Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
I think your answer addresses the question well: you're looking at the consequences for a definition, which is a practical approach since the ultimate effect is what's important from a public safety perspective.
I just question whether we should have a different reaction based not on consequences, but on causes. For example, Vincent Li (the bus beheader) isn't someone we think of as a terrorist, but if he was linked to ISIS (perhaps because his diseased mind gravitated to anything that appeared powerful or fearsome, and he adopted their superficialities) we might then label his attack terrorism or an attack on our country.
My question, I suppose, is really about our response to these two different kinds of actor. Because if our plan is to stop lunatics, we would be better off targeting lunacy rather than terrorism.
|
I think a good example to probe with this question is the Waco Siege. Most people would agree that David Koresh was a terrorist, but would you label his followers of Branch Davidians as terrorists, or as victims that were brainwashed into believing what they were doing was right? If the 76 fighting with him didn't die in the siege, would they have been charged and convicted of terrorist acts?