Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
@Corsi
You see no particular reason to rely on the FBI to decide if these clowns are terrorists? You are aware the FBI is responsible for that actual function? You are aware they are responsible for dealing with those types of crimes? If the FBI isn't making the call, then who is responsible for making it?
|
Yes, I'm aware. But the fact that the FBI is making a call on what to do does not give them some sort of jurisdiction over the English lexicon. The meaning of words isn't dictated by a government agency from one particular country. We're asking, "what is terrorism? What does the word "terrorism" mean?" If your answer is, "Well, the FBI thinks X", that's not somehow the end of the discussion.
Quote:
|
It is funny, but when this type of thing (armed individuals take over a government building) has happened in other countries (Russia, Ukraine, Ireland, etc.) the groups were quickly identified as terrorists. What is the difference here? They have unlawfully occupied a government facility, brandishing weapons and stating their willingness to die for their politically motivated cause, while making demands of the government. That doesn't sound like terrorists to you?
|
I think where I've gotten to is that the terminology needs to make the distinction that I highlighted - that is, targeting civilians vs. not targeting civilians. If armed individuals take over a government building in the Ukraine but go out of their way to avoid harming civilians and specifically only target soldiers or other government individuals, I think we should call them something other than terrorists on the basis of those actions.
Of course, then we have to have a difficult discussion about borderline cases, like targeting civilian government representatives (eg a member of parliament), or targeting an off-duty soldier, and whether we should consider those people "civilians" for the purpose of the definition.