What's The Difference Between Terrorism & Crime?

[GWV5903]

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

That explains why I have been so supportive of the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA.

Wait a minute...

"Hang him/them."
"Kill them."
"Put them in military tribunals."
"No Miranda rights."
"Throw the book at them."
Every resource they can think of, financial and otherwise, must be used and spent to stop it although it's occurance is in the decimals of percentage.

Are you aware that, if we treated Tsatinov as an enemy combatant, he would not be subject to the death penalty? Yet, under the charge brought by the Obama administration, he is.

My guess is you will miss the point here.



Other than the obvious fact that terrorism is a crime, the simple fact is that gun control is aimed at preventing crime, which is impossible, while the criminal justice system is focused on punishing criminals.



How are we awash in crime when crime rates have been dropping for decades?



The major difference I see is that you refuse to admit one of those is related to religious extremism.

What's more terrifying than massacring our little children?

If you really think that massacring children is the most terrifying thing possible why do you oppose letting people charged with the responsibility of those children be prepared to defend them?

Seriously...what's the difference?

You tell me.

That's the problem, he can't...

It does not compute for Marc...

That's why he started this thread...

 

[dblack]

"Terrorism" sounds much scarier.

It's an excuse to do an end-run around Constitutional protections. Terrorism is crime; a type of crime. It's essentially no different that the KKK tactics - violence and threat to evoke fear. The neo-cons and fascists appeal to war language to create the excuse for extra-constitutional measures. But that's a lie, and the sooner we understand that and face terrorism for what it really is, the better off we'll be.

 

[blackhawk]

Terrorism is used as a tool to force social or political change through the use fear and murder the person or persons who commit robbery, rape, and even those who go into schools or businesses with the intent of carrying out mass shootings have no such agenda. These people are doing these things for their own selfish or demented reasons with no bigger goal in mind that is the difference.

 

[Flopper]

The difference is deterrence... Treating terrorist scum like average criminals is just as nutty as the terrorist attacks themselves. When you eliminate capital punishment people act sort of differently when they plan their lunacy.

So you are saying if a person is accused of a crime so hideous, that person does not deserve to be treated like other criminals.; that is rights guaranteed by the constitution do not apply?

 

[whitehall]

"Terrorism" sounds much scarier.

It's an excuse to do an end-run around Constitutional protections. Terrorism is crime; a type of crime. It's essentially no different that the KKK tactics - violence and threat to evoke fear. The neo-cons and fascists appeal to war language to create the excuse for extra-constitutional measures. But that's a lie, and the sooner we understand that and face terrorism for what it really is, the better off we'll be.

You got it right blackie. I've heard people claim that the severity of the crime means that the accused "gave up their rights". Maybe the teachers union is at fault when generations of Americans have been taught some liberal conglomeration called "social studies" instead of American history and the Constitution. Once you allow the politicians to determine which citizens are afforded the protection of the Bill of Rights you might as well throw the Constitution in the garbage.

 

[dblack]

The difference is deterrence... Treating terrorist scum like average criminals is just as nutty as the terrorist attacks themselves. When you eliminate capital punishment people act sort of differently when they plan their lunacy.

So you are saying if a person is accused of a crime so hideous, that person does not deserve to be treated like other criminals.; that is rights guaranteed by the constitution do not apply?

That's more or less what they're saying. If someone accuses you of terrorism, you forfeit your Consitutional rights to due process. It's really screwed up, but 9/11 scared the dickens out of a lot of people - and they're apparently such frightened pussies they're willing to give up our most fundamental rights for the empty promise that government will protect them from all badness. Idiots.

 

[Flopper]

The difference is Criminals who commit crimes usually HIDE they do not want their actions know they do it under the cover of night or when they are less likely to be seen. Terrorists are more likely to want attention. They WANT the media to focus on them to assure people are afraid and or bow to their fanatical ideology. Most criminals stay within their territory they rob a bank down the street, while terrorists will travel to do their deeds to bring death and destruction. Motive for the common criminal is usually personal gain of something tangible while the terrorist's goal in to see change either politically, socially or ideological.

So an abortion clinic bomber would be a terrorist. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. These brothers were terrorists. They put fear into people saying others will do the same who subscribe to their belief system. The crime committed at Sandy Hook IMO was not an act of terrorism IMO it was an act of revenge for as much as I have read about it. Was it horrible and malevolent, of course? But as far as I know he did not have a reason to do such except a background where he had a history of mental illness and reports of bullying by classmates while going to Sandy Hook as a child.

