.

8/8/2008 4:27:42 PM

Some of you are fucking idiots. Did you ever stop to think that a terroristic environment could be created by burning and/or bombing a car or a house or a place of business? The owners/occupants would vigorously disagree with you, I'm sure.

In any event, I don't think that some of you even believe the bullshit you're putting forth here. You're simply being obtuse for the thrill of it. Piss off.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2008 4:28:20 PM

terrorism is NOT predicated on the number of people affected.

its predicated on the fact that you're using violence as direct or implied threats against a person or group of persons lives... IN ORDER TO ENACT POLITICAL OR SOCIAL CHANGE that you can't get enacted in the traditional, legal manner.

eco-terrorists
anti-abortionist terrorists

they're flip sides of the same coin.


but you do have to be threatening people even if only implied.

you cant just go blow up an empty warehouse that has no chance of injuring or killing any people.

8/8/2008 4:29:05 PM

Quote :

"by that logic, i guess there havent been any terrorist attacks on civilians or US troops in Iraq since the war started, since no individual attack was "in the sense 9/11 was terrorism""

Internally that's actually how I view it in my head. For the purposes of being able to claim that Bush admin policies skyrocketed terrorism around the world, then those killings are terrorism.

Quote :

"If I go shoot someone in the head, is that not murder in the sense that killing 10 people is murder? "

You are heading the wrong direction. It's not the number of people that were killed, how they were killed, who they were killed by, or anything like that that defines terrorism. It's WHY they were killed, and HOW people REACTED to them.

Pretty much no one I know, and most people in general, feel any reaction from these ELF firebombs. Those bombs were designed to terrorize developers and politicians who sympathize with developers over the greater good. 9/11 (and other traditional terrorist attacks like the Anthrax attack, or the Caribbean snipers) were designed to terrorise the public at large, and were VERY successful in doing so.

The killings in Iraq are a mixture of people defending what they see as their homeland, and terrorist trying to scare our troops (they were not designed to terrorize the public at large, by my limited ability of estimation on the situation).

So yes, you can say this is terrorism in the sense it terrorized, but it's obviously not terrorism in the sense of 9/11.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : for the reading impaired]

8/8/2008 4:29:24 PM

^^ STFU, you fucking retard. If ALF or ELF or others bombs my fucking warehouse, I'm going to feel terrorized--they have an intent, you dumbass. And it ain't just vandalism.

^ An act doesn't have to reach 9-11 proportions in damage or bodies to be terrorism. Sweet Jesus, some of you totally suck at reasoning--blinded by ideology, no doubt.


[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2008 4:31:53 PM

Quote :

"are you forgetting the fact that they hijacked a plane of civilians and used it to carry out the attack?"

Not necessarily is it terrorism. one could argue "asymmetric warfare". i think, however, everyone agrees that terrorism was the goal of the perpetrators in both of the 9/11 attacks.

but merely attacking the Pentagon, in a general sense, is not terrorism.

8/8/2008 4:32:00 PM

gonna agree with hook and tree on this one.....

I do agree that terrorism is overused and over applied in general.

But, especially given that this is not an isolated incident, firebombing people's houses/cars, even without the intent of killing them, is definitely an act who's purpose is to incite terror among a certain population of people (scientists, in this case) an in order to make a social and/or political point (animal research is bad, mkay)

If this was an isolated incident where someone had a personal vendetta against someone else, then fine - it's just an attempted murder, or even a hate crime or whatever. But this is done by an organization that has a stated political goal and they are willing to threaten and harm the lives of people and their families who are not even involved in the political process

8/8/2008 4:33:43 PM

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 4:35 PM. Reason : eduit]

8/8/2008 4:33:45 PM

Ah, I hadn't noticed that bit about the scientist being forced to flee a targeted building.

I'll change my vote.

8/8/2008 4:34:33 PM

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : Edit]

8/8/2008 4:35:22 PM

Quote :

"you fucking retard. If ALF or ELF or others bombs my fucking warehouse, I'm going to feel terrorized"

just because you FEEL something doesnt mean its true. sorry.

if your warehouse was empty and had no chance of having yourself or anyone in it at the time... then its arson.

if someone was targeting you personally, for personal reasons... then it's revenge or blackmail or something along those lines.

IF however, you or your associates were in the building, or could have been in the building if not for chance or circumstance ... AND (and this is an important "and") ... AND they were targeting you to influence your behavior in teh political or social spectrum ... THEN and only THEN would it be "terrorism"

other than that, you can go on and "feel" whatever you feel like feeling. your subjective personal opinions dont change facts or reality, no matter how important you think you are on this planet.

8/8/2008 4:37:24 PM

^ You missed the key part of my post--as usual.

Quote :

". . .[T]hey have an intent. . .And it ain't just vandalism."

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2008 4:38:49 PM

Note that ELF hasn't claimed responsibility for the firebombing of that biologist's home. They supposedly try to avoid harming people.

8/8/2008 4:38:52 PM

i wonder how they wouldve felt if a couple pet housecats and dogs had been killed in the fire

8/8/2008 4:39:23 PM

Well, ELF tries to avoid harming any animals. I imagine they'd be sad if they ended up killing pets.

8/8/2008 4:40:33 PM

collateral damage

8/8/2008 4:40:37 PM

Quote :

"i wonder how they wouldve felt if a couple pet housecats and dogs had been killed in the fire"

No doubt the animals would be freed from the bondage of a caged existence at the hands of these egocentric humans.

The first rule of Project Mayhem is: You don't ask questions.

8/8/2008 4:42:23 PM

Quote :

"You missed the key part of my post--as usual."

no i didnt miss it. if some activist group bombs your empty warehouse that has no chance of any casualties..

its not terrorism.

its economic warfare

8/8/2008 4:42:46 PM

8/8/2008 4:45:59 PM

so you concede, finally. good. i was tired of all your "youre a retard" "youve got a tiny wee wee" "stfu" "stupid stupid stupid" argumentation devices anyhow.

8/8/2008 4:48:54 PM

Quote :

"Note that ELF hasn't claimed responsibility for the firebombing of that biologist's home. They supposedly try to avoid harming people."

maybe because the ELF is the Earth Liberation Front
the ALF is more likely to have done this - the Animal Liberation Front

8/8/2008 5:03:53 PM

SMACKDOWN!!!!



VS.






[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2008 8:05:25 PM

I'm not too familiar with ALF. Are they as squeamish as ELF about harming humans?

8/8/2008 9:01:11 PM

ALF technically doesn't have membership or a leader.

Quote :

"Volunteers are expected to stick to the ALF's stated aims when using its banner. Any direct action that contradicts these aims — and in particular the provision not to harm human or non-human life — may not be claimed as an ALF act: * To inflict economic damage on those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals. * To liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms etc., and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering. * To reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing nonviolent direct actions and liberations * To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human. * Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF."

8/8/2008 10:20:12 PM

hmmm i was going to join ALF, but i just had a 16 ounce ribeye

8/8/2008 10:22:49 PM