reply to post by CALGARIAN
You dont know that at all..
Follow my line of reasoning: Islamism is a fundamentalist Islamic political ideology. Islamic terror attacks occur worldwide. The purpose of such
attacks, as has been studiously analyzed over and over again, is to induce terror in the non-Islamic or Infidel population. This isn't always the
case, as Sunni-Shia internecine terror shows, sometimes it's simply to punish the "unbelievers" on the other side. But in conflicts between cultures,
as typified in Muslim-Hindu, Muslim-Western, the purpose of those attacks is to intimidate the non-Muslims.
So, I think it is fairly irrefutable that Islamic terrorism is designed to induce terror. Hence, it deserves to be called terrorism.
On the other side, we find kids with mental problems who are unconnected with any particular political ideology. For example, the Newtown shooter Adam
Lanza was simply infatuated with guns, and had developed a fantasy to kill more people than the Norway killer Anders Brezik. Is this for the purpose
of inducing terror, or to satisfy some personal feeling of the perpetrator? It is the latter. In the Dark Knight shooting, again, the killer was a
psychopath neuroscience student who had become so disillusioned with reality that he thought it would a "blast" to dress up as the joker and kill
people. It's impossible to surmise beyond the basic evidence what else he may have been thinking, but obviously he simply wanted to kill a whole lot
To reemphasize the crux of my argument: the existence of a political ideology gives individual attacks a transcendent importance. The killer killed
not for the sake of killing, but for the purpose of intimidating. This might go unnoticed unless you fully understand the ideology which they operate
from. If America, and the west, is culturally "evil", and represents in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists the physical incarnation of Satan, then
attacks against America and the west are not done merely for the pleasure of killing infidels, but of sending a message: we oppose you, we want your
public to understand that not following the ways of Allah makes you deserving of terror.
Similarly, Tamil terrorism, or anarchist terrorism, have politically charged reasons for attacking their enemies. It may not be as religiously
significant as an act of terror may be to a Jihadist, but it too is strategic in purpose: to scare the enemy population.
Terrorism is a different species of mass-killing than the massacres perpetrated by people without a post-attack interest. To put it pithily, terrorism
is political by nature. Unless there was no political motive behind it, it doesn't deserve the label terrorism. Just as the intention to kill someone
deserves the subtle difference of '1st degree murder".
Don't ignore the difference because of it's subtly.
edit on 27-4-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)