>terrorists. I think this is possibly the worst definition such a thing
>could ever be given. Drop the "fluff" in this description and you have
>"the threat of unlawful force against people or property". So someone
>could become a terrorist by making a verbal comment about
>key-scratching a politician's car. Way more than "wiggle room".
It's much more clear cut than that. The other half of the definition speaks to intent, and your hypothetical situation fails on the question of intent. Intimidation of governments and entire populations is the intent of terrorism. Taking Michael's example of homicide bombers in Israel, the express intent of the bombing campaign is to intimidate the civilian population and the government of Israel. Under those circumstances, just threatening to conduct these kinds of bombings should be enough to get someone brought up on conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, at the least.
I'll give you an example that is a little closer to your original one. Last year the ELF (Environmental Liberation Front), a militant environmentalist group, burned down a $20 million dollar apartment complex under construction a couple of miles from my house here in San Diego. They left threatening messages about conducting other such attacks, some of which they have since carried out. Is ELF a terrorist group, and was this a terrorist act, one of so-called eco-terrorism? I'm not sure what the real answer is, but my sense is that it is probably a criminal matter rather than an issue of national security.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
