Originally posted by notreallyalive

The Seattle police chief and CNN have decided to label the man who killed Brenton, and also believed to be behind the bombing of four police cars, a Domestic Terrorist.

Was he really a terrorist? What were his motivations. Do I deserve to be called a Domestic Terrorist because I read ATS??

[edit on 7-11-2009 by notreallyalive]

...if he was blowing police cars up, then yes. he was a domestic terrorist.

if a guy who goes around bombing things and killing police isnt a domestic terrorist then i want to know what qualifies you as one.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

The ATS post you cited refers to a news item from 2006, during the Bush administration. Back then, everyone was considered a terrorist, except for Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney.

I think that it's not "informed" people who are considered terrorists, but ones who advocate revolution or violence. And whatever the reason for advocating that, I feel it makes you a terrorist.

If the police kick in my door and find all manner of subversive literature in my apartment - say, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, even (shudder) literature from ACLU - they probably aren't going to like it much. That sort of stuff is too "free-thinking" for them. But they won't be able to say I'm a terrorist because of it. They'll dislike this stuff because it is, basically, anti-government. When it was written, the government it was against was England. Now that the US government has matured, it, too, finds the Constitution offensive and worrisome. Governments are about controlling the people; the Constitution is about freedom from control. The two don't get along, and the ones who are sworn to uphold the government aren't going to care for any freedom-loving crap like a Constitution.

Still, unless I advocate violence, or collect material or information on bomb-making or such, there isn't much terror in my behavior. Aside from Mr. Bush and a few fascists, most people actually do recognize the difference between informed disagreement with TPTP, and acts of terror.

[Edit:] I suppose I should add that the Founding Fathers were all criminals under English law, and the way they fought for freedom could be seen as terrorism or as being "insurgents". Fortunately, the system they set up allows for the peaceful change of government by the people. Unfortunately, we've almost given our power away to the government. If we aren't careful, we'll lose our legal right to change our government, and will be required to overthrow it. Let us hope we never allow it to come to this.

[edit on 11/7/2009 by chiron613]

World governments today would prefer to see the whole of humanity to be a lot less educated and a whole lot more taken up with Paris Hilton and NASCAR and professional wrasslin.

A 'domestic terrorist' may well evolve to define those who dare to challenge preferred concepts... those who deny ignorance and take their right to speak freely to heart and voice.

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

Originally posted by notreallyalive

The Seattle police chief and CNN have decided to label the man who killed Brenton, and also believed to be behind the bombing of four police cars, a Domestic Terrorist.

Was he really a terrorist? What were his motivations. Do I deserve to be called a Domestic Terrorist because I read ATS??

[edit on 7-11-2009 by notreallyalive]

...if he was blowing police cars up, then yes. he was a domestic terrorist.

if a guy who goes around bombing things and killing police isnt a domestic terrorist then i want to know what qualifies you as one.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

Pretty sure "believed to be behind" is A WHOLE LOT different than being found guilty of such a crime.

Terrorist is not a person who does an act to another person, per se, it's someone who is trying to incite terror, in other words to a mass of people - terror is a mindset, not the affect on one person.

Originally posted by chiron613
The ATS post you cited refers to a news item from 2006, during the Bush administration. Back then, everyone was considered a terrorist, except for Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Apparently we're not reading the same article. The link I posted was clearly published on Friday, March 13th, 2009.

Terror is a state of mind, anyone who induces this could be called a terrorist.

The problem is in the redefining of our language. Fear is something that will be with us always. Fear is defined as a forward looking apprehension. So to label a freethinker a terrorist is like saying their thoughts could lead to actions that would inspire fear.

People that blow up cop cars are terrorists as they use violence in a coercive way(not saying this specific guy was). Terror or fear of the unknown future and what it brings is a very different part of our emotional consciousness.

These things are not equal.

Originally posted by Seiko
Terror is a state of mind, anyone who induces this could be called a terrorist.

The problem is in the redefining of our language. Fear is something that will be with us always. Fear is defined as a forward looking apprehension. So to label a freethinker a terrorist is like saying their thoughts could lead to actions that would inspire fear.

People that blow up cop cars are terrorists as they use violence in a coercive way(not saying this specific guy was). Terror or fear of the unknown future and what it brings is a very different part of our emotional consciousness.

These things are not equal.

I totally agree they're not equal. That's why it bothers me when the news ties some guy who killed someone, and the "fact" that he was known to have frequented conspiracy theory websites [1]. The Domestic Terrorist name is being spread in the news to include many average people, not just terrorists. I feel it's part of an agenda to separate knowledgeable, passionate people from the herd.

1 - this is concerning the security guard shooter. I don't have a citation right now.