🚀 go-pugleaf

gatt wrote:
> "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

Gatt, maybe I should have approach my question in a different way.

What I was trying to get at is: When judging whether something it is an
act of vandalism or an act of terrorism, do we make that judgement
based on the intent of the perpetrator or the action that resulted?

Also, when judging if the act is that of vandalism or terrorism, do we
need actual physical injuries to a victim to take place to make it an
act of terrorism? or would the mental anguish of a victim be enough to
raise the resulting action to that of an act of terrorism?

For the above questions, assume as fact: The number one intention of
the perpetrator was to draw attention to their political or social
cause.