Political Randomness

[El Guapo]

I kind of expect, though, that his browser history will eventually make this all crystal clear.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex ... er-n924166

A senior law enforcement official said that the image contained on the Brennan device that appears to be an ISIS flag is in fact a mocking parody of it. The official confirmed that the words “Get ‘Er Done” were on the device.

The “Get ‘Er Done” flag was originally created in 2014 by the right-wing parody site World News Bureau, for an article titled “ISIS Vows Retribution for Counterfeit Flags.” It has since been shared as a meme on right-wing websites and forums.

I think the safe bet at this point is: Alt-Right Terrorist

I'm pretty sure that the perpetrator is Larry the Cable Guy.

[Defiant]

I'm thinking Joe the Plumber is a likely suspect. I mean, consider all those pipes hes got. What other reason could he have for having access to those many pipes, if not to make pipe bombs?

[El Guapo]

I'm thinking Joe the Plumber is a likely suspect. I mean, consider all those pipes hes got. What other reason could he have for having access to those many pipes, if not to make pipe bombs?

I dunno. None of the bombs went off though, right? I would assume that Joe the Plumber would know enough about pipes to be able to get at least *one* of them to go off. Though maybe his knowledge of explosives isn't as hot as his knowledge of pipes.

[malchior]

I think the safe bet at this point is: Alt-Right Terrorist

That what they want you to think! Obvious false flag operation!

[Kraken]

I understood that you meant general terror, I just don't understand why you would think that.

Is the general populace terrorised because these specific, related targets were threatened?

That makes no sense to me. Unless you're Michelle Obama or a CNN producer why on earth would this make you afraid for your own life in any way, shape or form?

I guess I'm confused as to how this is terrifying in the way you suggest.

Sometimes the point of terror is radicalize the susceptible or make other violence seem more possible.

Everyone who heard the bomb news and isn't appalled just got that much closer to normalizing extremes.

Last night Wife's train was delayed at Park Street station due to an unspecified "emergency." When she texted to tell me, she said "Hope it's not a pipe bomb." Not that it was likely, but when the news is all-bombs-all-day, it crosses one's mind...especially while the story is still developing.

Terrorism makes Bostonians a little touchy since the 9/11 flights originated here and we had the Marathon bombing. It is not a huge stretch to think that someone might put a bomb on the T.

To be honest, 'inspire others to act' was one of the first things that jumped to my mind, too. The tension has been building before, and when that happens, it's often a single incident that causes the dam to crack. I could absolutely see someone trying to create that incident. Rational? No. But someone sent bombs to a huge number of public figures. Rationality isn't a given.

Yup. But I'm leaning toward "lone wolf Unabomber" until there's evidence for something more insidious.

[El Guapo]

I understood that you meant general terror, I just don't understand why you would think that.

Is the general populace terrorised because these specific, related targets were threatened?

That makes no sense to me. Unless you're Michelle Obama or a CNN producer why on earth would this make you afraid for your own life in any way, shape or form?

I guess I'm confused as to how this is terrifying in the way you suggest.

Sometimes the point of terror is radicalize the susceptible or make other violence seem more possible.

Everyone who heard the bomb news and isn't appalled just got that much closer to normalizing extremes.

Last night Wife's train was delayed at Park Street station due to an unspecified "emergency." When she texted to tell me, she said "Hope it's not a pipe bomb." Not that it was likely, but when the news is all-bombs-all-day, it crosses one's mind...especially while the story is still developing.

Terrorism makes Bostonians a little touchy since the 9/11 flights originated here and we had the Marathon bombing. It is not a huge stretch to think that someone might put a bomb on the T.

To be honest, 'inspire others to act' was one of the first things that jumped to my mind, too. The tension has been building before, and when that happens, it's often a single incident that causes the dam to crack. I could absolutely see someone trying to create that incident. Rational? No. But someone sent bombs to a huge number of public figures. Rationality isn't a given.

