Replies

What I can’t get over is that people actually think it was terrorism. When I was in security forces school with The Marines in 93 I distinctly remember classroom instruction on terrorism and the precise definition. I hate to burst a lot of bubbles but this along with a ton of reported supposed terrorism has cheapened what terrorism truly is....and unless a statement or claim comes out this isn’t it either. According to what I learned and from the FBI website...
“International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Sorry folks this isn’t it. Unless I missed a statement or proclamation somewhere.

How is a jihadi killing a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, at a war memorial NOT intended to influence policy by intimidating the civilian populace? If your soldiers aren't safe from jihadi rage what does that say for average infidels?

How does continuing this crime spree within their Parliament Building, in proximity to the Prime Minister, whom the shooter may have killed if not stopped, NOT qualify as at least a potential assassination?

Here is my definition (in layman's terms):

An act that is intended to strike fear into the civilian population. The act itself is less significant but the resulting fear is great.

For example: the 9/11 attack was less significant when compared to the resulting fear and how the US reacted (justified, in my opinion).

Four planes, 3000 civilians, two buildings, etc. brought the US to its knees — 300 million people in fear, hurt its economy, our government created the patriot act, a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the government spying on its citizens.

Arguably, a few individuals effectively destroyed the America that we knew.

This character in Canada had the very same intention. He knew that we would be killed, and like a suicide bomber his intent was to strike fear into the civilian population.