Saturday, July 08, 2006

How is this NOT fighting them over here?

Recommended at Booman Tribune

Seriously, enough of this "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" bullshit. I was in more than a few discussions over the past 24 hours about terrorism, more specifically domestic terrorism. And frankly, I don't even remember which conversation it was, or even who I was even in the thread with, but what now seems like a truly obvious point really, really hit me.

And it strikes right at the heart of this line of crap that way way too many people believe without showing any level of critical thinking skills. Not even regarding the fact that the whole "flypaper approach" is completely asinine in its stunning lack of logic or foresight. But more so in that "terrorism" is, and has been alive and well in this country for quite some time.

It's just not convenient to call it what it is when it doesn't suit your greedy lying purpose. So, how about spending some of those homeland security "resources" to actually fight `em over here, since it hasn't been done since, oh, NEVER...

Let's start with Wikipedia's roundup of definitions, shall we?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised."


The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

"..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... 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; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."

I'm not talking about hate crimes based on sexual orientation or even racially motivated crimes, although they may technically qualify under some of these definitions. But how does anyone get off saying that we don't have any terrorist activity here in the United States? Or is the point that a blind eye is turned so it really isn't there? And then, I guess, we technically AREN'T fighting it over here, are we?

What about this? Does chasing a Jewish family out of town with threats of violence in order to intimidate or coerce a civilian population not count? And how about this? Does bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform abortions not fall under this definition either? Sounds like the same religious extremists to me that are always cited as the "crazy bad evildoers". Oh wait, I forgot, sorry - these people don't have brown skin so they can't POSSIBLY be classified as terrorists.

What about the whole "anti-government thing" in the definitions above? Need I even mention what happened in Oklahoma City? Oh, never mind that one. Or what about the motivations of the Unabomber? How about the anthrax attacks in late 2001? Not enough? OK, fine. Remember the Olympics in 1996??

No, we don't have any domestic terrorism to worry about. We don't have to worry about standoffs with white supremacist groups or any government separatist groups. And with the way that the laws are enforced nowadays, it doesn't take much to qualify as an "enemy combatant", regardless of where you are or what your intent is. Or maybe even what you actually have or have not done. Or snipers in Maryland whose background and motivations are, shall we say, interesting?

And what about those seven "domestic terrorists" in Florida? Even though it looks more and more like their plans were more like pipe dreams. But we don't have this problem here? They aren't "here"? Please, spare me the histrionics.

Or, how about some of those who actually are promoting bombings and killing of innocent people here in the US? You know, like wishing that the NY Times building would be blown up? Or that Al Qaeda should bomb San Francisco? And just for shits and giggles, what about saying that someone should poison a Supreme Court Justice?

Oh, I see. IOKIYAR. No harm, no foul. You were just kidding. Well, that is just great, since others aren't quite so lucky even if they weren't guilty of anything other than mispronouncing a word in a foreign language. They get rendered and tortured. You get to spew more hate and attempt to incite violence against a group of civilians in order to coerce them.

No, there is no domestic terrorism to worry about. What's that? Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes may have been faking that they had a baby? Oh, shit, gotta go check that out.

No comments: