How is planting fake bomb in plane lavatory not terrorism?

Since when has Terrorism been downgraded by Media/Officials to not include threats and faked bombs/bombings?

Would it matter if the retired French policeman's faith, perhaps?

a reply to: Plantagenet

Sorry, I'm behind on all the terr updates. So this was a disgruntled employee, then?

originally posted by: Plantagenet
Would it matter if the retired French policeman's faith, perhaps?

It's far to early to go down that cul de sac unless you know something we don't. It is terrorism though.
As an update, the police officer is not a suspect.

The, 'Bermb' has been considered a prank because of it amateurism, that's not to say if they get whomever did it won't face charges.

a reply to: Plantagenet

They had no quote from authorities as of yet?

The media doesn't classify it anything until authorities do. Air France stated 'reckless endangerment'. Authorities will make the final classification.

It all depends on who takes responsibility for planting any alleged bombs.

School science project?

Maybe this will open up new defenses to the charge of terrorism, beyond the "just kidding" defense.

It could be a concern about lawsuits. Look what happened when the H.S. student took a fake bomb to school. He said it was a clock and now his family is suing.

Reacting to fake bombs is racist.

Just ask Obama and Ahmed the Clock Inventor's apologists.

Because it's only terrorism if you are muslim, have a connection to the middle east, or have connections/are part of some group involved with islam or the ME.

It's silly really.

Look at the Bernardino attack. Before they arrested the suspects/criminals, the police said that they don't know if it was terrorism. Clearly walking to a public area, armed with weapons, and shooting the place with the intent of killing people is an act of terrorism without question. But since they couldn't yet link the attack to anything related to islam/the ME, it wasn't yet confirmed if it was terrorism.

originally posted by: Plantagenet
Since when has Terrorism been downgraded by Media/Officials to not include threats and faked bombs/bombings?

Would it matter if the retired French policeman's faith, perhaps?

Asking this question alone indicates how much people have taken on the views that government propaganda and medial training intended them to have.

Asking this question is accepting that terrorism is now something that was before 911, at worst, especially in cases like this, merely a criminal act. I'm not even sure that it should be regarded as or defined as even a criminal act. A serious misdemeanor may be more appropriate.

At worst, before 911, this act would have been classified, in all likelihood, as a prank and or, as a criminal offense that would have carried a short prison sentence.

A claiming that a scare is an act of terrorism, is measure of the success of government indoctrination of its people, a measure of success of its mind control efforts, one might say.

originally posted by: mamabeth
It all depends on who takes responsibility for planting any alleged bombs.

I'm not able to tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

Being in my late 30's and living in Scotland I remember the terrorist attacks carried out by White Catholic Extremists (more commonly known as the IRA) on UK soil. My question is, when did the goalposts change in regards to terrorism? It used to be the act itself that defined if it was classed as terrorism, regardless of the skin colour or religious affiliation of the perpetrator...

originally posted by: Azureblue
A claiming that a scare is an act of terrorism, is measure of the success of government indoctrination of its people, a measure of success of its mind control efforts, one might say.

Let's start with the dictionary definition of the word...

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm'
noun
noun: terrorism
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

It could be argued that this device was placed on the plane as a form of intimidation (although at this point it is speculation since the motive isn't clear yet). Anyone doing this as a prank certainly would have a very dark and inappropriate sense of humour.

I have seen the same questions asked about a white guy in England who made a rudimentary explosive out of an inhaler, matches and toilet paper, in that case it probably wasn't terrorism as the device in that instance would incite a mild feeling of unease in all likelihood, not terror. This case is a bit different. Someone walking in to that toilet, seeing the device mid flight, would almost certainly feel terror and would likely spread that through the aircraft. I would say this was an attempt to terrorise the occupants of the plane...

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: mamabeth
It all depends on who takes responsibility for planting any alleged bombs.

I'm not able to tell if you're being sarcastic or serious....

Thanks, having been close to such an event I can appreciate and understand you taking the event very seriously, however I was looking at this from a stepped back position so I was serious. Similarly, I can easily agree that it was no 'prank' to the passengers and crew on the plane concerned but it was in fact a 'prank.'

My interest in all this is, as I said, is how easily government in partnership with the media, are able to train the public up to have the views they want them to have.

I find this apparent, relative ease; is very disappointing and discouraging for the truth tellers out there who are risking their lives and perhaps that of their families, in trying prevent us from all sliding into the deep, dark abyss of tyranny and slavery.

cheers

a reply to: Azureblue

It's a fear of mine too, too many of us are too easily swayed by what appears in our newspapers and on outer TV screens, it's a sad time...