> Gary Nunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[I wrote:]
> > Anybody who murders, rapes or commits other
> violent-
> > crimes-against-persons needs to be caught and
> prosecuted 'to
> > the max' IMO, but does that make them a terrorist?
> My knee-jerk reaction to this was that this was yet
> another case of
> authority abuse and overkill, but after thinking it
> over, I'm not so sure about that anymore.
>
> I don't think that I have ever heard of a gang
> getting together to pick
> up garbage or make a social call to the local senior
> center. Usually
> gang activity is reported as turf wars, theft,
> murder, violence, etc.
> How many times have we read or heard stories about
> gang members being
> required to murder innocent people (or some other
> asinine stunt) as an
> initiation? Granted, that may not be considered the
> "norm", but it isn't unheard of either.
>
> If a group of people (foreign or domestic) use
> violence, threats and
> intimidation to manipulate or terrorize others, then
> yes, they could be
> labeled as terrorists. (oops, that also describes
> some recent acts of some military personnel)
>
> Ask someone that has had to live with, or deal with
> gangs, if they would
> have any problem labeling them terrorists, or if the
> gangs act any different than terrorists.
The problem I have is the label as I have understood
it. My dictionary's definition of 'terrorism' is 'the
systematic use of terror, violence, and intimidation
to achieve an #end.' I thought it would have
'political or social' here#. Will schoolbooks hence
call Bonnie&Clyde, the Mafia, and the Crips/Bloods
"domestic terrorists?" Are you suggesting that
Americans should admit to themselves and the world
that we've had terrorists operating here for nearly
the last century?
Debbi
A Very Good Question, Actually Maru >:/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
