The American Revolution seems like a pretty good example. It fits completely within the definition of terrorism. So I guess terrorism is in our heritage.
Agreed, that definition is a bit vague. I like the legal one better:
U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
- ineluctably political in aims and motives;
- violent – or, equally important, threatens violence;
- designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;
- conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders; and
- perpetrated by a subnational group or nonstate entity.
Here is the US "official" definition (Wikipedia):
There are also certain aspects of an act that constitute terrorism:
At any rate, I don't think that the rioters are terrorists, per se.
They meet the criteria of all three definitions I've posted.
A:
1. Their actions are inherently violent
2. Their aims are political/ideological
B:
1. Their actions are premeditated
2. Their actions are politically motivated
3. Their actions are inherently violent
4. Their actions are perpetuated against non-combatant targets
5. Their actions are committed by a non-state entity
6. Their actions are intended to influence an audience
C:
1. Their aims are political/ideological
2. Their actions are inherently violent
3. Their targets are civilians/non-military
4. Their makeup is an organized, non-state entity
5. Their intent is to influence an audience wider than their targets
So Bundy Ranch and the Wildlife takeover, terrorism?
Not violent. Acted against/toward state agents. And as far as I'm aware (at least in the BLM dispute), no intent to influence an audience wider than those with whom they engaged.
So, no: of all the ways you could describe them and their actions, "terrorism" isn't among the descriptors.
Keith Scott's family has viewed the shooting video. When asked if it supports police, their attorneys said "no comment"
This is the country we live in now. We are past the point of no return. I hope Indy stays civil so we don't have to see animals like this.
Keith Scott's family has viewed the shooting video. When asked if it supports police, their attorneys said "no comment"
Keith Scott's family has viewed the shooting video. When asked if it supports police, their attorneys said "no comment"