Letters to the Editor
-
ikuiku on acts of violence and other inconvenient terms
Any act of violence, whether directed at persons or property, done to further a political agenda is terrorism.
First of all, violence is only directed at someone else. Property is merely damaged or destroyed.
In other words, contrary to what you might hear from insurance company bean counters and corporate lawyers, property is not as sacred as people — not even people who are liberals. Shocking, I realize.
So right off the bat we have a problem. Graffitti constitutes damage or destruction of property — just like arson. So by your definition, in what way is political graffitti not "terrorism"?
"It's not as bad," I hear you say. But by what standard? Easier to repair? Less inconvenient? Generates less smoke? How do we decide what the threshold is for politically motivated crimes to be "terrorism?"
Vandalism is wanton "destruction" simply for the "hell of it."
Also wrong. Look it up.
Burning down a building because you do not like the activities associated with it is done to intimidate the people undertaking the activities connected to the building.
"Associated with"?? What kind of weasel words are those? If you have an argument to make, make it. Don't start wussing out.
If I randomly blow up a prominent office tower full of people as a way of striking fear into the hearts of their neighbors and countrymen, that is terrorism. If I beat up a local pimp because I'm tired of the degrading lifestyle he represents, I may be many things (political, a criminal vigilante, violent, an idiot) but I am not a terrorist.