The Boston Bombing Wasn't Terrorism.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


DO NOTE: If you listen to the 9/11 Attackers, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the motivation for that attack was because the US has military bases in their religious sacred ground homeland. But the terror pushing politicians and their mass media minions had to avoid that issue, so they insisted they attacked us for the freedoms we enjoy. As a result, these non-definable mob rule sort of "laws" you paraphrasingly refer to had to be re-written to maintain the lie. In truth, even in this Boston instance, the only ones attacking our freedoms, of us commoners, is the US government and their media stooges.

No I didn't follow your threads and read them. I read your citations herein and they're but reashed versions of the same definition in OP.

The un-PATRIOT ACT was written in response to 911 (wirtten beforehand actually), which we were told was an attack on our freedoms, when in fact only the responses by the FedGov are such, the un-PATRIOT ACT in particular (including the way it was ratified).

School shooting don't (yet) fall under terrorism laws. The Batman mvoie shooting didn't fall under terrorism laws. But you would cite the Patriot Act and have us convinced that these Boston attackers, because they were Muslim's, are under terrorist laws? Note that immediately after it happened, before suspects even identified, it was already assumed and trumpeted as being "terrorism". If all the school shooters escaped, and that "Joker" punk, should those have been terrorist by your loose definitions? After all, had they all escaped, and motivations left completely open to speculation, and runaway fear, hows that different? If the perpetrator of a school shooting happened to be Muslim, does that change the murderous criminal act into an act of paramilitary political terrorism?

If a school shooter happened to be offended by the US government's wars of conquest, doesn't that then change the shooting into terrorism? Violence. Lots of carnage. Possibly more dead than Boston. Use of explosive devices (bullets are such) in the public domain. It would seem, to you, if someones rage / sickness happens to include political influences, that alone changes their resulting crimes into TERRORism?

By the definition the government sponsers of the gun bill added reloading powder to the bill pre vote and justified it with the Boston Bombing they officially became terrorists

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])

I was in Boston last night. The Broooooons were playing as were the Sox. There was a few good concerts in town too. The city was packed. People everywhere. Ya know what stayed in the back of my mind all night. The Boston bombing.

A lone girl came over to talk to me and my wife. She was waiting for friends. She was at the marathon that day. She was nervously talking about that day. She stayed with us till her friends arrived.

I was at the bar getting a couple drinks. A security guy and the bartender were talking about some guys back pack. The bartender said that they shouldn't allow them in the bar anymore cuz of "what happened"

That was just what I saw. My little view of the city at that moment in my time.

The point of terrorism is to terrorize. They did that. The city has changed for now. Will it become less vigilant and scared a year from now, of course. However, this has made an impact to all those who live there and they are all a bit more "scared" then they were a month ago.

reply to post by BlastedCaddy


I like your approach. It doesn't come off as a repeated Fox News segment. However, just because something might strike fear, even the most fear imaginable, doesn't prove or even insist that was the actual intentions.

A great white shark isn't a terrorist just because it might be the scariest animal in your mind, possibly even causing nightmares. Sharks in general likely giving you an uneasy feeling at some point during a boat trip, when that what-if-the-boat-flips scenario crosses your mind when you look down into the depths and imagine the possibilities.

A school shooting surely strikes fear into the heart (there are actual neurons in the heart) of every parent out there, but when the goal of the shooters was vengeance for say bullying, that doesn't also mean the incident was a "terrorist" attack. That same what if might even cross said parents minds briefly each day. Still not terrorism.

The Batman shooter wasn't necessarily trying to cause fear for all movie goers of will it happen to them. It was very well nothing more than standing out in the crowd of mass murderers (honestly I didn't follow that issue too closely). Didn't Batman gross #2 box office all-time after that? I know I went and saw it in Imax.

The very word terrorist is hardly more than a political propaganda phrase to push and push a rise out of those who hear it... Just like 80 years ago the word anarchist was politicized in the exact same way (while not even being an accurate picture of what that philosophy actually is). All too often these events are infact utilized to push desired political goals by those who love to wield the word, after all they cant let a good disaster go to waste.

The Unibomber's intent wasn't to scare everyone from open mail. That isn't what made him a terrorist. His goal was to get his voice heard, his manifesto published. Political goes to be heard, while leading by example with his philosophy of life. Thats what made him a terrorist.