Yup. But I'm leaning toward "lone wolf Unabomber" until there's evidence for something more insidious.

Given his targets he's almost certainly acting based upon far-right political conspiracy theories, even if he's only part of a revolution in his own mind.

Also, what the hell does Sanders need to do to get a pipe bomb? He's got to be pretty offended.

[GreenGoo]

I kind of expect, though, that his browser history will eventually make this all crystal clear.

Shrug. That's like saying that listening to Fox where people call Democrats literal demons makes one a terrorist if they suddenly start buffy the demonhunter slaying democrats.

The chances that he's a right-wing nutjob that reads right-wing nutjob sites? High.

Does that make him a terrorist for acting on the rhetoric? My view is not necessarily.

In any case, as ILB states, Americans are generally ok with calling a wide variety of acts and motives as terrorism. And that's fine. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, as it depends on the circumstances in my opinion, but ok.

I'll withdraw my claims that this isn't necessarily terrorism because we are clearly looking at this from different frames of reference. It's still annoying to hear the terrorist boogeyman dragged out over every act of violence, as unwarranted fear of terrorism is what got you where you are in the first place, re: homeland security and the TSA. That fear is continually stoked by your political leaders.

But that's not for me to decide. Consider the matter closed from my end at least.

Terrorism it is.

[malchior]

I kind of expect, though, that his browser history will eventually make this all crystal clear.

Shrug. That's like saying that listening to Fox where people call Democrats literal demons makes one a terrorist if they suddenly start buffy the demonhunter slaying democrats.

The chances that he's a right-wing nutjob that reads right-wing nutjob sites? High.

Does that make him a terrorist for acting on the rhetoric? My view is not necessarily.

This statement potentially flies in the face of the definition of terrorism. If there was any political angle to this then it was terrorism.

In any case, as ILB states, Americans are generally ok with calling a wide variety of acts and motives as terrorism. And that's fine. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, as it depends on the circumstances in my opinion, but ok.

I'll withdraw my claims that this isn't necessarily terrorism because we are clearly looking at this from different frames of reference. It's still annoying to hear the terrorist boogeyman dragged out over every act of violence, as unwarranted fear of terrorism is what got you where you are in the first place, re: homeland security and the TSA. That fear is continually stoked by your political leaders.

But that's not for me to decide. Consider the matter closed from my end at least.

Terrorism it is.

You are talking about a larger picture and I agree to an extent but this one is pretty much not an exaggeration. The law is as the below and this very, very, very likely falls into this definition of domestic terrorism.

A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

[GreenGoo]

I kind of expect, though, that his browser history will eventually make this all crystal clear.

Shrug. That's like saying that listening to Fox where people call Democrats literal demons makes one a terrorist if they suddenly start buffy the demonhunter slaying democrats.

The chances that he's a right-wing nutjob that reads right-wing nutjob sites? High.

Does that make him a terrorist for acting on the rhetoric? My view is not necessarily.

This statement potentially flies in the face of the definition of terrorism. If there was any political angle to this then it was terrorism.

In any case, as ILB states, Americans are generally ok with calling a wide variety of acts and motives as terrorism. And that's fine. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, as it depends on the circumstances in my opinion, but ok.

I'll withdraw my claims that this isn't necessarily terrorism because we are clearly looking at this from different frames of reference. It's still annoying to hear the terrorist boogeyman dragged out over every act of violence, as unwarranted fear of terrorism is what got you where you are in the first place, re: homeland security and the TSA. That fear is continually stoked by your political leaders.

But that's not for me to decide. Consider the matter closed from my end at least.

Terrorism it is.

You are talking about a larger picture and I agree to an extent but this one is pretty much not an exaggeration. The law is as the below and this very, very, very likely falls into this definition of domestic terrorism.

A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

God damn it.

First, that all political violence is terrorism is an insane definition. That makes riots terrorism, unlawfully protesting (as per, for example, armed occupation of Federal property) terrorism, and a wide slate of other acts. Is getting in a drunken bar fight over politics also terrorism?

I have little interest in the legal definition of terrorism, because quite frankly, who cares what the government thinks? They are not the final arbiter of the english language and again, quite frankly, are prone to defining things in ways that best promotes their interests. What's the penalty for domestic terrorism under this definition?

I've already backed out, but come on...that was outrageous.

[malchior]

God damn it.

First, that all political violence is terrorism is an insane definition.

I didn't say that. The intent was that if someone sent these *bombs* for a political reason then it is terrorism. And that is the *definition* of terrorism. From the dictionary and common sense.

I have little interest in the legal definition of terrorism, because quite frankly, who cares what the government thinks? They are not the final arbiter of the english language and again, quite frankly, are prone to defining things in ways that best promotes their interests. What's the penalty for domestic terrorism under this definition?

So what ethical baseline should we align to? I would think that when discussing this most people would start here.

I've already backed out, but come on...that was outrageous.

Only because you completely ignored the context. Riots? Unlawful protests? You are living in your own head here, man.

[Paingod]

quite frankly, who cares what the government thinks?

What they think determines who ends up in jail for breaking the rules they've set. I tend to care, but only insofar as wanting to keep my own ass out of a cell with someone who's interested in it.

In terms of the English language... I'd pull out a dictionary.

terrorism (noun)
ter·ror·ism | \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm \
Definition of terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

To head off the debate over systematic:

systematic (adjective)
sys·tem·at·ic | \ˌsi-stə-ˈma-tik \
Definition of systematic
1 : relating to or consisting of a system
2 : presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles systematic thought
3a : methodical in procedure or plan
a systematic approach
a systematic scholar
b : marked by thoroughness and regularity
systematic efforts
4 : of, relating to, or concerned with classification
specifically : TAXONOMIC

It's very easy to argue that several bomb-like devices sent to several people sharing a set of ideals is a systematic (methodical in procedure or plan) use of terror - without even finding out the senders motive first.

[GreenGoo]

didn't say that. The intent was that if someone sent these *bombs* for a political reason then it is terrorism. And that is the *definition* of terrorism. From the dictionary and common sense.

Bullshit. How is mailing a bomb any different than a drive-by? Are drive-by's terrorism? Are assassinations terrorism? Was Booth a terrorist? Killing someone to achieve something political does not automatically make it terrorism. What's special about politics? If someone were to mail pipe bombs to every member of the HOA, is that terrorism? Who's being terrorized, as opposed to killed outright? If it's not, then what's different about national politics as opposed to, say, HOA politics? If it is terrorism, then...wtf?

We are on completely different wavelengths here and we're not likely to meet in the middle.

No wonder Americans are hyper-focused on terrorism. Everything is terrorism.

[GreenGoo]

What they think determines who ends up in jail for breaking the rules they've set. I tend to care, but only insofar as wanting to keep my own ass out of a cell with someone who's interested in it.

In terms of the English language... I'd pull out a dictionary.

terrorism (noun)
ter·ror·ism | \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm \
Definition of terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

To head off the debate over systematic:

Systematic isn't the issue. It's coercion.

In what universe is killing someone a form of persuasion?

If it helps, my original version of "who cares.." ended with "...except those worried about being labeled terrorist?"

I'm confident based on the reasoning used so far, and barring some other, heretofore unmentioned reasoning, that you are not going to convince me, so find something more productive to do. I accept that Americans view this as terrorism. That's all you're gonna get outta me.

edit: Lost in this is the fact that I could still see this as terrorism, depending on the investigation. What's the difference between killing someone because you don't like them, versus killing someone as a lesson to others? Can it be one without the other? That's the sticking point here, I believe.

[El Guapo]

What they think determines who ends up in jail for breaking the rules they've set. I tend to care, but only insofar as wanting to keep my own ass out of a cell with someone who's interested in it.

