I have a feeling, even if the World Trade Center has been completely depopulated on the morning of September 11th and the hijacked aircraft only had jihadists aboard, the event would have probably still been declared an act of terrorism.
The determination of what constitutes terrorism isn’t for us normies to make. The people in power get to have that particular privilege, regardless of what we feel.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Peeaonally, I think terrorism requires a certain scale of either malice or destruction. Flying jetliners into an empty icon of the country? Definitely terrorism. Crashing a little Cessna into a National Forest? Probably not terrorism.
tree_frog@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
It has to be organized for one. One random person going out and doing something regardless of what they do, isn’t terrorism domestic or otherwise.
And it doesn’t matter, Pam bondy isn’t really charging anyone under the domestic terrorism act. She’s charging folks for malicious destruction of government property. And the reason she can charge them this way, is because Tesla receives financial assistance from the federal government. So this puts them under a clause in the law that allows the Pam to charge them as though they had set fire to Air Force One or something similar.
All of the domestic terrorism stuff, that’s just political propaganda. It doesn’t actually reflect what she is charging people with.
comfy@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
I disagree. Consider racist mass shootings by lone perpetrators. It’s clearly an act attempting to incite terror and tension, many of them make it clear in their manifestos that they’re trying to spark a ‘race war’. But it’s not organized, beyond being the result of stochastic terrorism.
tree_frog@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
I meant the legal definition. But I apparently misread it the other day when I was looking at it.
My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That’s reasonable.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
The definition of terrorism usually runs along the lines of, engaging in acts to cause fear for the purpose of achieving political goals. So, stalking someone isn’t terrorism, but sending pictures of a politician in various locations with crosshairs drawn on them saying you will follow through unless/if they do x would be.
Now, the question becomes, are these arsonists setting fire to Tesla vehicles and showrooms because they want Musk to stop his political antics or because Musk is a giant asshole? I honestly think you could get reasonable doubt on that, provided you actually had a fair trial and weren’t dropped in a deep, dark hole somewhere.