California Fire Expands Definition of Terrorism

Originally posted by KingKruiser
Go to page 43!!! It redefines terrorism on a federal/state level and gives a description of WMD's!! A grenade over 4 ounces is a WMD? WTF?

[edit on 26/10/07 by masqua]

Emphasis added by me... I guess the best argument I can make for my stance on this is...

Have you ever seen a grenade go off in a crowded room? The Impact is Massive Destruction. Not necessarily on a grand scale but if the room the explosion occured in was located properly (1st floor corner office) Massive damages could be caused OUTSIDE of the Massive damage caused to that singular room.


SO technically a Grenade IS a Weapon of Mass Destruction... It is not for the intent of harming one person. The goal of a grenade is to cause as much sustainable damage as possible.

Secondly if you want a grenade they ARE illegal... Sooooo technically carrying one should have you labeled as a terrorist... WTF do you need a grenade for anyways? deer hunting?

NEW YORK (AP) — Two improvised explosives were thrown into the rear of the Mexican Consulate early Friday, causing small explosions that blew out some windows, authorities said. No injuries were reported.

Police believe someone on a bicycle threw the devices — made from replica grenades packed with explosive powder — at 3 a.m., New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.

Source

Coincedence?

reply to post by stompk


Ramming a police car is use of deadly force on the arsonist's part, so the Police were well within their rights of self defense. There is no policy that says Police have to allow someone to escalate things to the point of Police, or other citizens being killed before they can use deadly force.
I can't believe some of the ridiculous comments posted around here, where folks complain that they aren't allowed to make explosives or threaten violence, and this is the evidence they cite for living in a fascist state. I'd like you to provide me a list of countries where you could threaten violent Government overthrows, make explosives, cause civil disorder, or ram police cars while trying to start fires, and not get in trouble. Just one country will suffice- anyone?

Police car rammed at Windsor
No one killed

Suspect rams car in Baltimore
No one killed

Man rams police car in Elk Grove, CA
No one killed. $40,000 bond. Man tasered.

Man rams police car in Perth
Cops took the guy to the hospital with a broken nose. No one KILLED

I could probably show you 1000 more instances where cops didn't kill the guy for ramming their citizen paid police car.

If I hit someone with my fist, that could be considered assault with a deadly weapon. If I hit a cop, would that give him the right to shoot to kill?

But you go ahead and let your rights get stripped to the point where cops can kill just about anybody they want, for any reason.

I stick to exposing the truth.

reply to post by stompk


If I start ramming police cars, I'd be surprised if they didn't shoot at me. I certainly wouldn't think my civil rights were being violated.

Your right. According to your reasoning, you would have no rights, cause you would be dead.

In my own opinion. If you're considering that these fires and arsons are acts of terrorism which the beginning of this thread was about in the first place, I think the officers were justified in firing at a terrorist. Sounds about right to me. Plus if he rammed them in the car what choice to they have? Create even more danger by creating a high speed chase? Or perhaps just sending him to jail just for him to be released later and cause even more damage by starting more fires. Law enforcement have plenty of right to use deadly force especially when it involves terrorism (which is stated in the beginning of the article) and when the "terrorist" so to speak, is endangering the lives of the Law enforcement agents.

One last thing, applying your logic, why would it matter if they killed you, after all you would be dead and would have no rights to be violated, in which case we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Dienekes]

Originally posted by KingKruiser

TERRORISM: Any activity (1) that involves an act (a) that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and (b) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and (2) appears to be intended (a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (b) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (c) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by KingKruiser]

So, when can we begin prosecuting FOX, NBC, ABC, CNN and other new outlets?

Also, I guess with this whole new Iran scheme we should be able to indict the current administration as well? Being that the U.N. Inspectors in Iran disagree with administration about Iran trying to build nuclear weapons. I'd say that trying to scare the population of America into supporting an attack on Iran would fall into this category.

