Comments:Teen charged over 'bomb attempt' at US Christmas celebration
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Terrorist Websites...||1||13:14, 28 November 2010|
|WMD?||2||22:30, 27 November 2010|
|"[t]he threat was very real."||0||19:37, 27 November 2010|
I have been looking for terrorist websites... but apparently they have horrible SSO skills :P. I doubt they are at "terroristsupplies.com" but where do people even find them. Not only that but a web forum doesn't seem like the most secure place to carry out talks of Jihad. Also they say that they were intercepting the emails --- Haven't terrorists heard of GPG Signing?
Seriously though, I wouldn't mind chatting with terrorists... It would be interesting, since I have never talked to anyone who was so far extreme in their hate for America.
What we are forgetting though, is that the United States is the biggest terrorists of all, we use terror to accomplish political agendas both domestic and abroad, thats the definition of terrorism.
It's the letter of the definition, but not the spirit. The spirit of the definition is scaring average civilians, the everyman or everywoman, into feeling like they could be violently killed at any moment in order to frighten them into complying. Threatening politicians, military leaders, activists or foreign corporations is qualitatively different, because the threat isn't random and opaque; the people being threatened have some relevant link to the changes being demanded, and know they or their assets aren't safe, while the average civilian knows they probably are unless their leaders mess up; and those under threat aren't going to be suddenly blasted to bits from the shadows (with some notable exceptions), but are going to suffer systematic economic backlash or military assault from an organized and relatively visible entity. Terrorism, however, means nobody knows concretely who is threatening them, how, when, or why.
Not to say that muscling people into doing what you want isn't boorish and despicable, but neither intimidation nor blackmail are what is meant when most people say "terrorism."
Weapon of mass destruction? A van bomb is a dangerous and serious weapon, to be sure, but since when does it qualify as a WMD? Unless you were to use it to strategically destroy the support frame of a bridge or building and bring about a collapse, or detonate it in the middle of an orgy, WMD doesn't seem an appropriate label - or are there certain legal definitions now, perhaps that define a certain explosive power? The article doesn't mention how powerful this kid thought the bomb was going to be.
The US legal definition of WMD allows this sort of strange charge, that much I do know; what the definition is, I do not know. Certainly, though, it is a legal definition thing.
The relevant section of the linked Wikipedia page for WMDs. When conventional weapons are involved there are measurable amounts of destructive force in the definition. Just from the numbers I don't know how much damage those values would cause, though.
This was, as far as he knew, something that was going to take out a city plaza during a public event. The WMD charge is probably going to throw a jury for a loop, too.