Walter
It is not much different here. I am sure that demonstrators in Germany would not be given authorization to lie down in the middle of the street during the morning rush hour any more than they would be in NY City.
There are definitions in the respected sources that codify some social consensus on what which word means, so that we are able to communicate with each other. if each poster used his/her own definitions on the threads he/she started, words would lose all meaning, and so would discussion. Here's what Merriam Webster lists under terrorism and terror:
terrorism
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
Date: 14th century
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
synonym see FEAR
terrorism is what governments do to their citizens.
au
Certainly not - but that's the way demonstrations go!
BTW: it could be a criminal offence in Germany to call a demonstrant "terrorist" (= wrong accusation of a severe crime).
Perhaps Au is terrified to be late for work.
It really brings a smile to my face when I read how "convincing" people try to be to prove their non existant point.
By au1929's defination - when US refused to give Turkey the aid which had been promised if Turkey did not let them use their land for invasion of Iraq - US also commited an act of "economic terrorism".
Oh but I forgot, if it done for a good cause, like "liberating the Iraqi people" then it is not terrorism, but if it done for an "unpatriotic cause", like protest against the war - it is...
Isn't it au1929 ?
16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.SECTION 3.
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
ebrown_p
Sorry to, disappoint you have been retired for some years now.
Gautam
How can I answer that without impugning your good sense. I can't so I will let silence be my response.
Another thought, au, on your calling these protesters terrorists: Those who died on 9/11/01 were killed by terrorists, on that we can certainly agree. Don't you think it trivializes that tragedy to liken the acts of people who disrupt traffic to that of people who kill thousands of innocents?
OK, I hope by now that everybody has expressed their view as to the term terrorism perhaps someone would like to address the question asked?
< The constitution protects free assembly and dissent but not civil disruption and disobedience. How would you deal with these people?>
Exactly as they are being dealt with. If they become too obstructive, they are being taken away by the police. Don't forget the anti-war protesters are not the only ones out there, there are hundreds of pro-war demonstrators too. I tend to agree with D'Artagnan. It is to be expected and if there's not enough police, bring in more. How would you deal with them, AU?
dagmaraka
Wrong there are no pro war protesters on the scene. And if there were they would not be lying down in the middle of the street {Road} disrupting traffic. As for what would I do, this is my question. Let me say I would make the punishn\ment as painful as I possibly could {not physically} so that people think twice before they employ these tactics again. A slap in the wrist is not sufficient
I should note I have not seen any pro-war demonstrations. Whether there were or not I do not know.
Nope, they are there. I just heard reports on NPR half an hour ago, I did not make it up, I tend to prefer to rely on facts or reports. They would not lie on the street? Possibly, but also possibly not - how would you know? Because you share their views or what is the logic behind your assertion?
What is the 'as painful as possible' punishment exactly? fine? jail? forced labor? after all, it IS your question, you most likely do have an alternative to the situation you dislike in mind.
I guess an argument like "This is America, land of the free..." isn't going to cut it here.
The answer to the question, au, is 'nothing.'
People who say that protests aid terrorists by siphoning off valuable police resources and so on simply aren't taking into account the purpose of the peace officer.
By that reasoning, so do St. Patrick's Day parades, the Oscars, and NCAA basketball tournaments, to name a few most current examples.
Of course the premise of your question goes even farther, calling THEM terrorists. That's completely invalid.
The police exist, at least theoretically, to serve society--not the other way around. We need to try to remember that. Assuming that "we" are making such arguments in good faith, out of concern for society and not as an excuse to crack down on those with whom "we" disagree.
Which of course "we" are not.
dagmaraka
I was watching it on TV as it happened the disturbance and civil disobedience was by the protesters. Not anyone else.
PDiddie and friends
If you have seen any of my posts you would know I do not side with Bush or the GOP. However, you would also know I do not agree with the tactics of the protesters at least once our troops have been committed. That said I would like to remind you in case you had forgotten it was NY City and the people from it and the surrounding area that suffered 9/11. Not Houston, or Denver or Boston or wherever. In addition NY City is the among the prime targets of the terrorists we are constantly being warned about. NY City is expending 51/2 million dollars don't remember if it is a week or month on security. Money that the federal government was supposed to provide as part of homeland security. Another of Bush's hollow promises. In any event inorder to get the funds for that and all the other services we are being taxed to death. There has been talk of layoffs of police and fireman since we just don't have the funds to pay them. We do not need nor can we afford the added strain to our resources. NY has paid the price of terrorism for the entire nation. Go to Boston or Dallas or as far as I am concerned to hell but leave us alone.
Recent experience (1960~) shows some of anti-war protesters (fundamendalistic anti-war / desperate anti-war) easily turn into terrorists.