EDIT: to say that I think (2)(c) could be used as well, but, at this time it's not provable so I'll just stick with (2)(a)&(b) for now.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by tyranny22]

TERRORISM: Any activity (1) that involves an act (a) that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and (b) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States

By that definition, the activity or act must directly endanger human life or be destructive, or is directly violating the law of the "United States or any State or other subdivision of the United States" not violating the law of Iran. Plus the Iranian president has clearly stated that Iran is developing or wanting to develop their nuclear program.

reply to post by coven


So, you're saying that they did, indeed, find WMD in Iraq? In fact, our soldiers carried WMD's in with them.

LMAO. It's a sad, sad world/prison we're letting them build around us. It's being built by words and documents as we speak. Soon, it will turn to enforcement and become a reality.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Well, my personal "threat level assessment" has gone to a new color. That was a good find, OP, and a star and flag for it. I hope a lot of people read this carefully.

Thank-you. Over the past few months I feel that a lot has been revealed to me which I supposed was probable truths. But after these fires, there's a lot which I can see are cold hard facts and not even questions.

Did anyone see the news clip of Bush smiling and laughing during his big speech to evacuees (towards the beginning)? If you can find it I'd love to have it in my files.

reply to post by Dienekes


According to the definition you posted, if you do harm to a person, and break the law, you are a terrorists.

That is the most vague definition yet.

Could you please source that.

With that logic, a DUI could get you on the watch list.

Which, is probably true.

Originally posted by coven

Originally posted by KingKruiser
Go to page 43!!! It redefines terrorism on a federal/state level and gives a description of WMD's!! A grenade over 4 ounces is a WMD? WTF?

[edit on 26/10/07 by masqua]

Emphasis added by me... I guess the best argument I can make for my stance on this is...

Have you ever seen a grenade go off in a crowded room? The Impact is Massive Destruction. Not necessarily on a grand scale but if the room the explosion occured in was located properly (1st floor corner office) Massive damages could be caused OUTSIDE of the Massive damage caused to that singular room.


SO technically a Grenade IS a Weapon of Mass Destruction... It is not for the intent of harming one person. The goal of a grenade is to cause as much sustainable damage as possible.

Secondly if you want a grenade they ARE illegal... Sooooo technically carrying one should have you labeled as a terrorist... WTF do you need a grenade for anyways? deer hunting?

It just amazes me we went into Iraq on false pretenses that some sort of chemical missles or nuclear activity was going on WMD's. Now we're looking for grenades?

Obviously we found some of them in Iraq? hahah But we didn't ever say we found WMD's in Iraq right?

reply to post by tyranny22

First of all its Iran not Iraq. Second of all I didn't say they found WMD's, I said that Iran has talked about developing their nuclear program. Read a little more carefully. Yes, by definition, our soldiers are carrying WMD's (which also means, yes, there are WMD's in Iraq like you wanted me to confirm) but I honestly don't think I would agree to that definition fully. Based on common sense. It's similar to slang. Like gay, the common definition now is homosexual. The original definition was happy or delight. When someone uses the term "gay" many people instantly think homosexual. When I hear WMD I don't think about small explosives, i think nuclear or biological weapons that could destroy life on a very large scale.


[edit on 26-10-2007 by Dienekes]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by stompk

 

Ramming a police car is use of deadly force on the arsonist's part, so the Police were well within their rights of self defense. There is no policy that says Police have to allow someone to escalate things to the point of Police, or other citizens being killed before they can use deadly force.
I can't believe some of the ridiculous comments posted around here, where folks complain that they aren't allowed to make explosives or threaten violence, and this is the evidence they cite for living in a fascist state. I'd like you to provide me a list of countries where you could threaten violent Government overthrows, make explosives, cause civil disorder, or ram police cars while trying to start fires, and not get in trouble. Just one country will suffice- anyone?

Ramming the officers with the police cars is only an act of deadly force if they were actually in the vehicles and it actually posed a threat of fatal injury.

