I am talking just about the case in Maryland, and was trying to find out the rules.
Does the race/religion of the accused play a significant (or definining) role in whether something is considered to be terrorism? Does the intended target play a significant (or defining) role in whether something is considered to be terrorism? Does the intent of the accused play a significant (or defining) role in whether something is considered to be terrorism? My take is: Race/culture/religion is the first and most important cut. Today, in the US, if you are a muslim/arab (or can be mistaken for one), and are accused of such a crime, you are a terrorist until you can prove otherwise. If you are not a muslim, you MIGHT be a terrorist, depending on what you did. (Like Catholics in Ireland, Jews in the Middle East, Sihks in Canada, Basque in France, Palestinians everywhere) Target is the next cut. Many people will give a person a pass as a terrorist if the object of the attack is also hated by the person judging. You MIGHT be a terrorist if you attack something or someone I like. If you attack something I dislike, you are probably NOT a terrorist, maybe even a hero. Intent is the final cut. You are not a terrorist if you didn't mean to cause terror. But, if you are a muslim and bombed something even with no intent to harm, you will still be labeled a terrorist. On 6/23/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wait a minute here. You've altered the parameters. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:210146 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
