It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Shouldn't gang members be tried as terrorists?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:33 PM
I've been watching some of these shows on NatGeo and Discovery, like Gangwars, where they follow gang members around and profile these groups in the streets... I don't understand how Americans are so concerned with imaginary domestic terrorism carried out by Muslim radicals, when you've had organized domestic terrorism for years carried out by citizens.

There's neighbourhoods that police don't even drive through out of fear, isn't that terrorism by definition? They just let these gangs go about their business as long as they don't leak too far outside of their territory. People get killed for looking at someone the wrong way and that's just accepted in some places. These guys are armed with automatic weapons like any other terrorist insurgent and they have the advantage of having ready access to the latest domestic technology in America.

Personally, I'd much rather meet a radical Muslim in a dark ally than most of these guys they profile on the streets of LA and NYC. So why isn't gang activity considered terrorism? Shouldn't bloods/crips/mexican mafia/etc be tried as terrorists?

The fact that they aren't says to me that the label of terrorist is more of a propaganda tool of the government than a descriptive term.

What do you think?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:38 PM
Many gang members have been prosecuted under the RICO law.

The law that was originally intended to bring down the Mafia.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by jam321]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:38 PM
100% PERCENT RIGHT. We should be charging gang members as such 100%

Then the next move should be charging the same of some politicians that we have who also deserve to be charged in such a manner.

Clean the STREETS, and then PUBLIC OFFICE.

We wouldn't need to fight any more wars if we did this. All the real "bad guys" would be now gone.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:43 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus

I don't know. Terrorism is generally reserved for acts classified as politically or ideologically motivated. Gangs are generally more appropriately prosecuted under the RICO Act, in my opinion.

Calling everyone a terrorist tends to dilute the meaning of the term, no?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:45 PM
Absolutely not.

Let's just not go there.

We have had laws in place for decades, specifically for organized crime syndicates and gangs. They are just not enforced properly, and there are many conspiracies in that alone.

After the shock and awe campaign for "domestic anti-terrorism", it would be like an unstoppable freight train. The next targets would be normal citizens getting their throats under jackboots.

Want my source and research? Try history.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by SyphonX]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:49 PM

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

Now replace the word terrorist and terrorism with Hells Angels... hmm. sounds bang on to me, it sure would put some of these monkeys away longer than what alot of them do.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:57 PM
At least the same as organized crime.

After all, they control turf to sell drugs, take bribe money, and pimp ho's.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:30 PM
terrorist is just a term to describe ones standing with the US Government.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:31 PM
also people who break into other peoples houses, i mean, they "terrorize" people too right?

how about people that act like idiots to intimidate people, i mean, they inspire "terror" in some people too dont they?

i have long hair and i occasionally wear hooded jackets, im sure i scare a lot of people who consider me a junkie or something.. off to guantanamo with me.

(sarcasm over)

whats wrong with finding evidence of a gang and/or individual members running drugs/guns/women/men/children/bootleg dvds and then arresting them for that? ya know, when they actually commit a crime?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:45 PM
I don't think labeling them terrorists will solve anything, but if there was a very active deterrent like life in prison or death penalty for being convicted of gang violence, and it was actually followed through with, we might be able to slow it down. The key is keeping 9,10,and 11 year olds from wanting to join these gangs. Most of them don't live to be 25 so we don't have to worry about the grown up bangers too much. Law of attrition will handle them. Kids need an outlet and something to do. Teach them a skill. make them want to not be bangers. I wish I had the answers, but then I wish a lot of things.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

Interesting theory. Does anyone remember when Homeland security released its study on domestic terrorism last year? They said Iraq and Afghanistan vets were the biggests threats to becoming domestic terrorist. That really made me angry. You have gangs running around terrorizing people. But OIF/OEF vets are the biggest threats. What sense does that make?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:11 PM
I sometimes volunteer to work with gang-members and have found that many of them are just misguided, decent kids who simply require a little direction to get on the right path.

Placing any sort of label, such as "terrorist" upon them would be a travesty and would destroy their chance to "make-right" and to have a future as a productive and law abiding citizen.

Now the incorrigable ones - the 2% as they are known in some circles - or O.G.s in others... They are a different story.

But isn't this what "3 strikes" was supposed to address?

Just my thoughts.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:26 PM
This is sort of an aside tangent but,

Human males have a strong propensity to aggregate into gang formations.

While much of this is sanitized & disguised as 'military' & 'police' &/or 'national interests' or 'religions' it still seems to permeate.

Maybe if we acknowledge it & bring it to the fore, without pre-pajoritizing it we may be able to at least craft it into a better thing.

That of course can't happen without some active, invested effort.

We should perhaps create the 'gang' of honest & decent society.
Decent & righteously based & enforced law & order, perhaps?

A constitutional democracy perhaps?

Q: Can you have an anti-gang gang?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by slank

"We should perhaps create the 'gang' of honest & decent society.
Decent & righteously based & enforced law & order, perhaps? " slank

Kinda like the U.S. military. The Army without a doubt made me a better person.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM
As long as it is an honorable military that supports the US constitution & the American people, and SANE foreign policy, & knows it is subordinate to the US civilian government which itself is subordinated to the best interests of the American people,

and not just a gang of selfish power grabbing nation bankrupters.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:15 PM
this is a touchy subject yes we/they should, but at the same time it could get blown out of proportion, as in the thought of "My neighbor terrorizes me day after day with his/ her music, dog barking, the way they look/talk too me" see my point, this is how a good law ends up being a night mare for everyone. Think long and hard before the yes vote to this one. and i still say yes we should.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:25 PM
If only...

The rest of the parts are on youtube...

I know I would feel a lot safer with some of the local uniformed thugs off the street, locked up in a box away from the public....

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:30 PM
Your using reverse logic from the government. Gangs are nothing more than criminal activity. How these crimes are handled is up to prosecutors. While some gangs may be affiliated with larger organizations that may be multinational in nature, it is still just criminal action.

Our government has a tendency to treat terrorism as a criminal act instead of an act of war sponsored by a State. There are various reason for this but the main reason is America is ran by pussies and we have become too fat.

America just doesn't want to accept the fact that Islamic radicals that form the leadership of governments in several different Middle East nations have declared a religious war against the West and America in particular.

Until we accept this truth, terrorism will just be a catch phrase.

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:33 AM
Gang members are destroying america, patriots are trying to restore america.

Anyone who cannot understand why one is considered a terrorist and the other is not, does not understand the agenda taking place.

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:45 AM
I do think any gang member that is associated with the Mexican drug cartels should be treated as a enemy combatant and sent to federal prison as a member of a foreign terrorist group on top of any regular criminal charges.

But first the US government needs to label the Mexican drug cartels terrorist groups.

They have threatened US border patrol and cops in border states.
and put contract on them.
They have sent armed units into the US.
They have hired hit men to go after people in the US.

This makes them terrorist.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in