🚀 go-pugleaf

"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message

> The individual, who put something into the fuel tanks of the airplanes,
> intent and full belief was that what they did would keep the planes
> from even being able to take off.
>
> Gatt, knowing all this, would consider the individual's actions an "act
> of terrorism" or mere "vandalism"? And, if you think it would be an
> "act of terrorism", at what point did it become so, rather than mere
> "vandalism"

Fascinating question.

Attempted murder, probably.  It would be vandalism if they sabotaged the 
plane such that it couldn't operate, it would be terrorism if they said "If 
you fly the airplane you will die, so don't fly" (I do consider tree-spiking 
terrorism, for example.)

What they were really trying to do was cause the plane to crash and/or kill 
the people onboard.  Regardless of the excuse, it's at the very least 
attempted murder, right? You could call it terrorism, but I don't know if 
the charges would stick.

It would sure be counterproductive, though.  The NTSB would almost certainly 
find and investigate the cause, and if the trees were part of the problem, I 
don't know for sure but I think the NTSB has the clout to win any suit 
against the entities trying to stop cutting.  Which is exactly what will 
happen -when- somebody hits the trees.  (Except I think they're more likely 
to hit them landing than taking off.)

-c