All Mass Murderers are Terrorists - And the killing will not stop until this is recognized

Are you tired of it? - I am - We should all be fed-up with it - As it now stands no School is safe, not to mention any place where people congregate.

And the political elite, our politcians, what is their answer? - Blame the NRA and guns and ask for more gun control.

Or take pity on the terrorist, especially if he is young and without politcal ideology, say he was raised wrong, bullied, or had social problems.

Man, this will not stop these terrorists, and that is what they are, terrorists and they do have a political ideology - to kill peolple, get their
name on the news and live out their dreams of being a famous terrorist well kept and fed, and given a long life in jail.

Don't you see all terrorists have problems and need to kill to resolve their problems.

As long as our civilization continues to accept terrorists as normal criminals the problem will continue and will get worse.

People we are at war - And the beast is always ready to strike - Outlaw guns and they will use bombs, cars, trucks, fire or
whatever else strikes their imagination.

All mass murderers, who are in fact terrorists, if captured alive should be considered prisoners of war, tried by the military
and executed for terrorism!

a reply to: AlienView

The problem is that white teenage god faring American citizens do not fit the caricature that has been set as arepresentative of a terrorist.

a reply to: AlienView

First problem not all mass murderers are terrorists. In terrorism you are using violence to case social change. Here's the US definition,The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

So we can have mass murderers without terrorism as we can see. Next you dont ever want the military handling terrorism that's just silly. The army then would be given the power to execute anyone not something you want to give the military the power to do, History shows us this always turns out bad. Nazi SS used this tactic to get rid of people they saw as a threat to their organization. Without civilian over site just a matter of time until you have a military dictatorship, Founding fathers were smart and limited the military on domestic soil.

a reply to: dragonridr

So pretty much every government is a terrorist organisation then under that definition. Of course they consider thier use of force 'legal' but if you or I were to do the same things ....

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: AlienView

The problem is that white teenage god faring American citizens do not fit the caricature that has been set as arepresentative of a terrorist.

Exactly the point! - And its time people wake-up and start calling mass murder what it is - Terrorism.

- And the source or reason is not the issue.

A ROSE, IS A ROSE, IS A ROSE - A TERRORIST IS A TERRORIST IS A TERRORIST

a reply to: AlienView

No it's not.

"terrorism" is intended to further some social, political or ideological cause or influence.

Seeking individual attention or revenge does not = terrorism.

Here we go again clinging to your guns and bibles. Do you really think they are going to go door to door and make people turn in their guns? I'm a gun owner I'm not worried about it one bit. I've been hearing how the left is going to take your guns for the past 30 years. Clinton banned the sale of assault rifles and everyone that owned one was grandfathered in. I hunt I have a use for my guns other then target practice and killing people. The stupid gun culture in this country is out of control. I'm from just north of Detroit I hear gunshots every night. I don't sleep with a gun next to my bed either. There are more guns then people with common sense in this country.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: AlienView

No it's not.

"terrorism" is intended to further some social, political or ideological cause or influence.

Seeking individual attention or revenge does not = terrorism.

I like this definition:

terrorism

noun

1.systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

2. the act of terrorizing

3, the state of being terrorized

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition


This definition does not mention politcal goals - And that is my point

Let's call a spade a spade - And a terrorist a terrorist!

If using buzz words makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

originally posted by: AlienView


No it's not.

"terrorism" is intended to further some social, political or ideological cause or influence.

Seeking individual attention or revenge does not = terrorism.

I like this definition:

What is it with left wingers and redefining words to suit their political agenda? Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political goal. It has nothing to do with skin color, but that's clearly why you want to redefine it. It's all about being able to call white people terrorists. You know, nobody calls all the black mass shooters in Chicago and California terrorists, be cause their killings are gang related and don't have a political goal. WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.

See...i believe all terrorists are criminals, and we wont stop losing rights and razing nations until we come to terms with it.

OK lovers of terrorism, enjoy the world you live in - But some of us know there is another way.

Take the famous statesman Vlad the Impaler who had his own distinctive way of handling terrosists by impaling them publicly!

FAVORITE: Famous quotes by William F. Buckley Jr., "The Wit and Wisdom of Vlad the Impaler":

Knee-jerk liberals and all the certified saints of sanctified humanism are quick to condemn this great and much-maligned Transylvanian statesman.
– William F. Buckley Jr., "The Wit and Wisdom of Vlad the Impaler"


Squeamish about impaling terrroists? - I'm squeamish about watching innocent civilians being gunned down for kicks

a reply to: AlienView

Squeamish about impaling terrroists?

I think we should all be squeamish about killing another human.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: AlienView

Squeamish about impaling terrroists?

I think we should all be squeamish about killing another human.

You might think so - And ideally I would agree......

BUT there are many thousnads if not millions of others who enjoy killing

and playing mister nice guy with the terrorist mind set does not solve the problem - actually makes it worse.

a reply to: AlienView

Doesnt mean you have to enjoy it

a reply to: AlienView

Murder a million people, you are not a terrorist. You are a deterrent.
You can terrorize people without raising a fist..

What do we do? Where do we start?

No one can know another, till the other acts.

At least with terrorism - real terrorism, by people intent on harming you and with a global network of like minded religious folk - can be tracked and traced.

This is wrong on several levels, but for the most part changing how you label these shooters isn't going to put an end to them.

a reply to: AlienView

So we change the lingo to terrorist incorrectly what happens after that? Everyone feels better because labels are important for some people.

National gaurd gets sent in? Interrogations? How does changing a name solve the problem?

I think it makes it worse because these people want to kill and a glorified political name like terrorist might compel them to push for that title.

a reply to: AlienView

Okay. I'll recognize: He's a terrorist. A big fat terrorist. All school shooters are terrorists. Every single solitary school shooter is a big fat terrorist.

Whew! Glad that's over. Now we'll never have another school shooting again because we recognized him and every single solitary school shooter ever as big fat terrorists. Right? RIGHT???

Or did you just redefine yourself into that same big fat terrorist using their evil deeds to justify your own... Hmmmmm....

a reply to: AlienView

Don't you see all terrorists have problems and need to kill to resolve their problems.

You seem, as others have pointed out, to be wildly misinformed as to what the actual definition of terrorism is.

Walking into your school and killing a girl and a couple of classmates because the girl wouldn't go out with you is not terrorism.