I think we should stick with the governments definition of terrorism. I think it's pretty good and it's what Homeland Security uses.

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears 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 assassination or kidnapping."

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])

 

[editec]

What's The Difference Between Terrorism & Crime?

Motive


While all terrorism is a crime, not all crime is terrorism.

 

[Sunshine]

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

"Hang him/them."
"Kill them."
"Put them in military tribunals."
"No Miranda rights."
"Throw the book at them."
Every resource they can think of, financial and otherwise, must be used and spent to stop it although it's occurance is in the decimals of percentage.

Yet, when you replace "terrorism" with crime, namely gun crime, they do a 180...
"We can't spend any resources on it."
"Criminals will be criminals."
"We can't stop all the crime."
"The Constitution is sacred, cannot touch their blessed 2nd Amerndment."
"We can't legislate violence away."

Although we are AWASH in crime, violent crime and gun-crime.

What's the difference of a so-called terrorist blowing up an NYC building or Boston building and a rabid RW nutjob blowing up an abortion clinic or walking into a church in session and blowing the brains out of one if it's members in broad daylight? What's the difference between those acts and a crazed gun-happy nutjob walking into a pre-school and blowing our little ones to shreds?

What's more terrifying than massacring our little children?

Seriously...what's the difference?

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand........... Harley Davidson

 

[PratchettFan]

Terrorism is used as a tool to force social or political change through the use fear and murder the person or persons who commit robbery, rape, and even those who go into schools or businesses with the intent of carrying out mass shootings have no such agenda. These people are doing these things for their own selfish or demented reasons with no bigger goal in mind that is the difference.

So, if i were to do all of that for the purpose of taking your money - that would be a bigger goal? Or if I did it just to get my jollies or because I didn't like the way you wore your hair - that would be a bigger goal? I am having trouble understanding how robbing you for greed is less selfish than robbing you for politics.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Marc, the end result in each case (whether a mass shooting or act of terrorism) is virtually the same. Many people dead, others maimed or crippled, property damaged or destroyed. None of the instances of mass murder in our history, whether they be recent, 20th, or 19th century are understandable by those who logically reason. The major difference lies in the motivation between the crimes.

Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Phoenix and other mass shootings were the work of unbalanced individuals without a political motivation. These individuals used a vehicle to make them 'visible' to society when they felt that they were not. Their acts were purely criminal without a motivation that lies in the political realm. Due to their 'unbalanced' or psychotic thinking process, they wanted to become 'immortal.' A good way to do it? Kill as many as possible as fast as possible. Remember the guy who climbed the tower at the University of Texas (Whitman)? An ex-marine sniper who did not have access to what today is commonly referred to as an "assault rifle." But he killed more than the guy who shot Gabby Giffords one shot at a time.

The attack on the World Trade Center (both instances), the Boston Bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing were purely motivated by political reasons. An attempt (however ignorant) to influence the political will of this nation. It could be argued that these individuals were not mentally challenged and used a method of calling attention to their 'causes' that has been used throughout history. The Israeli's (or Zionists) used it very effectively in the late 40's against the Palestinians and the British. It was responsible for the creation of the state of Israel and the British leaving the area.

No one that I am aware of on the right is saying that we shouldn't/couldn't spend resources to combat crime. As a matter of fact, we want to ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. The two maggots at Columbine broke over 50 laws that were enforceable. What we are saying is that if you aren't going to enforce current laws, then why in heavens name, does it make sense to pass even more when you won't enforce the laws you already have? Do you think that a back ground check would have stopped Adam Lanza? They were his mothers weapons and her background was spotless. He killed her and then took the weapons to Sandy Hook. The US Justice department is NOT enforcing those that try to purchase a weapon and FAIL or get caught lying on applications.

Remember that the Miranda warning is a Supreme Court decision. NOT a law. The Public Safety exception to that ruling is also from the Supreme Court. You want to make the right happy? Those that need to be executed should get a couple of appeals and then sentence should be carried out. If someone is standing on the street corner screaming at passing cars, then they should get a mental evaluation and if necessary, they should be committed to an institution. You can thank the ACLU for putting them on the street...

Again...