The original report which is unlinked in google now (even the cache) stated that the officers had made a barricade with their vehicles and he was repeatedly ramming them to get away. I would slightly speculate that if they were able to fatally shoot him while he is ramming the cars? they were most likely out of the vehicles it was clear he only wanted to escape and shooting a tire or something was a much better alternative?

Second, their statement was "they thought they saw him trying to set a fire"
At best he had a failed attempted arson.

Nobody shot the girl who had a fake bomb on her chest right? I'd consider that a lot worse (before they knew it was fake) than this guy and much higher of potential deadly force. (they didn't just call in the sniper and have her taken out)

Originally posted by Dienekes
reply to post by tyranny22

 

First of all its Iran not Iraq. Second of all I didn't say they found WMD's, I said that Iran has talked about developing their nuclear program. Read a little more carefully. Yes, by definition, our soldiers are carrying WMD's (which also means, yes, there are WMD's in Iraq like you wanted me to confirm) but I honestly don't think I would agree to that definition fully. Based on common sense. It's similar to slang. Like gay, the common definition now is homosexual. The original definition was happy or delight. When someone uses the term "gay" many people instantly think homosexual. When I hear WMD I don't think about small explosives, i think nuclear or biological weapons that could destroy life on a very large scale.


[edit on 26-10-2007 by Dienekes]

I think that's why this seems so strange to include grenades etc as WMD's because WMDs before was a very large scale type of threat

When the term is altered and codified in our laws, it doesn't really matter what we thought before because its legal pretenses have been broadened.

reply to post by KingKruiser

True, but when you think about it, in the end, it still comes down to human judgment. It doesn't completely rely on what is written down (although that is what influences the decision) someone still has to make the judgment call. Thats where you have corruption as well. Everything relies on someone's decision. It will always be that way unless some omnipotent power intervenes.

Originally posted by stompk
reply to post by Dienekes

 

According to the definition you posted, if you do harm to a person, and break the law, you are a terrorists.

That is the most vague definition yet.

Could you please source that.

With that logic, a DUI could get you on the watch list.

Which, is probably true.

I'm not sure what you mean by sourcing I'm new to the board.
.
Here's the web address:

www.nwcg.gov...

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) (Governmental fire entity)
(funny their logo is the trinity? wtf?)

BACKGROUND INFO ON STAFFORD ACT:

Apparently this is quite the piece of Federal legislation

Oddly enough on Oct. 19th 2007 they were still asking for this Act to be amended (if you look at the bottom of the article)

"The Stafford Act does not adequately recognize 21st century threats. For example, the definition of a major disaster does not cover chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks or accidents. The act should further be amended to encompass 21st century threats."

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the primary federal agency responsible for responding to disasters within the United States, carrying out the provisions of the Stafford Act, and distributing assistance provided by the act."

And now, according to the Stafford Act I posted and is linked at the top of this post, "major threats" such as biological, radiological, and nuclear are all added under the WMD component.

FEMA anyone?

www.docuticker.com...

(Also notice "comments are closed", dead giveaway it smells of BS)

TERRORISM: Any activity (1) that involves an act (a) that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources;

Our government authorized the destruction of tons of infrastructure in Iraq. I do believe it was dangerous to human life, considering about 700,000 people have died.

I also believe that since they were involved in the 9/11 attacks, then this would apply as well.

and (b) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States;

Blowing up buildings and killing 3,000 Americans is against the law in this country last time I checked.

and (2) appears to be intended (a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

Yep, those images of the South Tower blowing up over and over and over got the country afraid and we were coerced into allowing our freedoms to be taken.

(b) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

USA PATRIOT Act

or (c) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Mass destruction = Twin Towers


I guess that means our government can now be labeled terrorists. Thanks for the definition, guys

[edit on 10/26/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

You know, when my husband read the new definition under this bill the first thing he said was, that our nation is actually one of the biggest producers of MWDs.

So our government should be deemed terrorist by the definition of the bill.

Funny but this bill actually defines our own nations role in the middle east.

Should we demand our governments prosecution.?

[edit on 26-10-2007 by marg6043]