Occupy London deemed a domestic terrorist threat by police.
By ladybugmagic
@ladybugmagic (3978)
United States
December 16, 2011 8:30am CST
It's only a matter of time before it spreads to the US Occupy groups.
This, in the wake of the law the senate just passed that Obama is likely to sign, allowing to indefinitely detain US citizens suspected of "terrorism". As Rand Paul said, those suspicions include: missing a finger and having 7 days worth of food. Could be any number of people based on that.
The Weather Underground has been labelled as "terrorists". They were a vigilante group who demolished evacuated buildings in retaliation to something the authorities did opposing civil rights (like assassinating key civil rights leaders). The unfortunate part is that a police officer was killed in what should have remained a protest that caused no harm to anyone. It took an awful turn; certainly not part of their anti-war agenda.
Other people are deemed "terrorists" because they hang banners on trees saying not to chop them down.
What do you think classifies as a terrorist, and do you think the term is used too loosely nowadays?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@rogue13xmen13 (14403)
• United States
16 Dec 11
Well, I will give Los Angeles Occupy credit, it was a peaceful protest, and everyone got arrested peacefully.
My mother and I watched the whole thing on television and we even knew some people who were part of the protest.
None of them put up a fight, none of them tried to really fight the police, they let police take them in. None of them charged, thankfully.
I think that some of the protest go a little too far at times. I think that if the protesters know how to do things right, and if they know how to protest without actually getting into any trouble, then they can still get their message across without property damage or harm to human life.
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
16 Dec 11
Occupy 2.0 is launching. Maybe a valid party can form. From what I am researching, the green party supports many of their causes.
1 person likes this
@rogue13xmen13 (14403)
• United States
16 Dec 11
Yeah, but if Occupy is going to continue, then they need to really do things right. They need to be highly organized.
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
16 Dec 11
They do, at the same time without abandoning what they believe in. Anyone can be bought.
1 person likes this
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
17 Dec 11
Well London never declared it's independence from Britain and wrote a constitution with a Bill of Rights. Declaring inalienable rights that are so basic they didn't really need to be written down. So they don't have the right to peacefully assemble and protest.
Webster defines terrorism as "the use of violence and threats intimidate or coerce, especially for political purpose."
Most broadly a terrorist could be defined as: anyone who uses terrorism.
So in the most loose sense, giving a dirty look could be considered an act of terrorism.
In practice terrorist should have to meet a range of explicit criteria, including political agenda, propensity to commit violence, and actually pose a threat to the state.
The occupy movement isn't a terrorist act. They are political, but as far as large groups of protestors go they are very much on the non-violent or threatening end.
@theknute (183)
•
17 Dec 11
The term "terrorist" can be highly misused.
I had not heard yet about the Occupy London issue, is there a news article for it? I would like to read that.
I can understand the police in London being very cautious, as London has a lot of problems with terrorism and groups like that. Also, it may be possible that some individuals belonging to terrorist groups were at the protest.
Here in the US, I am concerned with ACORN's role in the Occupy movement, and that some groups paid many people to be part of the protest. I think it is wrong for organizations to pay protesters.