In terms of the English language... I'd pull out a dictionary.

terrorism (noun)
ter·ror·ism | \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm \
Definition of terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

To head off the debate over systematic:

Systematic isn't the issue. It's coercion.

In what universe is killing someone a form of persuasion?

If it helps, my original version of "who cares.." ended with "...except those worried about being labeled terrorist?"

I'm confident based on the reasoning used so far, and barring some other, heretofore unmentioned reasoning, that you are not going to convince me, so find something more productive to do. I accept that Americans view this as terrorism. That's all you're gonna get outta me.

I am curious what your definition of terrorism is.

[malchior]

didn't say that. The intent was that if someone sent these *bombs* for a political reason then it is terrorism. And that is the *definition* of terrorism. From the dictionary and common sense.

Bullshit. How is mailing a bomb any different than a drive-by? Are drive-by's terrorism? Are assassinations terrorism? Was Booth a terrorist? Killing someone to achieve something political does not automatically make it terrorism. What's special about politics? If someone were to mail pipe bombs to every member of the HOA, is that terrorism? Who's being terrorized, as opposed to killed outright? If it's not, then what's different about national politics as opposed to, say, HOA politics? If it is terrorism, then...wtf?

The only thing being terrorized here is logic.

We are on completely different wavelengths here and we're not likely to meet in the middle.

I couldn't agree more. There is no reasonable discussion to be had here.

[GreenGoo]

The main purpose of terrorism is to inspire fear, presumably on a large scale. How large a scale? That's up for debate.

In the stylings of Paingod, beating your wife because you didn't like what she made for dinner? Not terrorism. Beating her in front of the kids to keep them in line? Terrorism.

edit: Killing Obama because he's Obama? Not terrorism. Making an example of Obama so that other Democrats will be afraid to be Democrats? Terrorism. Can it be both? Sure, of course. Can it be one without the other?

edit: Reworded something.

[GreenGoo]

The only thing being terrorized here is logic.

Sure. Dude, the whole point is that I don't buy your definition of terrorism. How you think using it as an insult is going to mean anything to me...

[Combustible Lemur]

didn't say that. The intent was that if someone sent these *bombs* for a political reason then it is terrorism. And that is the *definition* of terrorism. From the dictionary and common sense.

Bullshit. How is mailing a bomb any different than a drive-by? Are drive-by's terrorism? Are assassinations terrorism? Was Booth a terrorist? Killing someone to achieve something political does not automatically make it terrorism. What's special about politics? If someone were to mail pipe bombs to every member of the HOA, is that terrorism? Who's being terrorized, as opposed to killed outright? If it's not, then what's different about national politics as opposed to, say, HOA politics? If it is terrorism, then...wtf?

We are on completely different wavelengths here and we're not likely to meet in the middle.

No wonder Americans are hyper-focused on terrorism. Everything is terrorism.

didn't say that. The intent was that if someone sent these *bombs* for a political reason then it is terrorism. And that is the *definition* of terrorism. From the dictionary and common sense.

Bullshit. How is mailing a bomb any different than a drive-by? Are drive-by's terrorism? Are assassinations terrorism? Was Booth a terrorist? Killing someone to achieve something political does not automatically make it terrorism. What's special about politics? If someone were to mail pipe bombs to every member of the HOA, is that terrorism? Who's being terrorized, as opposed to killed outright? If it's not, then what's different about national politics as opposed to, say, HOA politics? If it is terrorism, then...wtf?

We are on completely different wavelengths here and we're not likely to meet in the middle.

No wonder Americans are hyper-focused on terrorism. Everything is terrorism.

It's not really other than prep time and scale and of intended target.
Yes, localized, but yes
Yes he probably was. If he were a government actor less so.
Of course not. Particularly if the perpetrator acts at the order of government and adheres to international laws.
Politics is the actions of the state. And thus is considered special.
Yes. Presuming its Just psychopathy.
Those where the psychological collateral is equivalent to the physical initial harm.
I don't see a difference. Other than semantic.

