Printable View
Why would this not be considered a terrorist act? It was a home grown terrorist, no different than any other terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist act was it not? That one was just a white dude pissed off at the government, still a terrorist.
As you are all informed and intelligent people I don't think we can argue whether this was a terrorist attack until we come to an agreement on the definition of terrorist attack.
I thing we can all agree that it was a hate crime.
What boxes do you think need to be ticked in order for something to qualify as a terrorist attack?
Edit:
Just to make it a little more complicated; can someone who does not qualify as a "Terrorist" still commit an act of terror? (in the same way that anyone can provide physical therapy but only those qualified can claim to be Physiotherapists)
It sounds on the surface more like a hate crime or at the minimum premeditated murder.
It would not be unusual for charges to be "upgraded" to reflect terrorism based on the progression of the investigation, meaning forensics, suspect background checks/reviews, motive and even psychological evaluations.
However, early on(as officials look at the easier evidence to determine) it seems more hate crime than an act of codified terror.(which is more difficult to determine benchmarked against the written text/definition of terrorism)
I define a terrorist,in it's purest sense,as a foreign combatant or enemy agent that enters a country to specifically bring death and destruction to it's residents to advance a "cause" to a political end ie: the 9/11 hijackers. Can there be home-grown terrorists? I believe in rare circumstances like Oklahoma City,yes. To label every incident of mass murder a terrorist attack as opposed to the acts of miscreant village idiots is a total misnomer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
The short answer Rugger is yes it can be an act of terror and not be terrorism. There is a difference in the political term terrorism and what law text tries to spell out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
Generally there are 3 components ex. international terrorism, domestic terrorism and transnational terrorism. With that in the background, most governments attempt to codify the act with those things in mind along with any religious, political and ideological perspective.
These things(mentioned above) are what can make an official charge of terrorism difficult to prosecute unless there is clear evidence via background investigation(he was a member of a terrorist group), and how the final act was supported via the obtaining of weapons, any accomplices, prior actions and interviews with him and all his contacts.
I think it works backwards, committing the act of terror makes them a terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
I don't see how they have to be foreign to be a terrorist, ask black Americans if the KKK were terrorists of not or if the IRA were terrorists to the British occupiers or the Israelis/Palestinians to the other side.
In reality, and based on the facts of the evidence, it may very well meet the contextualized definition of your Criminal Code wrt terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
However that doesn't automatically mean any or every murder or mass murder is for example, terrorism, an act of war, hate crime and so forth.
So by your definition of terrorism, a strike on an enemy which induces terror among the enemy is an act of terrorism and makes the people that did the attack terrorists...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Just to throw a couple hand fulls of mud in to the water to cloud it even more...Two examples one question..
1) A member of the French Resistence shoots a german solder...
2) A member of ths French Resistence shoots a german civilian...
Which one is a terrorist act?
It is all perspective, if you are the German army both, if you are a German civilian and a sympathizer to the German army both, if you are a German civilian and not a sympathizer to the German army then only #2. If you are the French Resistance then neither, if you are the Allied army, probably neither, if you are an outsider civilian probably #2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
There is no cut and dry answer. Do we consider someone walking into a school terrorism, I think you would call that a mass shooting. If you consider someone walking into that same school and shooting it up with an agenda of anti-government, race based belief or if that school was targeted due to a religious, political or race based reasons then I would say it was terrorism. That being said sympathizers of that shooter would not call that terrorism but rather a war that they are fighting.
If you feel that this guy was justified in their actions due to religious fear and hatred towards Muslims then I do not think you would call it terrorism but if you believe this man targeted this Mosque for the sole reason that they were there and should be removed and you think that this is a problem then I do not see how you can say this was not terrorism.
If this was a Muslim man attacking a Catholic church nobody here would be saying anything other than terrorism, even if the man was born in a Canadian suburb.
Definition of terrorism as per our Department of Justice:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/c...rr09_6/p3.html
"In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems."