Incel charged with Terrorism

[orathaic]

https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/artic ... -militancy

Article on suffragettes and violence. It does open with claims that we would now call it terrorism. They claimed they were fighting a war; so at least they take the same position the Irish Republicans in 1916 took, ie their violence was justified against an oppressive state (you can of course consider them terrorists aswell).

[orathaic]

And just to point to the issue of government overreach: Obama ordered the killing of US citizens via drone strike. Apparently justified because they were 'terrorists', ie Muslims living abroad.

I'm pretty sure that is a rights violation, though morally it is no more wrong than killing no US citizens via drone strike.

[Octavious]

I'm confused, Ora. You seem to be criticising Obama overusing the word terrorist in order to expand his options regarding killing people, and then at the same time saying that somehow justifies expanding the definition of terrorist even further. If anything Obama's actions should encourage greater restrictions in what should be defined as terrorism?

[Octavious]

But in terms of terrorism, I use the generally accepted definition that it's the use of violence and/or intimidation against non combatants (be it civilians or military outside of a declared war) to advance a political aim.

So, suffragists are not terrorists as they were an organisation which had clear political aims but were non violent.

Suffragettes are terrorists as they were an organisation which had clear political aims and use violence to advance them.

Incels are not a terrorist organisation as they are not organised and have no clear political aims, although some of them are violent shits.

This particular incel is not a terrorist because, although he is violent, he had no clear political aim. If it was proven he had a political aim he would be a terrorist, but you couldn't apply the label to incels in general as they are not an organisation.

[Randomizer]

Incels are not a terrorist organisation as they are not organised and have no clear political aims, although some of them are violent shits.

This particular incel is not a terrorist because, although he is violent, he had no clear political aim. If it was proven he had a political aim he would be a terrorist, but you couldn't apply the label to incels in general as they are not an organisation.

While you can't apply the label in general anymore than saying a Muslim is a terrorist because some Muslims are terrorists, some incels are organized through online groups. So in that case there needs to be more information on whether he belongs to an organization. Defining whether it was a political aim also needs more information on why he chose that target.

[yavuzovic]

This particular incel is not a terrorist because, although he is violent, he had no clear political aim. If it was proven he had a political aim he would be a terrorist, but you couldn't apply the label to incels in general as they are not an organisation.

Well terrorist or not, the result is same no? I wouldn't mind them to be charged with terrorism as long as they are as harmful as terrorism, whether there is a political reason behind. You may claim that the politically backed-upp terrorism can lead more cases but I believe this isn't much different. Incels filled with rage will see this as an example attack. It may not be a terrorist attack but it isn't any different except the name.

[orathaic]

This particular incel is not a terrorist because, although he is violent, he had no clear political aim. If it was proven he had a political aim he would be a terrorist, but you couldn't apply the label to incels in general as they are not an organisation.

Well terrorist or not, the result is same no? I wouldn't mind them to be charged with terrorism as long as they are as harmful as terrorism, whether there is a political reason behind. You may claim that the politically backed-upp terrorism can lead more cases but I believe this isn't much different. Incels filled with rage will see this as an example attack. It may not be a terrorist attack but it isn't any different except the name.

Not necessarily, if you assigned a group's activities as terrorism, you may get extra police resources to focus on them. Extra surveillance, infiltration, sti g operations. Etc.

Makes it easier to gain political support for this policing. I think it does matter. And with political support you may also see erosion of the basics rights of targeted groups (like Obama ordering deaths of US citizens, because apparently being abroad makes you exempt from the right to a trial by jury, or innocent until proven guilty...).

Sure it* (the overreach of police powers) usually happens when a marginalised group is being 'uppity', like the civil rights movement, or being Muslim, but Incels seem like an unusually white and male group to be targeted in this way.

*not necessarily the labelling of an organisation as terrorism, my claim is merely that it helps make the case for the state easier. I don't actually know if the FBI infiltration of violent civil rights movement groups used that particular word. I would guess they did, or they would today in the post 'war on terror' World.

[yavuzovic]

Not necessarily, if you assigned a group's activities as terrorism, you may get extra police resources to focus on them. Extra surveillance, infiltration, sti g operations. Etc.

Makes it easier to gain political support for this policing. I think it does matter. And with political support you may also see erosion of the basics rights of targeted groups (like Obama ordering deaths of US citizens, because apparently being abroad makes you exempt from the right to a trial by jury, or innocent until proven guilty...).

Sure it* (the overreach of police powers) usually happens when a marginalised group is being 'uppity', like the civil rights movement, or being Muslim, but Incels seem like an unusually white and male group to be targeted in this way.

*not necessarily the labelling of an organisation as terrorism, my claim is merely that it helps make the case for the state easier. I don't actually know if the FBI infiltration of violent civil rights movement groups used that particular word. I would guess they did, or they would today in the post 'war on terror' World.

Well, I didn't consider the actions to prevent this. I was talking about one single case that the news mention.
The suspect apperently inspired from other attacks in the past which means this can also cause more attacks. I think this case covers all the conditions what make an attack considered terrorism.
Otherwise, I agree with you that the fight against incel terror would be different than the precautions against a terrorist organization like ISIS or something else. Incels aren't organized as a group so I agree with you that it's not necessarily to act same as a nornal group. But incels seem to be a group of potential attackers fed by an idea. I wouldn't call it a terrorist group but I would call them terrorists individually.

[orathaic]

Alt-right violence planned: https://twitter.com/scottkernest/status ... 52352?s=19

Would this qualify as terrorism?

[Octavious]

If it's a credible threat, yes. Although my suspicions have been aroused somewhat by use of the words "are using 4chan to plan..."