• @lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    People typically have definitions like this in mind:

    1. the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that-
      1. involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
      2. appear to be intended-
        1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
        2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
        3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
      3. occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

    Acts (1) dangerous to life (2) designed to coerce a population or a government. Otherwise, any threat inimical to life would qualify.

    • @4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      414 hours ago

      Death is dangerous to life and groups of chuds threatening people who don’t sing their national anthem in their preferred language are attempting to coerce a population.

      I think people in America typically have a definition like this:

      “Terrorists” are defined as looking exactly like Osama Bin Laden and shouting “ISLAMIC JIHAD ALLAHU AKBAR LALALLALALALALALAL” before exploding like a stuck lemming from the video game “Lemmings”.

      They also think that politics is operated purely on lies and name calling for power grabs and so therefore since they gave the terrorist label to brown people, they can’t ever be one and all their actions are excusable since it’s impossible for them to be a terrorist.

      • @lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -111 hours ago

        An act directed to a single person isn’t an act intimidating or coercing the civil population. In contrast, such an act directed at/broadcast to the general civil population does qualify as intimidation or coercion of the civil population.