Occupier Carries Sign Into Bank . . .

[LukeEDay]

You learn more every day just how low the intelligence level of the left is. This is a classic. Was this mentioned by the MSM? I know, it is a stupid question.

[Odysseus]

Ugh. Robbing a bank should not be considered an act of terrorism, and threatening to rob a bank should not be considered a threat of terrorism. Last thing I want is Homeland Security getting involved in day-to-day crime, and then "needing" more money because of all the cases they're handling.

Does this mean a bank robber is an enemy combatant / terrorist, and can be held indefinitely?

When terrorism becomes pervasive, as it did in Russia around 1905, the line between terrorism and other crimes becomes blurred to the point of irrelevancy. Many terror groups finance their operations through "expropriations", i.e., armed robbery, extortion or fraud, not to mention other crimes, and common criminals soon learn to imitate the rhetoric of terrorists in order to add a pretense of political legitimacy to their crimes. The Black Panthers all had extensive records of violent crime before they poliiticized their activities and became cult heroes to the left. The Baader-Meinhof Gang robbed banks, as did the Symbionese Liberation Army. The Sendero Luminoso and Tupac Amaru in Peru were notorious for extorting money from individuals and institutions, and the PLO subsists on graft and theft of aid money, as well as expropriations of property. Al Qaeda is involved in money laundering and all manner of illicit activities, and the Colombian FARC and other Central and South American terror groups started out in the drug trade.

So, a bank robber can be a terrorist, and a terrorist can rob banks, but we have to make clear distinctions or our justice system will collapse into anarchy (which is one of the goals of terrorists).