Okay, some times here on AFF I attempt to give another perspective or an objectionable view whenever it appears that everyone is looking at things narrowly. I don't like to use the term "devil's advocate" but sometimes I do see the need to play that role whenever we are discussing very complex issues and I feel that the viewpoints are too simplistic to address them.
I do not have a problem with declaring and designating acts of terrorism as such, but here is an observation that I have made:
It appears to me that those who are most adamant about quickly declaring an act of terrorism as such and not simply a crime, are most adamant about not doing the same with hate crime designation. The argument that I hear is that there are sufficient legal designations for those crimes (for example murder is murder.)
Conversely, those who are most adamant about hate crime designation are most reluctant to designate an act of terrorism.
I do see a correlation between the two inasmuch as the designations take into account the special underlying motive in what would otherwise be an ordinary crime.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Threaded Mode