And to your other question.
All universes. Homicide is the ultimate persuasion. Inefficient maybe but homicide(state approved or otherwise) people gets all kinds of desired effects some better than others.

Military
Justice department
Robbers
Nazis
Dictators
Serial killers.

Death and the threat there of are very powerful motivators.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[malchior]

The only thing being terrorized here is logic.

Sure. Dude, the whole point is that I don't buy your definition of terrorism. How you think using it as an insult is going to mean anything to me...

The whole point isn't that it is mine. It is "society's". And not just in America - you'll find fairly similar definitions in use throughout the West including Canada. And as to the 'insult' - your examples were literally illogical. I won't dissect them but you don't even build straw-men to knock down. You made up wisps of non-logic to knock down.

[GreenGoo]

It's not really other than prep time and scale and of intended target.
Yes, localized, but yes
Yes he probably was. If he were a government actor less so.
Of course not. Particularly if the perpetrator acts at the order of government and adheres to international laws.
Politics is the actions of the state. And thus is considered special.
Yes. Presuming its Just psychopathy.
Those where the psychological collateral is equivalent to the physical initial harm.
I don't see a difference. Other than semantic.

And to your other question

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

See, I get that this is how many people here define terrorism. I was never confused by that part. I'm confused that you think that definition is appropriate. When you assassinate someone, who's being terrorized? Is the purpose of the assassination to terrorize those people?

It was alluded to earlier that Oswald was not a terrorist. I agree. I don't see these pipe bombs any differently, potentially.

[GreenGoo]

The whole point isn't that it is mine. It is societies. And not just America - you'll find fairly similar definitions in use throughout the West including Canada. And as to the 'insult' - your examples were literally illogical. I won't dissect them but you don't even build straw-men to knock down. You made up wisps of non-logic to knock down.

Everybody says so.

Terrorism has to have, at it's core, purposefully creating fear to be defined as terrorism, no? If not, then of course we have nothing to say to each other, but it's not me that's illogical.

What's the difference between rebels, guerillas and terrorists? Is there one?

[Combustible Lemur]

It's not really other than prep time and scale and of intended target.
Yes, localized, but yes
Yes he probably was. If he were a government actor less so.
Of course not. Particularly if the perpetrator acts at the order of government and adheres to international laws.
Politics is the actions of the state. And thus is considered special.
Yes. Presuming its Just psychopathy.
Those where the psychological collateral is equivalent to the physical initial harm.
I don't see a difference. Other than semantic.

And to your other question

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

See, I get that this is how many people here define terrorism. I was never confused by that part. I'm confused that you think that definition is appropriate. When you assassinate someone, who's being terrorized? Is the purpose of the assassination to terrorize those people?

It was alluded to earlier that Oswald was not a terrorist. I agree. I don't see these pipe bombs any differently, potentially.

It's that presumably if you assassinate enough leaders the leftists will stop resisting.
It's what we do in the middle east. It was our intention in Vietnam. It was part of the calculus in Iraq 1.
Shock and awe. Scare them so bad they quit. Nobody said it was effective.

Other than 9/11, that couldn't have been more successful we still define ourselves by how scary it was.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

It's that presumably if you assassinate enough leaders the leftists will stop resisting.

Doesn't that have to be the goal for it to be terrorism? Or is terrorism just a byproduct?

[Combustible Lemur]

The whole point isn't that it is mine. It is societies. And not just America - you'll find fairly similar definitions in use throughout the West including Canada. And as to the 'insult' - your examples were literally illogical. I won't dissect them but you don't even build straw-men to knock down. You made up wisps of non-logic to knock down.

Everybody says so.

Terrorism has to have, at it's core, purposefully creating fear to be defined as terrorism, no? If not, then of course we have nothing to say to each other, but it's not me that's illogical.

What's the difference between rebels, guerillas and terrorists? Is there one?

