Terrorism?

[jon-nyc]

@LuFins-Dad said in Terrorism?:

Is burning a cross on a lawn terrorism?

It might be, but burning a dumpster isn’t. The cross burning medium is its own message in a way that car and dumpster burning isn’t.

[Jolly]

Maybe if they blew up a power station...

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in Terrorism?:

@LuFins-Dad said in Terrorism?:

Is burning a cross on a lawn terrorism?

It might be, but burning a dumpster isn’t. The cross burning medium is its own message in a way that car and dumpster burning isn’t.

Lighting a Tesla on fire isn’t a message?

[LuFins Dad]

And last I checked, arson is a violent crime.

[jon-nyc]

Is burning a flag terrorism? If it’s not your flag?

[A Former User]

Is burning down a car dealership in protest of the goverment's actions terrorism?

ChatGPT:

Yes, burning down a car dealership in protest could be considered an act of terrorism, depending on the legal definition used.

Why It Could Be Considered Terrorism:
1. Use of Violence or Destruction – Deliberately setting fire to property is an act of violence and destruction.
2. Political Motivation – If the intent is to influence government policy or intimidate officials, it aligns with definitions of terrorism.
3. Risk to Public Safety – Arson is dangerous, potentially harming innocent people, firefighters, or spreading beyond the intended target.

Legal Perspective:
• In the U.S., the FBI defines domestic terrorism as acts that endanger human life and are intended to coerce or intimidate for political or social purposes.
• In other countries, the definition varies, but violent acts against property for political reasons often fall under terrorism or criminal arson.

When It Might Not Be Labeled as Terrorism:
• If it is considered vandalism, arson, or civil disobedience without an intent to intimidate or coerce.
• If authorities classify it as criminal mischief rather than an act of political violence.

Would you like more information on specific legal definitions of terrorism?**

Yes, Give me the legal cites for that.

Chat GPT:

Here are some legal citations related to terrorism and arson in the U.S.:

1. Federal Definition of Terrorism
   • 18 U.S.C. § 2331 – Defines domestic terrorism as acts that:
   • Involve dangerous acts to human life that violate criminal laws.
   • Are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy.
   • Occur primarily within U.S. jurisdiction.
   • Full text here.
   • 18 U.S.C. § 2332b – Defines federal offenses relating to terrorism, including property destruction intended to coerce or retaliate against government actions.
   • Full text here.

2. Federal Arson Statute
   • 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) – Federal arson law criminalizes the destruction of property affecting interstate or foreign commerce (such as a car dealership).
   • Punishment includes up to 20 years in prison (or life if injury/death occurs).
   • Full text here.

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in Terrorism?:

Is burning a flag terrorism? If it’s not your flag?

1. No… 2) There’s a case…

Personally? I think discretion is due here. If they are wearing a mask or if they are a part of a known group that uses violence and terror to spread their political ideology such as the Democrat Party Antifa, then it’s terrorism. If it’s some idiot that’s getting their crank wound, then it’s not.

However, the attempts to paint the idiots on January 6th as insurrectionist revolutionaries makes me give just a little less of a damn.

[jon-nyc]

Surely the J6 magats were terrorists if these guys are.

[Doctor Phibes]

@jon-nyc said in Terrorism?:

Surely the J6 magats were terrorists if these guys are.

Tourists, Jon, they were tourists.

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in Terrorism?:

Surely the J6 magats were terrorists if these guys are.

And some were prosecuted as such. The Proud Boy leader, for one.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/proud-boys-leaders-sentenced-prison-roles-jan-6-capitol-breach

[Mik]

Yes. if they could have charged them that way they did.

[89th]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Terrorism?:

@jon-nyc said in Terrorism?:

Surely the J6 magats were terrorists if these guys are.

Tourists, Jon, they were tourists.

You have such a heavy accent!

[xenon]

Trump weighs in:

Link to video

[89th]

Haha I love the Jan 6 tangent “nobody was killed, except one woman, but nobody was killed” … sorry what does that even mean?

Btw no one was killed in the Tesla arsons either. Silly rabbit.

[Jolly]

Peddle it lad.

Ain't nobody buying it. But do sell harder.

People have had enough of the astroturfed horsehit protests. Especially since it's so hypocritical.

And that the idiots driving this silliness are starting to threaten people who drive a Tesla. That's going over like a turd in a punchbowl.

But do stand on your street corner soapbox and preach your sermon...Just don't be surprised that 80% of the people don't agree with you

[89th]

What am I selling? I was commenting on Trump's silly rambling "no one was killed... I mean except for the people who died lolz... but besides them it was very peaceful, some say the most beautiful day they've ever seen in DC..." (paraphrased, of course)

[89th]

Oh man there is a funny comedy scene that this reminds me of but I can't put my finger on it. It's driving me crazy. Feels monty python-ish.

[Copper]

@89th said in Terrorism?:

What am I selling?

You are selling the idea that you don't know what the president is talking about when he said nobody was killed except Ashli Babbitt

I don't think Jolly is buying.

[Horace]

What about all the Capitol police officers who murdered themselves in the following days, due to their emotional devastation?

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in Terrorism?:

Ain't nobody buying it.

By 'nobody', presumably you're referring to Copper and yourself.

I suspect most of us have just given up arguing.