It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Since When Are Terrorists, Bank Robbers???

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
How in the world did they know what he/they did with the money?
Why couldn't they catch him sooner, if they knew how he/they were spending the money?

Do you consider them terrorists??

www.cnn.com...

They have labeled him a "Suspected" terrorist??

Jesse James wasn't labeled a terrorist??




posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
He was a fugitive convicted for bank robbery and it said he was killed in a gun battle so that means he was firing at law enforcement officers. What's your point?



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
How can you hide on the Island of Puerto Rico for 15 years? With a $500,000 dollar reward on your head?

He choose his fate when he opened fire, Im not defending him Im askin would you consider him a Terrorist????

I consider him a wanted fugitive bank robber, and now he's a Dead fugitive bank robber.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I'm not sure what his history is, it does say he was part of some Puerto Rican independence movement, perhaps he did do terrorist acts in the past. But I would note the only mention of terror was in the headline, did the gov't ever use this term?



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Well the IRA did do bankjobs before and thier terrorists, and he did create terror..



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
and he did create terror..


Every bankrobbery, breakin, cartheft, gangshooting, murder and so on creates terror with someone.

Even jaywalking creates terror for cardrivers that have people running over the streets in area's they aren't supposed to.

Every crime there is creates terror for someone.

Are you prepared to alow all those things to be treated as acts of terror and the perps to be handled as terrorists?

Especialy with the extreme measures alowed to be used with terror suspects and terrorists?



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix


Every bankrobbery, breakin, cartheft, gangshooting, murder and so on creates terror with someone.

Even jaywalking creates terror for cardrivers that have people running over the streets in area's they aren't supposed to.

Every crime there is creates terror for someone.

Are you prepared to alow all those things to be treated as acts of terror and the perps to be handled as terrorists?

Especialy with the extreme measures alowed to be used with terror suspects and terrorists?

Thats the point though, as you said every crime is terrorism so how do you define as a proper "terrorist"?
A very militant person?
Thats where interpretation comes into play.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Imho thats where the very old question and demand comes in where the US goverment and the UN as a whole comes and states a clear definition of terrorisme.

The last big UN meeting was supposed to bring forward such a definition, but again no definition was formulated.

As long as there is no clear definition to what the nations see as terrorism, the goverments are free to interpret terrorism as they see fit. Leaving every crime you can imagine open to being interpreted as an act of terrorism.

Goverments love that offcource, since it makes it really easy to get to unwanted elements.

Thats probably the main reason why after all this time there is still no definition formulated on what, by international law, terrorism is.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
He was a Marxist "revolutionist", who killed, robbed, and terrorized in the name of his movement.

Yup, terrorist by any definition.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by thematrix


Every bankrobbery, breakin, cartheft, gangshooting, murder and so on creates terror with someone.

Even jaywalking creates terror for cardrivers that have people running over the streets in area's they aren't supposed to.

Every crime there is creates terror for someone.

Are you prepared to alow all those things to be treated as acts of terror and the perps to be handled as terrorists?

Especialy with the extreme measures alowed to be used with terror suspects and terrorists?

Thats the point though, as you said every crime is terrorism so how do you define as a proper "terrorist"?
A very militant person?
Thats where interpretation comes into play.


I believe the difference is that the motivation for a terrorist is to commits crimes in hopes to further a political agenda, whereas the motivation for the non-terrorist is personal greed.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I seen a Unsolved mysteries show on this guy. He was part of a Puerto Rican terrorist org. named ''Los Machetes'' or something. He gave that money to that group and used it to fund various terrorist attacks.

I remember on incident they bought some anti-aircraft missiles and fired them at a Puerto rico goverment building. They did little to no damage since anti aircraft missiles are not designed to hit targets like concrete.

This guy deserved a label terrorist since he used that money to fund terrorist attacks.

[edit on 25-9-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

But I would note the only mention of terror was in the headline, did the gov't ever use this term?

Here`s a quote from BBC`s story on this.


BBC: Puerto Rico rebel dies in hideout

The US considers the robbery an act of domestic terrorism because it allegedly was carried out by nationalists from the self-governing US commonwealth.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
Imho thats where the very old question and demand comes in where the US goverment and the UN as a whole comes and states a clear definition of terrorisme.

But you cant...the world isnt black and white mate..


The last big UN meeting was supposed to bring forward such a definition, but again no definition was formulated.

The UN is...difficult at the best of times...but thats to be expected when your talking to over 100 diffrent countries.


As long as there is no clear definition to what the nations see as terrorism, the goverments are free to interpret terrorism as they see fit. Leaving every crime you can imagine open to being interpreted as an act of terrorism.

Well techinically is that such a bad thing?


Goverments love that offcource, since it makes it really easy to get to unwanted elements.

But if thier breaking the law then surely thats a bad thing right ?


Thats probably the main reason why after all this time there is still no definition formulated on what, by international law, terrorism is.

No I think the simple answer why it isnt is this...disagreement.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join