Read on Twitter
During the riots (as opposed to the overwhelmingly non-violent protests) there was an argument over whether property destruction was violence that could be considered 'terrorism'. Often the answer depends on if the perpetrator is "one of us or one of them"
A brief
A brief
First, a reminder about the components of terrorism:
1- violence or threat of violence
2- to intimidate or coerce a government or population
3- motivated by social, political, religious beliefs
1- violence or threat of violence
2- to intimidate or coerce a government or population
3- motivated by social, political, religious beliefs
Is the Klan burning a cross in the yard of an African-American terrorism? You bet.
Are animal rights extremists sending death threats to a researcher terrorism? Also yes.
Is conducting an undercover investigation into abuses at a factory terrorism? No.
Are animal rights extremists sending death threats to a researcher terrorism? Also yes.
Is conducting an undercover investigation into abuses at a factory terrorism? No.
Unfortunately, some legislation at the federal and state level came to define monetary loss as terrorism. It's one way the word 'terrorism' has been misused for political gain.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3880/text
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3880/text
Arguing that just because a particular group hasn't established a body count means they can't be terrorists is silly.
Likewise, not every protest, act of graffiti, or uncomfortable situation is the harbinger of global anarchy.
Obvious, but I feel like I see these repeatedly
Likewise, not every protest, act of graffiti, or uncomfortable situation is the harbinger of global anarchy.
Obvious, but I feel like I see these repeatedly
