English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-02-24 14:23:53 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

i beg to differ with those claiming these punks have no agenda politically they threaten voting locations far more than the ku klux klan does and the feds consider them teroristds, the mark out area they claim to control usurping the legal authirty of the state, they make war on innocent peopel to further their agenda they are definitly terrorist scum and hollywoods geffens and co ought to quit glorifying these murdering cowardly punks

2007-02-24 14:54:30 · update #1

11 answers

terrorism can be defined as the systematic use or threat of violence against individuals or states to obtain political concessions..those 2 gang punks can be then only classified as criminals.criminals do not project a vision of a radical transformation of the society..basically, terrorists and criminals then only differ politically..

2007-02-24 14:36:05 · answer #1 · answered by miryam santyagow 2 · 0 0

The "gang punks" allegedly chose to kill a pregnant woman.

Wisconsin has laws which will punish these men for the rest of their lives, if convicted.

If we treat these "punks" as terrorists, we might as well tear up the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and return to anarchy - like in Iraq. Sooner or later, an Iraqi George Washington will emerge and this nonsense will come to an end.

2007-02-24 22:43:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The difference between terrorists and Urban Gangsters is that the gangster fights for nothing, kills for thrills or drugs or "petty disputes" and is a sub-human-narcissistic-looser.

I think the same about terrorists except that they ( at the very least ) have an "idiotic belief" that they are fighting for a cause... (NOTICE: I did not say "Just Cause")

I am sorry for this poor woman and her unborn child. It truly is sad that anyone could do such an awful thing!

2007-02-24 22:40:39 · answer #3 · answered by usstand 2 · 0 0

By what OTHER name would you call them ??
We are in a country half way around the world spending Billions on rebuilding a country that at its heart hates our guts---while police departments in THIS country can not get funding to handle the outright insanity going on on our own streets and with our own urban territory !! These people are definately not a part of a solution to anything but the bitter end of social order of any kind---and ask any police officer that has to deal with this mess on a daily basis and he / she will tell you that these people are most definately "Enemy Combatants" !!!
So, where is out Cuban Prison for THESE persons ??

2007-02-24 22:38:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good question and one that I have often though about myself.
Yea there is terrorism going on everyday here in the US and with gangs it is based on their agendas of beliefs and territory etc.
Gangs, drive by shooters, crazed people shooting innocent shoppers and school children. Thats why I say how can you fight and win a war on terrorism when terrorism is basically just evil people and it's a war between good and evil.

2007-02-24 22:35:02 · answer #5 · answered by Enigma 6 · 0 0

Hell yes. Gangs are definitely terrorists, but the problem with calling them terrorists is that the government "could" twist that term around and use it on a group of hunters who accidentaly shoot another hunter...blah blah blah.

I'm not joking though.... The govt will do whatever they can get away with.

2007-02-24 22:41:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Personally I think gang members should be sent to fight the terrorists. I mean, they're already used to urban fighting, and maybe it would help straighten some of them out.

2007-02-24 22:31:50 · answer #7 · answered by dark_crystal_shard 2 · 0 0

One of the key parts of the definition of "terrorist" is that they act for ideological reasons. Without that distinction, it is hard to distinguish between a "terrorist" and a "criminal." Of course this shouldn't assume that a "terrorist" is automatically worse than a "criminal." And I think that for practical law enforcement reasons this distinction needs to be maintained.

2007-02-24 22:48:29 · answer #8 · answered by student_of_life 6 · 0 0

Are the Hell's Angels terrorists?

Have they ever been considered such?

No?

Then why should gang members be classified as such--if they aren't connected to Muslim extremism?

2007-02-24 22:46:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No but maybe insurrgents or freedom fighters in Iraq here in the USA their scum of the earth

2007-02-24 22:31:21 · answer #10 · answered by John A 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers