bingalpaws
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,653
I'm a little confused, I agreed with you, they are not terrorists. I don't see where the scale becomes important, you're either doing something to intentionally strike fear into a proposed group (crappy definition, you know what I mean), or you're not.otb01 said:"They wouldn't have to do massive scale acts of terrorism to be terrorists."
But him calling gang members the "real terrorists" makes the scale important. As it is, gangs do not perform terrorist activities.
HHmmmmmm, now you've got me thinking a little too much into it. I would call burning a cross on a black church's front lawn a terrorist act, despite how small in scale it may seem (that's probably pretty big in scale to some people, just the first small scale example that came to mind). I guess I can see an argument made that gang bangers occasionally perform terrorist actions. For instance, a spray happy (not at specific gang members) drive-by shooting of a rival turf seems like it could qualify as a terrorist act, if they were doing it to scare their rivals (as opposed to an actual gang versus gang shootout). I dunno, I guess if you bended the words enough you could make cases where gang members performed terrorist acts, but I feel like even that's a stretch. But labeling them terrorists? No way in hell. I don't think that a single terrorist act would make someone a terrorist (generally speaking).

rofl