To label everything that might cause fear terrorism, only weakens its meaning in my view. To label every violent act from someone perceived as the 'them' in the us vs them concept, might as well be called bigotry. In fact, when the issue of suspending someones constitution comes into play, over subjective notions of intent, perhaps bigotry isn't even a strong enough word. To label something as 'terrorist', like Danbones ammo comments, that's just politicking.

Interesting:
2011 Waltham Murders

Assuming they did murder those dudes, was that also an act of terrorism?

Seems more to me like an act of ritual murder.

Recall that typical strategic acts of terrorism come with a message, whether a warning, or some sort of demands, and that after 9/11 the international media was left scratching their heads with nobody stepping up to claim such. This knife cuts both ways.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by BlastedCaddy

 

To label something as 'terrorist', like Danbones ammo comments, that's just politicking.

I didn't mean you pointing that out, Danbones, I meant them utilizing the event to push said goal under the banner of terrorism, thats exploitive politicking well worth bringing to this table.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The truth comes out , your in fear of being labeled a "Terrorist" by not going along with what the GOV the LEO's and the People have think or say are "Terrorist" and how the laws apply to them,
from you post

We are talking about circumstances where criminals rights are to be suspended via military-tribune-lawlessness, and the military deployed domestically, and the constitution for entire cities to be suspended, and millions of people losing wages not being allowed to leave their homes to go to work. We had better get this right. Especially when the CRIME carries the name of an irrational fear. We better have definitions that arent completely subjective otherwise were all under obscene mob rule. This I fear more than any potential attack by little lone wolves.

As Bush has Said "Your with US or your against US [that is to say us ] Then you must be Terrorist, The law be it State and or Fed, NDAA, "PACT" and "PACT2" the GOV ie FBI TSA NSA DHS House and Senate have made and passed laws governing this, if your not for it then you are a TERRORIST.

I could give many news links of people being charged with acts of terrorism, when by your thinking should be just act of hate or violence, but by self reasoning and by the law, are indeed acts of Terrorism, are they being held in Git Mo or being charged by Mil Court , when they could very well be?,the answer is no, they are not, they do have their rights and are being Prosecuted in the court of law.

Then why use the term "Terrorist" it inhanses the Sentence and the charge, it also put's you on a watch list, to restrict your rights of travel freedom, and what you can own or buy. and just so you know by thees same laws you could be a TERRORIST, and not even know it.

Anyone could be, does your name come up on a list? "No fly" is one or a "anti terror list" used by LEO's State and Local, to see if your a threat in your city county by being a animal rights atavist, or anti logger, "save the trees", is an other do you belong to a known street gang this too falls under the Anti Terror laws or know terror groups.

reply to post by bekod


Only the Sith deal in absolutes, Dubya.

Really tho, please do present some of these cases.

Last I saw an updated report, a good 4 or more years ago, the number of US citizens on these 'terrorist' lists was over 800,000. I'm sure I'm on that list, and most of the others on it quite simply in many cases for having intellectual discussions not unlike this one.

Since "Defenders of the Constitution", "Ron Paul Supporters" and many others (have you seen these sorts of FBI/HLS leaflets?), are all labeled potential terrorists and falling into these little sub-facets you've pointed out. YES, we had better get this right. Otherwise a simple protest, or thought crime forums thread like this one, gets you on a no fly list. There it is: revoked freedom of travel, for being concerned about your political future. How terrifying.

I would like to thank the OP for taking the time to extensively outline the logical fallacy of our governments overused definition of terrorism. I also think it is clear that based on our governments actual definition of terrorism that they are guilty of a massive terrorist campaign here and abroad.My question is how can the people who oppose the systematic use of violence by our government for political ends use the governments definition of terrorism against them in a court of law? We need more concerned citizens who are willing to stand against this. I'm not sure If the government could be punished for these crimes, but maybe we can force them to change the definition to something that is not so broad based and all inclusive.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by boncho

 

Are you saying that those IRA combatants, their goal wasn't to enact political change, but rather just to scare the bejeezus out of everyone, nothing more?

