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

a reply to: AlienView

Sounds like your basing your definition of terrorism on feelings. Maybe look it up?

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.

Maybe because white teenagers commit the least amount of mass murders world wide?

Timothy McVeigh was white. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Why? Because he used violence to achieve political goals.

The DC Snipers are/were black. They were not terrorists because they killed indiscriminately for no other reason than they were animals.

Is this really so hard to understand?

Anyone who entices fear is a terrorist. The kids that are going in and shooting up schools are terrorists. They are home grown. They should be tried as terrorists, with the rules applying to terrorists superseding their American rights.

If someone goes into a school to shoot a select person, or maybe two or three specific people, that is different than terrorism. That is murder or attempted murder. Same with shootings in a night club or on the street, even though a hit incites terror, it is different than someone targeting anyone. Shooting up a place is terrorism. Gangs constantly incite terrorism on the population they try to run, they also may qualify as terrorists. They lose their rights we are allowed to have by being terrorists.

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.

Terrorism has a particular definition.

But if you want to throw out racist bull# to replace the meaning of terrorism go right ahead.

That doesn't make you look like a moron or anything.

"Anyone who entices fear is a terrorist."

So, Steven King is a terrorist. I know that's not what you meant, because I can reasonably deduce things. Problem is, you don't know what you mean. Are clowns terrorists depending on whether or not your scared of them. As if we need another reason to not let libs define things.

a reply to: rickymouse

First you say

The kids that are going in and shooting up schools are terrorists. They are home grown. They should be tried as terrorists

And then you follow it up with

If someone goes into a school to shoot a select person, or maybe two or three specific people, that is different than terrorism.

So I guess in your world, whether you're a terrorist or not depends entirely on body count? Because you cite the exact same example as being both terrorism and not terrorism. Yet somehow you've managed to entirely ignore the actual definition in US law of what terrorism is.

I agree and disagree. Sure they qualify for the term. We need another term for outsiders that terrorize. I just think things are getting jumbled together because of the phrasing when they shouldnt be.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: rickymouse

First you say

The kids that are going in and shooting up schools are terrorists. They are home grown. They should be tried as terrorists

And then you follow it up with

If someone goes into a school to shoot a select person, or maybe two or three specific people, that is different than terrorism.

So I guess in your world, whether you're a terrorist or not depends entirely on body count? Because you cite the exact same example as being both terrorism and not terrorism. Yet somehow you've managed to entirely ignore the actual definition in US law of what terrorism is.

Random shooting is different than specific shooting. If a guy goes into his wife's office and shoots her and the guy who she is having an affair with, it is a crime of passion. That is not terrorism. If he goes in and shoots everyone on the way in to find his wife, that is not the same, he is promoting terror of people he does not know. There is a big difference, one way it is murder, the other way it is inciting terror plus murder. No matter what, it is murder. I am just addressing a way to classify the crimes, terrorism goes to a court where a person loses some of his rights to appeal and things like that. Possibly even a death sentence would apply nation wide.

If a gang goes and does a hit on a member of another gang, that is murder. If they go shoot the gang member and pepper other bystanders with bullets at a place to gain a sense of power, that should be considered Terrorism. KKK people who incite terror in a group are actually terrorists as are some other groups like anti-fa. Now Anti-fa has not killed anyone that I know of but they should be tried as terrorists for their actions if they physically hurt people.

We do not need anyone disrupting innocent people in our society.

originally posted by: Antipathy17
I agree and disagree. Sure they qualify for the term. We need another term for outsiders that terrorize. I just think things are getting jumbled together because of the phrasing when they shouldnt be.

They already do, home grown terrorists vs. foreign terrorists.

a reply to: AlienView

That is not going to stop it...

Person about to go on rampage "oh wait, everybody recognizes this makes me a terrorist, guess Ill stay home and watch the kardashians instead of mass murder"

Facepalm

a reply to: projectvxn

Um OK, I think you're putting bit of spin on my statement . What makes you pull out the racist card?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The problem is that white teenage god faring American citizens...

The problem is that judging white people by the color if their skin isn't even seen for the racism it is.

a reply to: projectvxn

I see, no my point is that whites don't fit the narrative that the media sells us that fits with terrorism.

Which is silly because the color of a person's skin has little to do with terrorism, a person's actions should define terrorism.

a reply to: rickymouse

If a guy goes into his wife's office and shoots her and the guy who she is having an affair with, it is a crime of passion. That is not terrorism.

Correct.

If he goes in and shoots everyone on the way in to find his wife, that is not the same, he is promoting terror of people he does not know.

Not really, unless you know that his motivation is to "inspire terror." If he's killing just to kill and his motivation is just that, to kill people, then he's not "inspiring terrorism."

Gangbangers popping bystanders isn't generally done to "inspire terror." They, to be blunt, just generally don't give a flying # about it. I'm all for charging terrorists with terrorism. I'm not all for broadening the definition a little bit here, a little bit there, a little bit more over there, just so we can call more people terrorists because they're scary.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Anyone who entices fear is a terrorist. The kids that are going in and shooting up schools are terrorists. They are home grown. They should be tried as terrorists, with the rules applying to terrorists superseding their American rights.

If someone goes into a school to shoot a select person, or maybe two or three specific people, that is different than terrorism. That is murder or attempted murder. Same with shootings in a night club or on the street, even though a hit incites terror, it is different than someone targeting anyone. Shooting up a place is terrorism. Gangs constantly incite terrorism on the population they try to run, they also may qualify as terrorists. They lose their rights we are allowed to have by being terrorists.

Thank you 'rickymouse'! - Sometimes I will start a post to make a point and many of the responders will act like they
don't understand what I'm saying or deliberately use rhetoric to confuse the issue - Maybe there is a bit of politician
in everyone?



There are many definitons of terrorism out there, and for the sake of the few who state I don't understand the meaning
of the word, let me again print this one:

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!


Just becuase the terrorist's goal is to get revenge on his school, classmates, and/or teachers
does not changte the fact that random murder and mass killing is terrorism - nothing more - nothing less!!!

All the labeling is irrelevant.

It is the actions that are important.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: projectvxn

I see, no my point is that whites don't fit the narrative that the media sells us that fits with terrorism.

Which is silly because the color of a person's skin has little to do with terrorism, a person's actions should define terrorism.

I see. That point really didn't come across in what you wrote.

I stand corrected and offer my apologies.

a reply to: projectvxn

It's all good, water off a ducks back..