Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by smsm42 4728 days ago
One does not preclude the other. People who planned to shoot Occupy leaders might be terrorists - or not, depending on what they wanted to achieve by this shooting - terrorism is a tactic, relying on fear and intimidation for a political goal, so depending on if they wanted to intimidate Occupy protestors for a political goal or not they may or may not be terrorists.

Some Occupy people could be potential terrorists too - if they wanted to use violence against peaceful citizens to achieve their political goals. Reports from Occupy protests show that at least some in the movement are not reluctant to use violence - throwing rocks, bottles, improvised incendiary and explosive devices, etc. If they ever employed such tactics against a civilian target for a political goal, it would be an act of terrorism.

1 comments

I see two potential explanations for why they didn't intervene:

1. The FBI does not see public assassination of Occupy participants itself as terrorism

2. The FBI does not see public assassination of Occupy participants by whoever was planning it as terrorism

I propose a third: they didn't see threats of public assassination of Occupy participants as credible. Considering the assassinations didn't happen it wouldn't be the worst course of action.
3. The FBI did not consider these plans to be serious enough to lead to any actual action.

4. The FBI was watching whoever made these plans but since he did nothing it came to nothing.

etc. etc.

But the FBI busts people for (Islamic, left-wing, etc.) terrorism when the plans aren't serious, or the FBI themselves will help the would-be terrorists come up with plans, money, supplies, etc..
I can't remember anybody busted for "left-wing terrorism" lately... As for Islamic, there's some reason to take them more seriously, given the recent history.
There are some Cleveland Occupy kids sitting in jail right now whom the FBI helped every step of the way.
What did they do and how FBI helped them?