Often no. In fact most terrorists would define themselves as precisely that.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Combustible Lemur]

It's that presumably if you assassinate enough leaders the leftists will stop resisting.

Doesn't that have to be the goal for it to be terrorism? Or is terrorism just a byproduct?

Depends on who's in office.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[malchior]

The whole point isn't that it is mine. It is societies. And not just America - you'll find fairly similar definitions in use throughout the West including Canada. And as to the 'insult' - your examples were literally illogical. I won't dissect them but you don't even build straw-men to knock down. You made up wisps of non-logic to knock down.

Everybody says so.

Terrorism has to have, at it's core, purposefully creating fear to be defined as terrorism, no? If not, then of course we have nothing to say to each other, but it's not me that's illogical.

What's the difference between rebels and terrorists?

Context. Context matters. They aren't exclusive or inclusive of each other. That is why I'm questioning your logic here. I agree there is a extremely small chance this wasn't terrorism. But only in a world where the perpetrator didn't believe these were political figures and/or targeted them for political reasons. Which would be odd since nearly all of them are politicians. And politicians from one party to boot. And I suppose didn't think that'd stoke fear. But logic leans heavily against that possibility.

[GreenGoo]

Often no. In fact most terrorists would define themselves as precisely that.

Fair enough. Is there any way to objectively differentiate between them? Or are all these terms subjective? And if they are subjective, that kind of makes their definition fluid, yes?

[Combustible Lemur]

Often no. In fact most terrorists would define themselves as precisely that.

Fair enough. Is there any way to objectively differentiate between them? Or are all these terms subjective? And if they are subjective, that kind of makes their definition fluid, yes?

No,
Yes

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

Context. Context matters. They aren't exclusive or inclusive of each other. That is why I'm questioning your logic here. I agree there is a extremely small chance this wasn't terrorism. But only in a world where the perpetrator didn't believe these were political figures and/or targeted them for political reasons. Which would be odd since nearly all of them are politicians. And politicians from one party to boot. And I suppose didn't think that'd stoke fear. But logic leans heavily against that possibility.

Of course context matters. As I asked Lemur, is fear the driving force or just a byproduct? That's how I define terrorism. Because you know what? I shitload of actions create fear, sometimes unintentionally. Even within the context we're discussing.

edit: Added a sentence.

[GreenGoo]

No,
Yes

Ok, good. As I said, I accept that your definition exists for you and others here on the board.

[Combustible Lemur]

No,
Yes

Ok, good. As I said, I accept that your definition exists for you and others here on the board.

It's the common usage. I've listened to a middling number of interviews with state, defense, and operational agents talking about terrorism. And a through line is that once you get past the politics. Terrorism isn't really a useful term because it's loaded and fluid.
For criminal justice focus on laws, facts, and evidence. Not motive
For state , it's way the fuck too complicated to just scream turrorists!
For defense, again complicated, and focus on concrete actions, and relationships.

I am zero level expert, but it makes sense to me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

Here, this might help the discussion since it seems we're continuing.

Malheur debate

If all Americans can't agree that the Malheur occupation was terrorism, but some think it was, while others think it wasn't, I'd say the statement that "you'll find fairly similar definitions in use throughout the West including Canada" is not even true for all Americans, let alone "the West".

[GreenGoo]

It's the common usage.

In the US certainly. Post-9/11, probably, although it's nothing but a hunch that I'm not interested in investigating, because...it's work.

[Paingod]

What's the difference between rebels, guerillas and terrorists? Is there one?

Very often, nothing. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The difference is who wins and how history records it.

This isn't a rebellious movement engaging in guerrilla warfare with an enemy, though. This is a nutjob trying to stoke fear in his opponents. The terror - and thus coercion - comes in trying to push people out of the Democratic party or out of siding with them for fear of their lives.

[El Guapo]

What's the difference between rebels, guerillas and terrorists? Is there one?

Very often, nothing. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The difference is who wins and how history records it.