The difference between what is a crime and what is considered terrorism boils down to motive, according to you, that is crimes are committed by "unbalanced individuals seeking immortality" and terrorism is committed by individuals with religious and/or political motives.

That's it right?

I think that is right. I think it boils down to motivation AND to where the activity occurs.

Having said that, let me first say that I really do not know these two Boston bombers status. Are they citizens or just legal residents? I also say that my gut says that Lindsey Graham and the others calling for this guy to be treated as an enemy combatant are being ridiculous. I honestly have no idea how that could happen. None of the current laws in place would allow that to happen. And I think that history bears that out.

If an American travels to Pakistan and joins the Taliban and actively supports or joins the military activities against the United States then that person becomes an enemy combatant. He has forfeited his right to jury trial, miranda, etc. EXACTLY as those German-Americans were treated who traveled back to Germany and joined Hitler's Weirmacht and were captured on D-Day. They were sent to POW camps in the US and Britain.

In WWII, a German U-boat dropped off four German nationals on a Carolina beach who's purpose was to commit sabotage and/or kill Americans. The FBI tracked them down and they were tried in a US Federal court and those that were not killed during apprehension were executed.

My point is that the current residents of Guantanemo are being properly incarcerated as enemy combatants and therefore, despite the left's howling and disdain, Guantanemo is correctly purposed. The Boston bomber I do not believe, is an enemy combatant.

Graham and McCain... I have no idea what their point is.

 

[MarcATL]

The difference is deterrence... Treating terrorist scum like average criminals is just as nutty as the terrorist attacks themselves. When you eliminate capital punishment people act sort of differently when they plan their lunacy.

What's average about blowing up abortion clinics, or ripping pre-schoolers to shreds with high-powered rifles?

I'd like to know.

Actually, you've touched on an important legal point.

We have domestic terrorist groups like the abortion clinic bombers, doctor murderers, KKK, Westboro (intersting that they're all religious groups ... )but all of those scum bags are still US citizens and they get the same presumption of innocence and Miranda rights.

So does this suspect.

Idiot rw's don't want enemy combatants killed with drones but they want to suspend this guys rights, thus guaranteeing a path to life in prison or even eventual parole. Wish they'd think it through but all they want is to denigrate the president. Stupid.

The difference is Criminals who commit crimes usually HIDE they do not want their actions know they do it under the cover of night or when they are less likely to be seen. Terrorists are more likely to want attention. They WANT the media to focus on them to assure people are afraid and or bow to their fanatical ideology. Most criminals stay within their territory they rob a bank down the street, while terrorists will travel to do their deeds to bring death and destruction. Motive for the common criminal is usually personal gain of something tangible while the terrorist's goal in to see change either politically, socially or ideological.

So an abortion clinic bomber would be a terrorist. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. These brothers were terrorists. They put fear into people saying others will do the same who subscribe to their belief system. The crime committed at Sandy Hook IMO was not an act of terrorism IMO it was an act of revenge for as much as I have read about it. Was it horrible and malevolent, of course? But as far as I know he did not have a reason to do such except a background where he had a history of mental illness and reports of bullying by classmates while going to Sandy Hook as a child.

Most thoughtful response thus far.

 

[Flopper]

Marc, the end result in each case (whether a mass shooting or act of terrorism) is virtually the same. Many people dead, others maimed or crippled, property damaged or destroyed. None of the instances of mass murder in our history, whether they be recent, 20th, or 19th century are understandable by those who logically reason. The major difference lies in the motivation between the crimes.

Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Phoenix and other mass shootings were the work of unbalanced individuals without a political motivation. These individuals used a vehicle to make them 'visible' to society when they felt that they were not. Their acts were purely criminal without a motivation that lies in the political realm. Due to their 'unbalanced' or psychotic thinking process, they wanted to become 'immortal.' A good way to do it? Kill as many as possible as fast as possible. Remember the guy who climbed the tower at the University of Texas (Whitman)? An ex-marine sniper who did not have access to what today is commonly referred to as an "assault rifle." But he killed more than the guy who shot Gabby Giffords one shot at a time.

The attack on the World Trade Center (both instances), the Boston Bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing were purely motivated by political reasons. An attempt (however ignorant) to influence the political will of this nation. It could be argued that these individuals were not mentally challenged and used a method of calling attention to their 'causes' that has been used throughout history. The Israeli's (or Zionists) used it very effectively in the late 40's against the Palestinians and the British. It was responsible for the creation of the state of Israel and the British leaving the area.

