dubbs wrote:
Just adding my two cents, by your definition of a terrorist, then police that are responding to a riot are terrorist. Instead of using the FBI as your source to define the word, you a dictionary, that is what they are for. According to mw.com (Mr Websters official site):
Terrorism
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
By that definition the solider are not terrorist. They were policing the streets, and we reacting to a riot, not defending themselves.
On a different note, did anyone see this in the American news? Shows how biased the CNN, I mean the American news is.
Well, the FBI makes up it's own definitions of terrorism rather than using a dictionary, and since they provide intelligence on what is and isn't terrorism in the world today why shouldn't I use their definition?
Do you mean "they were policing the streets, and
were reacting to a riot,
and defending themselves" or something else. If you do, do you honestly count dragging a person in cuffs out of sight of the crowd and beating them as defence?
Anyway, you're definition doesn't counter what I said. I don't see any here that do either:
Definitions of terrorism on the Web:
* is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/ … ssary.html * The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp * The systematic use of violence to achieve political ends is not new – among many other examples, it featured during The Troubles in Ireland before its independence in 1922. In recent decades, it has become a common tactic among a wide variety of groups, from independence movements to the secret services of various countries. ...
www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/h … ssary.html * use of terror, especially the systematic use of terror by the government or other authority against particular persons or groups; a method of opposing a government internally or externally through the use of terror
www.imuna.org/c2c/app_a.html * Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.
www.ecis.org/finance/paisdefin.htm * "Systematic use of terror, manifesting itself in violence and intimidation. Terrorism has been used by groups wishing to coerce a govt in order to achieve political or other objectives, and also by dictatorships or other autocratic governments in order to overcome opposition to their policies." [BFH] Often anti-terrorist mercenaries will only do a job if they have a carte blanche to do whatever they want. ...
www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/t3encyc.htm * Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations.
www.jafi.org.il/education/hasbara/glossary.html * The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change
wps.prenhall.com/chet_langan_preparing_1/0,9681,1613226-content,00.html
(Note: This definition talks about terrorism
against the government and ignores any other type, weird for a bar association site, eh?)
* a violent act in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, which is intended to intimidate or influence the policy of a government.
www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/respect/spr … ossary.cfm * Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of coercion including the use of force, intended to intimidate or coerce, and committed in support of political or social objectives.
www.austin.cc.tx.us/audit/Glossary/LetterT.htm * a psychological strategy of war for gaining political ends by deliberately creating a well-founded climate of fear among the civilian popuation. Such a strategy may be used by an occupying army on the occupied population. Many terrorist acts, especially against an occupying military or against illegal occupants are acts of war or resistance, and not terrorism.
www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm * the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Whatever definition you use, it seems to me that soldiers dragging children off the streets and beating them to discourage them from attending future protests against the occupation is terrorism. Political violence. If it was just to get the revenge then it is simple aggravated assault and battery as they misuse the crowd control batons they have been provided with to beat children in custody.
It seems to me as they did it because they were involved in a protest not because they had committed specific crimes, such as throwing rocks. They knew they didn't have proof to charge them, so they gave them a beating instead. You can't complain about terrorist threats and then use violence on civilians to attain your goals, that is hypocritical.
At least they are facing charges for this, although I expect the apparent unwillingness of the military to punish these actions by their soldiers will see them given very light sentences.
Oh, and police trying to break up a peaceful gathering to stop people spreading a message would be terrorist, those responding to a riot in progress with appropriate force would not be.