I already explained that any incident of terrorism has a political objective behind it. Whether it be some lofty aim at a complete overhaul of society, or simply a demand for $100,000 unmarked bills in a briefcase.

The tactics used in achieving some political objective, makes something "terrorism." I'm an equal opportunist as well... In some cases, there is civilized warfare... But if you are dropping bombs on schools from drones, thousands of miles overseas in a bid to take out "enemy targets", to me, that too can be classified the same. But yes, the IRA had political aim, but their actions made it terrorism.

They could have done a million other things that didn't involve killing random, innocent (non combatants) people.

970s [edit]
1971 12 January: Two bombs explode at the house of government minister Robert Carr. This attack was one of 25 carried out by the Angry Brigade between August 1970 and August 1971. The Bomb Squad was established at Scotland Yard in January 1971 to target the group, and they were apprehended in August of that year.[1][2]
1971 31 October: A bomb explodes in the Post Office Tower in London causing extensive damage but no injuries. The "Kilburn Battalion" of the IRA claimed responsibility for the explosion.[3]
1972 22 February: The Official Irish Republican Army kills seven civilians in the Aldershot bombing.
1972 19 September: The group Black September post a letter bomb to the Israeli embassy in London killing an Israeli diplomat.[4]
1973 In 1973 The Provisional IRA exploded a car bomb in the street outside the Old Bailey. A shard of glass is preserved as a reminder, embedded in the wall at the top of the main stairs.
1973 10 September: The Provisional IRA set off bombs at London's King's Cross Station and Euston Station injuring 21 people.[5]
1974 4 February: Eight Soldiers and 4 civilians are killed by the Provisional IRA in the M62 coach bombing.
1974 17 June: The Provisional IRA plant a bomb which explodes at the Houses of Parliament, causing extensive damage and injuring 11 people.[6]
1974 5 October: Guildford pub bombing by the Provisional IRA leaves 4 off duty soldiers and a civilian dead and 44 injured.
1974 22 October: A bomb planted by the Provisional IRA explodes in London injuring 3 people.[7]
1974 21 November: The Birmingham pub bombings, 21 killed and 182 injured.
1974 18 December: Bomb planted by IRA in the run up to Christmas in one of Bristol's most popular shopping districts explodes injuring 17 people.[8]
1975 November 27: IRA gunmen assassinate political activist and television personality Ross McWhirter.[9]
1978 December 17: Another bomb planted by the IRA aimed at the Christmas shoppers in Bristol takes out the department store Maggs injuring seven people.[10]
1979 30 March: Airey Neave killed when a car bomb exploded under his car as he drove out of the Palace of Westminster car park. The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) claimed responsibility for the killing.
1979 27 August: 18 British soldiers are killed in the Warrenpoint Ambush. Provisional IRA claimed responsibility.
1980s [edit]
1980 30 April: The Iranian Embassy Siege where a six-man terrorist team held the building for six days until the hostages were rescued by a raid by the SAS which was broadcast live on TV.
1981 10 October: The IRA detonates a bomb outside the Chelsea Barracks, killing two and injuring 39.
1981 26 October: The IRA bombs a Wimpy Bar on Oxford Street, killing Kenneth Howorth, the Metropolitan Police explosives officer attempting to defuse it.
1982 June: Abu Nidal kills the Israeli ambassador in London.[11]
1982 20 July: The Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings in London by the IRA kill eleven members of the Household Cavalry and the Royal Green Jackets.
1982 30 November: A group called the Animal Rights Militia sent a letter bomb to Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street, the device exploded injuring one person.[12]
1983 17 December: Harrods was bombed by the IRA. Six are killed (including three police officers) and 90 wounded during Christmas shopping at the West London department store. (See 17 December 1983 Harrods bombing)
1984 12 October: Brighton hotel bombing, 5 killed and several injured in an attempt by the IRA to kill Margaret Thatcher.
1988 21 December: Pan Am Flight 103 (Lockerbie) blown up by a bomb in a suitcase while in flight over Scotland after taking off from Heathrow. 270 were killed.
1989 22 September: Deal barracks bombing: Eleven Royal Marines bandsmen are killed and 22 injured when base in Deal, Kent, is bombed by the IRA.

Is that enough for you? Cause it keeps going...

Link

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by boncho
Coercion.

