Alex W. wrote:
> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >>> Mattb. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Feds: Houston man tried to plant bomb near Hermann Park
> > > > > Confederate statue
> > > > >
> > > > > Monday, August 21, 2017 05:18PM HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK)
> > > > > -- A Houston man has been arrested after being accused
> > > > > by authorities of trying to damage or destroy a
> > > > > Confederate statue at a Houston park with explosives.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Since when was iconoclasm terrorism?
> > >
> > > Once you've graduated to explosives, you've kinda crossed
> > > a line.
> >
> > No, the line that matters is not what technology you use
> > but "intent to endanger life". Destroying statues
> > terrorises only other statues.
> >
>
> So by that definition, if I place a bomb in a public
> building and then ring the police to warn them so they can
> evacuate the place, does that mean my act would not be
> terrorism? What about the IRA then? In many of their
> attacks, they made genuine efforts to avoid loss of life in
> the manner I described above. Does that mean they are not
> terrorists but merely vandals? What about the Animal
> Liberation Front? They invade and destroy private
> property. They steal and set free animals.
In this case i am conflicted, as what goes on in these
animal testing laboratories is horrendous. And for what?
Many of the tests are studies for superfluous items such as
cosmetics -- crap we can live without. It's absolutely
reprehensible.
> They threaten researcher and their families, both at the
> office and at home. But with very rare exceptions, they do
> not perpetrate violence against persons. So should we
> remove them from the list of terrorist organisations?
I dunno. A gray area perhaps.
The ALF is targeting a very limited and very specific group
of people, not the "general public", and the ALF are only
fighting to protect those creatures from mental and physical
torture, or death, who cannot protect themselves, so i would
say this does not fall within the broader requirements of
terrorism (especially political terrorism). Kudoes to them
for restraining from violence as much as they have. I would
urge them to focus on obtaining video evidence of what goes
on in these places, and then releasing it to the media.
I watched a scientific documentary not long ago concerning
the detrimental effects of solitary confinment on human
beings. And a test was conducted in which a young chimp was
placed into complete isolation until it basically went
insane, and even after returning the chimp to a group
setting, it could no longer socialize in a normal fashion.
It had become aggressive and was easily disturbed by even
the slightest of stimulus.
Look, i understand how these test can reveal great insights
into psychological and physiological conditions, but that
realization doesn't make the process any less cruel. Can
such torture be justified, even in the name of science?
> In short, I believe that "intent to endanger life" is too
> narrow a definition. What matters is the use of fear and
> violence in general -- against objects as well as people --
> with the aim of changing public perception and behaviour.
> Blowing up or otherwise destroying symbols of national and
> cultural identity would certainly qualify.
The sane solution to all this political violence is to use
your freedom of speech to protest. Protest everyday if you
must. Eventually, and if you are on the right side of the
issue, people will support you. One thing is for sure: if
you try to effect social change too quickly, you risk civil
war. These things take time. Patience is the key.