hello friends, Now we will talk about terrorism. People are already arguing over whether the Austin bombings — in which a 23-year-old white man from Texas is suspected of having carried out a spate of deadly bombings in and around Austin in recent days — should be labeled as "terrorist attacks."
But the debate over which acts should and shouldn't be labeled "terrorism" is nothing new. Historian J. Bowyer Bell once said: "Tell me what you think about terrorism, and I will tell you who you are."
If and how you apply the terrorism label depends on who you are and what your purpose is. For example, many in the American Muslim community object that only events linked to "radical Islam" are labeled as terrorism by politicians and the media — while attacks by white supremacists and neo-Nazis, such as the 2015 mass shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, aren't.
As a result, it is often said that there is "no definition of terrorism." But that's not quite accurate. What people mean is that there is no one standard definition of terrorism that everyone agrees on. It's not that we don't have a definition for terrorism; it's that we have too many.
To help understand what people are actually saying when they use the word "terrorism," it's useful to think about terrorism as three different things: a tactic, a legal term, and a political label. Understanding each of these ways the "terrorism" label is used will help you understand why different people call different things "terrorism" — and why it's such a controversial, but important, term.
=> How law enforcement thinks: terrorism as a legal term ;
On December 4, 2015, the FBI announced that it was officially investigating the San Bernardino shooting as "an act of terrorism." However, this came only one day after the same FBI official, when asked whether the attack was terrorism, said, "It would be irresponsible and premature for me to call this terrorism. The FBI defines terrorism very specifically, and that is the big question for us, what is the motivation for this."
So what gives? What's the big deal with not wanting to call it "terrorism" when the FBI clearly was already thinking it was?
The answer has a lot to do with the fact that the FBI is a law enforcement organization and is part of the US Department of Justice. The FBI's primary job is to investigate crimes with the goal of bringing the perpetrators to justice — in other words, to prosecute criminals in a court of law. This means the FBI's understanding of what constitutes "terrorism" has much less to do with how it views the circumstances of an attack, and much more to do with whether or not the facts of the case meet the very specific legal criteria used to prosecute someone on terrorism charges.
Under federal law, "international terrorism" means activities that:
1}Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
2}Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
3}Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the US, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum
=>"Domestic terrorism" means activities that:
1}Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
2}Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
3}Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the US
4}Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct
5}Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the US)
Friends, it was my opinion that you also give your opinions on subway and comment