Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So this rioting is considered terrorism, or all rioting is?

I suppose in either case, it's a sharp/ruthless choice by the insurance companies, unless they never covered riots to begin with.

I'm not sure why you keep pushing this. This is domestic terrorism.


domestic terrorism (noun)

• the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator's own country against their fellow citizens.

I'm pushing it because I'm curious if the push to consider these acts domestic terrorism instead of riots got the insurance companies out of paying. Because it would be both interesting and ironic.

And the definition, that's not part of any legal code and could be construed extremely widely depending on how one defined a terroristic act.

One of the excuses rioters use and Ive heard them say it is that hey its covered by insurance so the property owners really arent losing anything

with that logic you can rob banks and steal almost anything you want with no harm done

brilliant 

One of the excuses rioters use and Ive heard them say it is that hey its covered by insurance so the property owners really arent losing anything

with that logic you can rob banks and steal almost anything you want with no harm done

brilliant

I've heard that too, and those people are full of it. Unless they have a rider to cover domestic terrorism, they DO lose everything.

My friend who owns a chocolate shop chose to buy the rider. Her insurance premium almost doubled.

Sadly, our attorney general has lost the confidence of more than half of the population. I find zero comfort in anything he says. That is atypical. 

Sadly, what is going on has turned into viewing things universally through a political lens. That is atypical. We are as far apart from a united country as we have been in my lifetime. That is more than sad, it's distressing.

Badge: your definition of terrorism (and I agree with it) is not rioting. It is the "calculated use" of violence, which rioting isn't. That doesn't make rioting ok, but it is fundamentally different. Now, instigators--those who plan and intend to incite rioting--they may be fairly accused of terrorism. Even in this situation, that is a very small group of people--and reports from non-politicized government agencies appear to view the problem as coming more from those opposed to the protesters than those who align with them. That's not universal, but in the aggregate.

As I said a few pages back, this whole thing sucks.

But I'll add to that: as long as our leaders fan the flames of division, it will get worse.

I'm pushing it because I'm curious if the push to consider these acts domestic terrorism instead of riots got the insurance companies out of paying. Because it would be both interesting and ironic.

And the definition, that's not part of any legal code and could be construed extremely widely depending on how one defined a terroristic act.

Just so. Obviously the language of the policy is most important. But if it covers things like vandalism, I'm not sure how they can justify not covering vandalism based on the political viewpoint of the vandal. Maybe that's why Bob Barr is making a point about it.