Forum - View topicNEWS: New Kuroko's Basketball Threat: Chemicals in Snacks
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
enurtsol
Posts: 14779 |
|
|||||
This whole escapade has been costing businesses a lot of money. That alone should had raised its threat level and economic urgency amongst the authorities. Call in the FBI for assistance.
|
||||||
DTJB
Posts: 671 Location: Dubuque, IA |
|
|||||
Shit is reeeeeally getting old.
|
||||||
unready
Posts: 400 Location: Illinois, USA |
|
|||||
Yeah, you're missing something.
That would be today.
That would be last week. Two different threats, same recipients, same target. |
||||||
unready
Posts: 400 Location: Illinois, USA |
|
|||||
Terrorism is: 1. violence or threat of violence intended to cause widespread panic 2. perpetrated by an organization (not an individual) 3. against a civilian population 4. in an attempt to extort political, social, or macro-economic change Only conditions 1 and 3 are met, and I'm not so certain even then. Is there panic? Is it widespread? It seems more annoying and limited to me. So it's still just an "ordinary" criminal act, which is easily sufficient to lock up the people responsible for a long time without the need to invoke terrorism. At this point, though, I'm inclined to think it's one original perpetrator (the guy who sent actual chemicals) and a bunch of unrelated pranksters who just send threats to watch the mayhem. Woe to the first guy who's caught, though. He's gonna get nailed for all of it. |
||||||
TsunaReborn!
Posts: 4713 Location: Cheltenham UK |
|
|||||
Does this person even know why they are doing this anymore?
|
||||||
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||
Where on earth did you dig up this definition? There's absolutely no reason an act must be perpetrated by a group to be terrorism. I mean, was the Unabomber not a terrorist? And it doesn't have to be on civilians either. One can certainly attack a military force too. Granted, if the attackers are themselves part of a standing army it would be classified as an act of war rather than terrorism. But not attacking civilians does not automatically mean something isn't terrorism. It depends on the attacker rather than the attacked. I'm not entirely convinced that a specific attempt to extort some change is required either. Simply acting out of some grudge seems like it could also count too. Although I could go either way here I suppose. You're definitely way off on the other two though. |
||||||
CrowLia
Posts: 5505 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||
While I'll agree that "terrorism" is a very loosely defined word, I do believe -from the little research I've done on the subject- that the attacker must have a certain political agenda. They may not necessarily make demands, but the whole point is to cause terror among civilian population to make a political statement. Then again, these kind of incidents seem to water down and trivialize a term that should be a much bigger deal than "butthurt dude says he's poisoning cookies in convenience stores but is most probably lying." |
||||||
Mad_Scientist
Subscriber
Moderator Posts: 3011 |
|
|||||
I've seen a few comments along this line, that this guy is likely just some idiot blowhard making empty threats, but there is something to keep in mind. Some of his/her earlier threat letters contained suspicious powders and liquids. And to quote from this article:
The guy has already sent a possibly lethal dose of a chemical through the mail. I think taking his threats seriously is a very good idea. |
||||||
jojothepunisher
Posts: 799 |
|
|||||
Did they find out if the culprit always operated in only one region or was he present everywhere that sold KnB merchandises throughout Japan? If its the ladder case, then I think there are probably more than one culprit and they might be doing this shit for the sake of trolling the world.
|
||||||
unready
Posts: 400 Location: Illinois, USA |
|
|||||
So first, the definition. Although there is some disagreement among legal and terrorism/security scholars, there is also much agreement. Most of the disagreement in the legal community arises because certain countries want excluded from the definition activities that they support, politically and/or economically. For example, the US has never accepted any international definition that would include CIA black para-military operations. Lebanon has never accepted any definition that would include Hezbollah para-military operations. Some believe that the word terrorism has no meaning at all, since it seems to be used most often in popular terms simply to promote an emotional over-reaction to some event. Nevertheless, governments and law enforcement agencies treat terrorism as if it has a specific legal meaning, so it has one, de facto. The US (and other countries) even have laws prohibiting it, even though those laws usually avoid defining it precisely. However, there is some consensus (among scholars who don't consider it meaningless) that terrorism is, in the (paraphrased) words of Bruce Hoffman, conducted by a subnational group or non-state entity with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure. In other words, a single individual acting alone doesn't constitute a chain of command. Two guys driving around in a beat up car while shooting random people don't constitute a conspiratorial cell structure. Even if they somehow set off a nuke, they're not terrorists, because they have no organization. There is consensus that terrorism is directed at civilians, or at least non-combatants. It is debatable whether political assassination qualifies, but most legal jurisdictions have separate criminal laws dealing with political assassination, anyway. As a counter-example, in 1946 Menachem Begin was a member of the radical Zionist group Irgun when he ordered the bombing of the British military headquarters in Jerusalem. (91 people died.) In 1952 his organization, under his command, mailed a bomb to Konrad Adenauer, the West German Chancellor. (It killed the German bomb tech who tried to defuse it.) Begin later served as prime minister of Israel from 1977 to 1983. He was not considered a terrorist. While the EU Framework Decision (2002) leaves open the motive of the act, there is general consensus that terrorism has political or other idealogical (e.g., religious) motives. US law has probably the most lax criteria, requiring only "substantial damage to property" for an act to be considered terrorism. In all the world, the US is pretty much alone on that one, though. It has been suggested that "substantial damage to property" is meant to cover anything like the OK City bombing, just in case it ever happens again elsewhere. Second, the Unabomber. Terrorism is a specific criminal charge, even in the US, and one with which Ted Kaczynski has never been charged. He was charged with 10 counts of illegally transporting, mailing, and using bombs, and 3 counts of murder. He plead guilty to all charges and is currently serving a life sentence.
^That. |
||||||
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||
|
||||||
CrowLia
Posts: 5505 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||
IIRC, the amount of chemicals he sent in all his threat letters was not even remotely enough to kill anyone. That he's using lethal chemicals is not in the question, but I seem to recall that, so far, no one has been in lethal danger from this stupidity |
||||||
senbonzakura
Posts: 53 |
|
|||||
Not entirely sure if this new round of threats are done by the same person or it's a copycat but here is a translation of his 2ch posts to shed some light on why he is doing this.
http://sukikatte.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/naver-matome-updated-1122-kuroko-no-basket-threats-roundup-of-the-posts-by-the-culprit-the-reaper-in-mourning/ |
||||||
Mad_Scientist
Subscriber
Moderator Posts: 3011 |
|
|||||
Then you recall wrong I'm afraid. Though most of the articles I've read have been very vague about what exactly has been sent, calling them "suspicious powders and liquids", the articles did describe in more detail the letter sent to Sophia University, which was mentioned briefly in this current article as well. The dose in that letter at least was stated to have a high possibility to be lethal. Even if it wasn't enough to kill someone, we can be pretty certain it was enough to cause some very adverse health effects. Don't know if the other letters had the potential to be lethal or not, as not many details have been released, but at least one letter was dangerous. |
||||||
unready
Posts: 400 Location: Illinois, USA |
|
|||||
For the benefit of folks who might be too lazy to read the reference, here are some excerpts.
|
||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group