No one that I am aware of on the right is saying that we shouldn't/couldn't spend resources to combat crime. As a matter of fact, we want to ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. The two maggots at Columbine broke over 50 laws that were enforceable. What we are saying is that if you aren't going to enforce current laws, then why in heavens name, does it make sense to pass even more when you won't enforce the laws you already have? Do you think that a back ground check would have stopped Adam Lanza? They were his mothers weapons and her background was spotless. He killed her and then took the weapons to Sandy Hook. The US Justice department is NOT enforcing those that try to purchase a weapon and FAIL or get caught lying on applications.

Remember that the Miranda warning is a Supreme Court decision. NOT a law. The Public Safety exception to that ruling is also from the Supreme Court. You want to make the right happy? Those that need to be executed should get a couple of appeals and then sentence should be carried out. If someone is standing on the street corner screaming at passing cars, then they should get a mental evaluation and if necessary, they should be committed to an institution. You can thank the ACLU for putting them on the street...

Again...

The difference between what is a crime and what is considered terrorism boils down to motive, according to you, that is crimes are committed by "unbalanced individuals seeking immortality" and terrorism is committed by individuals with religious and/or political motives.

That's it right?

I think that is right. I think it boils down to motivation AND to where the activity occurs.

Having said that, let me first say that I really do not know these two Boston bombers status. Are they citizens or just legal residents? I also say that my gut says that Lindsey Graham and the others calling for this guy to be treated as an enemy combatant are being ridiculous. I honestly have no idea how that could happen. None of the current laws in place would allow that to happen. And I think that history bears that out.

If an American travels to Pakistan and joins the Taliban and actively supports or joins the military activities against the United States then that person becomes an enemy combatant. He has forfeited his right to jury trial, miranda, etc. EXACTLY as those German-Americans were treated who traveled back to Germany and joined Hitler's Weirmacht and were captured on D-Day. They were sent to POW camps in the US and Britain.

In WWII, a German U-boat dropped off four German nationals on a Carolina beach who's purpose was to commit sabotage and/or kill Americans. The FBI tracked them down and they were tried in a US Federal court and those that were not killed during apprehension were executed.

My point is that the current residents of Guantanemo are being properly incarcerated as enemy combatants and therefore, despite the left's howling and disdain, Guantanemo is correctly purposed. The Boston bomber I do not believe, is an enemy combatant.

Graham and McCain... I have no idea what their point is.

There is terrorism and there is terrorism as a crime. As a crime the act must be an activity that is dangerous to human life and it must be a violation of existing law and there must be intent to either:

• Intimidate or coerce a civilian population
  
• Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
  
• Affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

According the government's definition of terrorism, the massacres at Sandy Creek, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Clackamas Oregon Town Center were not act acts of terrorism. These were acts of mass murder which are much more common than acts of terrorism.

 

[MarcATL]

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

"Hang him/them."
"Kill them."
"Put them in military tribunals."
"No Miranda rights."
"Throw the book at them."
Every resource they can think of, financial and otherwise, must be used and spent to stop it although it's occurance is in the decimals of percentage.

Yet, when you replace "terrorism" with crime, namely gun crime, they do a 180...
"We can't spend any resources on it."
"Criminals will be criminals."
"We can't stop all the crime."
"The Constitution is sacred, cannot touch their blessed 2nd Amerndment."
"We can't legislate violence away."

Although we are AWASH in crime, violent crime and gun-crime.

What's the difference of a so-called terrorist blowing up an NYC building or Boston building and a rabid RW nutjob blowing up an abortion clinic or walking into a church in session and blowing the brains out of one if it's members in broad daylight? What's the difference between those acts and a crazed gun-happy nutjob walking into a pre-school and blowing our little ones to shreds?

What's more terrifying than massacring our little children?

Seriously...what's the difference?

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand........... Harley Davidson

That doesn't make any sense. -- Barack Obama

 

[PratchettFan]

A simple criminal has a motive to profit by. Correct? Financially.

A terrorist wishes to inflict damage physically as humanely possible by their actions.

It's a no brainer. Well to sane individuals.

Perhaps you don't understand the question. Why does it make a difference. If a man kills a child because he likes it or he kills a child to make a political point, is the child less dead? Did the child suffer less? What difference does motive make?

