In 2011 and 2012, thousands of people camped in public parks and protested

outside of banks as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The United

States Department of Homeland Security considered Occupy Wall Street a

threat, stating "mass gatherings associated with public protest movements

can have disruptive effects on transportation, commercial, and government

services, especially when staged in major metropolitan areas."

Which of the following is an argument against labeling Occupy Wall Street as

a terrorist movement?

A. It does not use violence to instill fear.

B. It does not involve civilians.

C. It does not have a political objective.

D. It has a political objective.

Question

History

Boomer

8 May, 15:10

In 2011 and 2012, thousands of people camped in public parks and protested

outside of banks as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The United

States Department of Homeland Security considered Occupy Wall Street a

threat, stating "mass gatherings associated with public protest movements

can have disruptive effects on transportation, commercial, and government

services, especially when staged in major metropolitan areas."

Which of the following is an argument against labeling Occupy Wall Street as

a terrorist movement?

A. It does not use violence to instill fear.

B. It does not involve civilians.

C. It does not have a political objective.

D. It has a political objective.

+2

Answers (2)

Know the Answer?

Payton Huff · Answer 1

Answer: A. It does not use violence to instill fear.

Explanation:

Terrorism refers to the use of deliberate violence to produce terror or fear in people, in order to reach a religious or political goal.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) was a left-wing protest movement that did not use any violence, despite having been treated by the FBI as a potential terrorist menace, using fusion centers and counterterrorism representatives to observe the Occupy movement.

Dario · Answer 2

A. It does not use violence to instill fear.