No, that is completely incorrect.
If that was the case, any murder can be considered terrorism.
Las Vegas: Worst Mass Shooting in US History
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
No, that is completely incorrect.
If that was the case, any murder can be considered terrorism.
Jinglin Joe
Banned
depending on the circumstances, yes, any murder can be considered terrorism. specifically if it causes terror.
Wanting more information about someone's motivation is being a simpleton?
No, terrorism is a word that was made and defined for a reason. You can't just change the definition to fit what you think it should be.
That's like saying if there was a home invasion robbery and the homeowner got murdered, that the murder was terrorism on homeowners because home owners are now more terrified of home invasions.
Jinglin Joe
Banned
if the homeowners in that neighborhood became terrified and decided to call the murder a terrorist, i wouldn't have any problem with it.
Jinglin Joe
Banned
that's exactly what i'm saying. so let's quit changing it and stick to the most basic definition - something which causes terror.
And this is how we get to people throwing around the word terrorism incorrectly.
Jinglin Joe
Banned
i mean, if the robber had screamed god is great in arabic before he murdered, it would be being used correctly.
in your opinion.
Otherwise, it's not incorrect, it's only inconveniently correct in your opinion.
No, that is not the most basic definition of the word terrorism.
If the robber had targeted the house for a specific reason that tied to religious affiliations (a muslim robbing and murder an "infidels" house, or vice versa a christian man robbing and murdering a Muslim house). Then yes, it would be considered terrorism.
We are operating under the fact the robbery is why most reasons robberies happen, because the robber wants whats inside the house due to monetary benefit. The murder just happens because the homeowner stands in the way of getting the desired outcome (rob stuff without getting caught or harmed).
The key point: you have to have a decent amount of information to correctly label something terrorism. You cant just throw around the word like a lot of people want to in the 24-hour news cycle where immediate reactions are broadcast all over the internet.
Jinglin Joe
Banned
who gets to decide all of this perspective?
there are a ton of people in this world who view the US armed forced as acting and killing on the behalf of their own political and religious reasons and see the US as terrorists.
But I have a feeling you don't. Convenient, eh?
Jinglin Joe
Banned
also, what was your previous username
What in the world do you think I'm protecting? The US government? You really dont know **** about me if you think I defend the Military-Industrial complex that exist in America .
Yes, the American government/military actively participates in state sanctioned terrorism.
Do you think I'm just trying to protect the label of "terrorism" for only Muslims to degrade anyone of Islamic faith? Please **** off.
I don't call any of the mass murders terrorism the moment they happen, no matter what the person looks like. More information has to be found on the persons background and their ties to political or radical religious movements. Muslims can be depressed psychopaths w/ mental illness who murder with no clear motivation too.
My name has been some variation of Cy on here for the last 7 years.
Jinglin Joe
Banned
why is the ugli cave ded
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Lol The Thriller reported my comment for a personal attack.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
I disagree. Terrorism is anything where the INTENTION is to cause terror, specifically in people not directly affected by it.
Charles Whitman was not a terrorist, but he did cause terror.
Richard Reid was a terrorist, even though he did not kill anyone.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Why the **** does it matter whether it is "terrorism" or not? The people who were killed aren't any more or less dead either way.
The only difference I can see is when a "terrorist" attack occurs our government enacts policies to try to counteract it, and when it is not we throw our arms in the air and claim nothing can be done.
Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app
The only difference I can see is when a "terrorist" attack occurs our government enacts policies to try to counteract it, and when it is not we throw our arms in the air and claim nothing can be done.
Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app
I mean, in general having more information on why people do things is beneficial. It can help you prevent things in the future.
Mass murders being terrorism or not is pretty inconsequential when it comes to gun reform though. Gun reform is needed either way.
And I just find it annoying when people try to change the definitions of words to the point where everyone has their own unique definition and it becomes this completely subjective/meaningless thing. I think the label of terrorist/terrorism is pretty cut and dry and not all that subjective.