Adamb0mb
Lawless
Be it flour or anthrax, the intent was to terrorize thus I think it'd be an act of terrorism either way. The difference being that sending anthrax should carry additional charges like assault with a deadly weapon.
"White powder" terrorist strikes Edwards campaign HQ
- Thread starter Pontiuth Pilate
- Start date
It's not overly broad. Measuring terrorism on actual damages is overly narrow.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Exactly.
The authorities behaved as though this were a terrorist attack - evacuating and sealing off the area, sending the envelope for bio and radiation tests, etc.
I can't f'in believe someone would defend this as "just a prank." If I leave a backpack with some Play-Doh and wires inside an airport terminal and then call in a bomb threat, is it "a prank"?
Using a loose definition of prank, then yes. But you'd still get sent to jail for reporting a false bomb threat and unlawful intimidation. You'd also probably get sued for the airlines loss of business from having to shut down for a few hours.
I'm not saying this guy isn't a criminal and shouldn't be punished. I'm saying using the word "terrorist" to describe him is an overreaction, and one that devalues the word and makes it meaningless.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Wiki: Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror," are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".
So, what part of the definition do you disagree with?
So, what part of the definition do you disagree with?
The part that would be inclusive of "pranks" against Democrats.