You need a motive in order to try someone in court. Simple. Without it a criminal can go free.

Again. Not the issue. The title of the thread is the difference between terrorism and crime. There is no difference. Terrorism is a crime. The motive does not make is something other than a crime. There is no difference between a terrorist and a "simple criminal". A terrorist is a criminal.

 

[Politico]

The fact you don't know what the difference is does not surprise me at all.

 

[tinydancer]

Oh for Pete's sake.

I ran on Sunset as a kid. I'd hitched hiked down. It was an Alice Cooper thing. I had a life and it was rock.

You? His manager actually saved my ass . Just because you have never had a life doesn't mean I havent.

It hurts on Havens because I knew the man and I really did owe him. If you have not had a life that's fine by me.

This one hurts me because I really did know the man. Go **** yourself.

If you are a nobody go suck yourself. Deal with you being a loser.

you think Dudley even knows who Alice Cooper and Richie Havens is?....as tight ass as he seems to be im sure he never was into that kinda music.....it would have given him a nose bleed.....

I guess. Sometimes I think I give too many people too much credit to begin with.

 

[Flopper]

Perhaps you don't understand the question. Why does it make a difference. If a man kills a child because he likes it or he kills a child to make a political point, is the child less dead? Did the child suffer less? What difference does motive make?

You need a motive in order to try someone in court. Simple. Without it a criminal can go free.

Again. Not the issue. The title of the thread is the difference between terrorism and crime. There is no difference. Terrorism is a crime. The motive does not make is something other than a crime. There is no difference between a terrorist and a "simple criminal". A terrorist is a criminal.

Maybe it's a bit nitpicking but from a logic standpoint there is a difference between terrorism and crime. Terrorism is a type of crime. The two are not the same just as apples are not the same as fruit.

Motive is very important in the definition of terrorism as it is with most crime. If a bomb is planted in a bank and explodes killing everyone in the bank and the motive was to steal the money, the crime is robbery and murder but not terrorism. However, it the motive in setting off the bomb was to intimidate the public so they would not use the banks and bring about a change in the banking laws then it's terrorism.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

The difference is Criminals who commit crimes usually HIDE they do not want their actions know they do it under the cover of night or when they are less likely to be seen. Terrorists are more likely to want attention. They WANT the media to focus on them to assure people are afraid and or bow to their fanatical ideology. Most criminals stay within their territory they rob a bank down the street, while terrorists will travel to do their deeds to bring death and destruction. Motive for the common criminal is usually personal gain of something tangible while the terrorist's goal in to see change either politically, socially or ideological.

So an abortion clinic bomber would be a terrorist. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. These brothers were terrorists. They put fear into people saying others will do the same who subscribe to their belief system. The crime committed at Sandy Hook IMO was not an act of terrorism IMO it was an act of revenge for as much as I have read about it. Was it horrible and malevolent, of course? But as far as I know he did not have a reason to do such except a background where he had a history of mental illness and reports of bullying by classmates while going to Sandy Hook as a child.

Completely agree with this analysis. However, since the original OP was also discussing the opinions expressed by Graham and McCain and their call for the Boston bomber to be treated as a terrorist, I believe that another very valid point is WHERE the activity occurred.

An abortion clinic bomber MAY be a terrorist, depending on his motivation. But his pursuit, prosecution and any subsequent incarceration would be guided by American jurisprudence. That same bomber goes to Pakistan and builds a bomb and plants it at the American embassy, he then becomes an enemy combatant. He immediately moves to POSITION #1 on the drone list in my opinion. Or if captured, I hope he likes Guantanemo.

 

[MarcATL]

Perhaps you don't understand the question. Why does it make a difference. If a man kills a child because he likes it or he kills a child to make a political point, is the child less dead? Did the child suffer less? What difference does motive make?

You need a motive in order to try someone in court. Simple. Without it a criminal can go free.

Again. Not the issue. The title of the thread is the difference between terrorism and crime. There is no difference. Terrorism is a crime. The motive does not make is something other than a crime. There is no difference between a terrorist and a "simple criminal". A terrorist is a criminal.

Not only that, but the DIFFERENCE in reaction from those on the right to the two.

How did they react to Timothy McVeigh?
vs.
How are they reacting to this recent event?

What's the difference between the two acts?