As in a goal to enact political change and we do these things, (terrorist acts) to get them to meet the demands of our political standards.

Muslims (radicals) make demands all the time, they declare jihad all the time. So did the IRA (not so much on the jihad thing but you get my point)

What demands did these lowlife brother list? What demands did Al Qaeda outline when they allegedly attack the US (while on CIA payroll up thru Sept. 11)? I was glued to the TV that day, the media was confused, nobody claimed responsibility. They all denied it. It was just senseless across the board. Of course that's a disaster of an issue to bring into this fold, for these very reasons.

Here's we have a hate crime committed against a crowd of easy targets, most convenient to the local criminals, or potentially pawns. The fact they were declared terrorists from the get go, and everybodies sticking to it all throughout, despite me conducting these talking points via logical fallacy lists, has this gamble maintaining full justification of beginning.

If your actions are simply to support an ideology and directed at innocent people, that is terrorism!

Any Irish knucklehead could have thrown a Molotov cocktail through the window of a British day school. He doesn't have to make demands, he doesn't have to take credit or profess he did it, simply doing it because they are British and because he wants Irish independence, thats just reasoning for his actions. His actions is the definition of terrorism.


If someone is strictly Muslim, adheres to the radical thought, taught by an extremist Imam, and believes all infidels should be killed.... That same person takes it upon himself to kill a group of innocent people in a restaurant, cafeteria, movie theatre, park, etc... His actions make him a terrorist.

He doesn't need make demands for money in a briefcase, or for the US to hand over it's President so he can face some mickey mouse radical Islam tribunal, etc...

The belief, the actions, equate to terrorism.

Not a difficult concept.

activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S

By this definition the people who caused the economic collapse are definitely terrorists, and If one applied it too our conduct in wars overseas, the U.S government would be the largest terrorist force on this planet. I don't think the pot calling the kettle black is an adequate phrase to describe this blatant Hippocracy.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Just because violence is scary, doesn't mean fear is the intent.

Was the Batman movie theatre attack terrorism? No, just some media fame driven maniac psychopath looking to up the bar in a media frenzy world long growing bored with school shootings.

edit on 11-5-2013 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

You do not understand the difference between warfare and terrorism, therefore everything you say on this subject should be considered null and void.

Terrorism is the act of causing terror to a person or public through violence or the threat of violence. Whether it is a terrorist group, a government, a military... doesn't matter. If it is done to non-military citizens it is an act of terrorism.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


What ever the definition or any way you look at it, it is stupid to have a country declare a war against terrorism.
With all the authority and actions of a war. But then again it IS useful.

Hey we're starting to really get somewhere here.

reply to post by boncho


A nice long list of facts. I like. To me it appears the majority of those are clear political targets. You're pretty spot on this time, I must say. But just because this set of arguments holds quite true, doesn't mean its completely right either.

Your example of the knucklehead, its a False Dichotomy. I argue he's a vandal. And who better to vandalize than the people who oppress you? Following this vein, when your oppressors live amongst you, are you not more likely to get into physical violence with them, regularly? If you get into a brawl with them, is this violence terrorism? If you win the fight and kick too many times, better yet you actually kill this person with one hit blow (it happens), are you a terrorist?

...Now if we've gotten this far without hypothetical perpetrator being a proper terrorist, now if they murder their offender premeditatively, does that all of the sudden transform them into a "terrorist"?

...If no, how is that different if they figure out how to kill a great many all in one shot?

Is an vengeful act of aggression towards social groups perceived as being oppressors, is that a clear definition of terrorism?

Now reference your list: political targets. 9/11: those were political targets (financial symbol, military, intended political buildings).

Boston: Their oppressors they lived amongst.

2011 Waltham Murders: JEWS

Very easily ritualistic hate crimes. Hating people over political differences doesn't inherently mean that resulting violence between these members of opposing social groups are political acts of terrorism.

