- Sep 22, 2013
- 4,956
- 250
- 85
Terrorism can be difficult to criminalize/prosecute when political grievances seem justified. Under this pretext, we could in theory label American revolutionaries (i.e., Boston Tea Party) as terrorists instead of freedom-fighters.
When methods become extreme and civilians are brutalized when caught in the crossfire of political troubles, terrorism gains the face of criminal insanity (i.e., Northern Ireland).
In recent times, we've dealt with the severe complaints raised by the Middle East and terrorist cells such as the Taliban seeking to undermine Western capitalist securities (i.e., 9/11 NYC, 11/13 Paris). Modern profit-gauged networks (i.e., NAFTA) create both tycoons and crime syndicates and cater to the fundamentalist and the fanatic seeking to subvert the dominant pedestrian paradigms.
How do we assess and evaluate terrorism in terms of criminality, pedestrian paranoia, and governance indiscretions?
Insanity Defense
David Koresh
When methods become extreme and civilians are brutalized when caught in the crossfire of political troubles, terrorism gains the face of criminal insanity (i.e., Northern Ireland).
In recent times, we've dealt with the severe complaints raised by the Middle East and terrorist cells such as the Taliban seeking to undermine Western capitalist securities (i.e., 9/11 NYC, 11/13 Paris). Modern profit-gauged networks (i.e., NAFTA) create both tycoons and crime syndicates and cater to the fundamentalist and the fanatic seeking to subvert the dominant pedestrian paradigms.
How do we assess and evaluate terrorism in terms of criminality, pedestrian paranoia, and governance indiscretions?
Insanity Defense
David Koresh