This isn't a rebellious movement engaging in guerrilla warfare with an enemy, though. This is a nutjob trying to stoke fear in his opponents. The terror - and thus coercion - comes in trying to push people out of the Democratic party or out of siding with them for fear of their lives.

There are differences between rebels / guerrillas and terrorists. Rebels typically are not setting out to influence or coerce the government; they're hoping to replace it entirely. Terrorists are setting out to change the behavior of governments or other political entities through violence.

Though a terrorist group can morph into a rebel group if they start to get enough men under arms, and their goals / methods shift.

[GreenGoo]

I know that no one is going to call wikipedia definitive, but I'm linking to it anyway. Not because it supports my view (I have no idea if it does edit: I hadn't read it at this point), but because the idea that "everyone knows" what terrorism is, is an assertion without a basis in fact. That *I'm* the illogical one because I don't agree with one of the definitions used here on the board annoys me.

There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon and legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.[3] In the United States of America, for example, Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."[4] According to Matusitz (2013), terrorism includes the following:[5]

It's clear that by this definition, the American definition, these pipe bombs are terrorism. I suppose that explains the insistence here that the acts are "obviously terrorism, any discussion otherwise is illogical because <see American definition of terrorism>".

In the meantime, the international community adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. In addition, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[10]

I think it's clear that the sticking point for me is whether these pipe bombs were "intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror". It very clearly is for most of you, I guess? For me, it is not. Trying to kill someone is not automatically "intended or calculated to provoke", even when the targets are leaders of a political group, or even when it is a natural outcome for some to experience fear as a result. Sometimes cutting off the head of the serpent is just cutting off the head of the serpent. Whether that means the serpent is afraid to grow another head is beside the fact.

edit: added

A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the United States Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[11] Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls".[12]

How many of the the 109 definitions would classify these bombs as terrorism, I have no idea. It's possible they all would. Or not.

[GreenGoo]

So again, I accept that many of you define this act as inherently terrorism. That I don't agree is irrelevant, and that the world has yet to reach a consensus is irrelevant to how Americans view it.

If you would extend to me the courtesy of not calling my position illogical, I'd appreciate it. You don't even have to agree with my definition. Just accept that there is no consensus and that others may define it differently.

In exchange, I acknowledge that Kraken wasn't out of line when he immediately viewed these bombs as terrorism, which is where we started.

Kraken, I apologize to you. My definition is not your definition, but your definition is not wrong, no matter how much I agree/disagree with it.

[Holman]

What's the point of the fear caused by terrorism? It's not like producing fear is a final goal in itself.

The "terror" in terrorism is a means, not an end. We call it terrorism when it uses this means to do any number of things, including destabilizing society, demonstrating the weakness of one side, provoking overreaction, suppressing resistance to the terrorists, de-legitimizing the established order, normalizing violence as a replacement for normal politics, and, yes, provoking further acts of terror aimed at all these same things.

I hate the idea of any of these things happening. The fact that you and I don't really fear getting one of these bombs in our mailboxes doesn't mean the terror isn't ours. We might be terrified of the breakdown of traditional politics that will occur if extreme groups resort to more violence.

[GreenGoo]

What's the point of the fear caused by terrorism? It's not like producing fear is a final goal in itself.

Sure, but the final goal is not how you define terrorism. Otherwise voting would be terrorism.

The rest of your post, while true, is too esoteric for me to address. Too many actions have too many trickle down effects to include those effects as part of the definition of the original action, unless those effects are the specific result sought after by the original action.

At least in my opinion.

[LawBeefaroni]

I hate the idea of any of these things happening. The fact that you and I don't really fear getting one of these bombs in our mailboxes doesn't mean the terror isn't ours. We might be terrified of the breakdown of traditional politics that will occur if extreme groups resort to more violence.

So the slippery slope to actual terrorism is terrorism? There are several "ifs" there. It's not an illogical progression, certainly, but right now there isn't evidence of extreme groups resorting to more violence. Just some bombs in the mail.