The Brothers pissed about military history, doesn't make them desperate. Offended, surely. Now consider how supposedly he was best friends with someone he then mutilated (a Jew). That to me tells the tale of a true psychopath, to turn on someone that fast, essentially over social group perceptions rationalized over "lifestyle choices". Many serial killers target hookers in similar fashion, rationalization, and while when other prostitutes find out its surely scary, that doesn't mean the killer was waging a terror campaign. That would be a murder camapign. Now consider the day they chose to do it, here's where it gets really tricky, the day Sept. 11th, this suppose imam who trained / brainwashed him, supposedly convinced him that the CIA carried out 9/11. Why then would they celebrate this Al Qaeda 'holiday' in such form, if his terror cell insider that trained him doesn't even believe it to be an act of supposed handlers or whatever ilk along those lines?? Could these be the calculated ravings of a pissed off socially offended psychopath? Being a fighter, one might assume he has a tendency towards violence. I haven't concluded this mini-analysis yet in this paragraph, but all should be important lines of inquiry.

reply to post by Rocker2013


You've presented very useful levels of distinction important to this process, although not definitive, good points no less. It's a shame that you've across the board declared that all of the abundant words I've arranged in this thread to completely of no value. What a simple world, your reality must be. You don't even have to challenge any point I've made, not even read hardly, as I didn't present such a neat, simple & clean little definition as you have done, I shouldn't have even started nor maintained this thread. Damnit. My Bad.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Of course not. When suspects have ties to the FBI & CIA handlers,

then its a false flag operation...




Dr. Barrett: Boston bombing was CIA false flag operation

reply to post by boncho


Continuing on...

Now lets consider a few US Domestic cases, off the top of my head:

Unabomber: His victims were the scientists he was convinced were going to destroy the world. Killing them and their ilk, all industrialization for that matter, were the core of his doctrine. The one he lived by, lead by example in. To us those civilians might sound like innocent civilian soft targets. To George Washington, those were British Officers, military masterminds even, or at least the people building King Georges weapons of war.

Tim McVeigh: Government building, ATF, essentially those responsible for the Waco Massacre. I believe it was even on the same date.

KKK: They were all about terrorizing, thru extreme force, their social "opposites", the chief minorities of that era, from exercising liberty. This examples surely adds some diversity to this process. But in short, political repression by the ruling race? Now if a black man so subjected to such tyranny, he went on a shooting spree trying to kill the white devils, is he now a terrorist, or a rage filled hate criminal? Note that the KKK wasn't trying to scare them just for the sake of doing it, and not even just because they hated them, they were trying to prevent an actual political outcome and they made that extremely clear.

Looking over Wikipedia's Domestic terrorism in the United States List...

Animal Liberation Front: Sabotage animal rights violating industrialists. This sounds to me like abuse of the word being discussed.

Alpha 66 and Omega 7: Cuban exiles, attacking Castro violently, an interesting example. Probably CIA funded, for sure at some point at least.

Army of God: Determination to use force to end abortion in the United States. Sounds not different in principle than the Unabomber.

Aryan Nations: Evolved form of KKK, with not just socially repressive but often clear Nazi political aspirations. Seems a much cleaner example of a terrorist group than the KKK, but still these "hate groups" are tricky examples.

Black Liberation Army: Not only did they want to commit race based hate crimes, in particular they wanted to " overthrow the US government in the name of racial separatism and Marxist ideals".

Eco-Terrorists (there are several): While some at some point may have harmed humans, are all attacks on industry mechanizations, every instance, should those really all be declared terrorism? Is an attack on the infrastructure of some institution inherently "terrorism"? Probably not. I mean if some punk kids, or someone who believes that cell phones cause brain cancer, if they go disable a cell phone tower with some thermite for example, is that terrorism? Should their Constitution be revoked?

Weathermen: Sought violent overthrow of US government, including bombings in such pursuit. This should be an easy one.

Many other small ones on the list.

Okay, somebody herein pointed out the the Boston kid hasn't had his Constitution revoked. Yet?

Some congressional Republicans had insisted that Tsarnaev be designated an “enemy combatant,’’ which would enable the government to charge him under the laws of war in a military commission or to hold him indefinitely.
articles.washingtonpost.com...

The charges:
"use of a weapon of mass destruction"
"malicious destruction of property resulting in a death"

I'm not sure all the names of charges available to prosecutors that might more directly utilize the word "terrorism". There does exist the possibility that such a charge isn't being sought as they might lose the case. I'd say that we might expect a plea bargain for life in prison, but that WMD charge is a perfect example of technical terms being over-killed as a sort of hyper-reactive measure to reclassify things domestically. In all the world, especially by military standards, a WMD is nuclear/biological/chemical weapons. But all the sudden, apparently anything that causes 'massive' destruction (a subjective term) is now a "WMD" that warrants perhaps constitutional suspension.

So, if you flew down from some other planet, and the first things you researched about humans, US society rather, was a list of school shooting type mass murderings, and then that Wikipedia list of domestic terrorism, and the next day Boston attack happened, would you immediately jump up and shout 'hey thats terrorism'?

Alot of weirdos out there seeking 10 minutes of fame at the cost of other souls and wonderful human beings that die for their 10 minutes of fame.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Your example of the knucklehead, its a False Dichotomy. I argue he's a vandal. And who better to vandalize than the people who oppress you? Following this vein, when your oppressors live amongst you, are you not more likely to get into physical violence with them, regularly? If you get into a brawl with them, is this violence terrorism? If you win the fight and kick too many times, better yet you actually kill this person with one hit blow (it happens), are you a terrorist?

A singled on one person an act of terrorism? No, I think you are missing the concept here. Terrorism is used primarily to define an attack on civilians (non-combatants.) In other words, people that didn't sign up for a fight, or a war. So yes, if some schmuck throws a molotov cocktail at a crowd of people walking, that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, that person is a terrorist. Simple as that.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations to further their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[10] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism of terrorism can leverage human fear to help achieve these goals.[11]

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you. A premeditated murder you are trying to compare to terrorism. Then you start talking about serial killers. The reason you call them 'serial killers' is because of the definition laid out for them. Which is an accurate representation of their character and actions. So to is the term "terrorist" for people who are acting out in service to a radical Islamist philosophy that believes killing multiple innocent civilians will further their cause.


reply to post by reeferman

Of course not. When suspects have ties to the FBI & CIA handlers,

then its a false flag operation...

Again, that doesn't prove the CIA &/or the FBI directed them to do that. "Contact" means absolutely nothing. Dialogue means nothing. Hell, even if they were paid informants, then did this, still doesn't = false flag operation.

Plenty of paid agents/informants over the years went way out of bounds with what they were asked to do by the feds controlling them.

This happens all the time in Mafia/Drug operations. The agents or informants are not supposed to be actively committing crimes, but they've been caught killing people, selling narcotics, and the list goes on and on.

It doesn't mean it was sanctioned by the feds handling them.

This can all be backed up by facts, of past experiences when federal law enforcement dropped the ball with the people they were using. It's all there... clear as day for you to research. Yes, too, there are instances of false flags, but few and far between compared to the alternative.

You guys really love jumping to conclusions eh?

to prove to the OP we are not that bad on deeming whom is a terrorist, here is one that should be, but is not listed, but by all rights should be: I give you the mothers day parade shooter bigstory.ap.org... just some of the things that in my book would put him on the hit list, so who is he form the link

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — New Orleans police and federal authorities were searching early Tuesday for a young man who is suspected of opening fire at a Mother's Day parade in New Orleans, wounding 19.

Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas identified the suspect late Monday as Akein Scott, 19, of New Orleans. Referring to blurry surveillance camera images of the mass shooting, Serpas said police have "multiple identifications of Akein Scott as the shooter" seen in the film.

now is he worthy of a shoot to kill, when seen on site by this you tell me

A police news release says Scott has previously been arrested for illegal carrying of a weapon, illegal possession of a stolen firearm, resisting an officer, contraband to jail, illegal carrying of a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of heroin.

It is a good thing that I am not in charge, the laws on the books would say this scum deserves the "shoot to kill when seen" order no git mo, nor court, for this scum, till you read the below, then you have to ask did he really do all them things

It was not immediately clear whether Scott, who was arrested this past March, had been convicted on any of those charges.

This is why we do not have "ME " in charge!!

We have courts and procedures in place, just because one is labeled a Terrorists does not make him a Terrorist as seen by the press release , are the laws in jeopardy of being misused, you bet but then this is why we have free speech, to point out the fallacy of such laws, I am the one calling him a Terrorist not the AP or the Police. Does he fall under the NDAA act or the Pact 2, or the Pact, to me he does.