Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Without wanting to go into specific cases (although I'm sure we will) how do we define terrorism? The dictionary definition is this; the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Some people seem desperate to claim any act of violence is terrorism, why does it matter? Do you think it makes any difference to the victims?
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 The definition there is perfect, inflicting serious violence onto people for political reasons. The problem now is people want to define everything as terrorism, sometimes for racist reasons, others for politically correct reasons.
TiffToff88 Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 I think the thing that annoys a lot of people is that when a shooting/mass murder or any kind of incident takes place, and the purpotrator appears to be of ethnic orientation, the press are always very quick to label it as terrorism. When it appears to be a white person responsible, the word Terrorism doesn't even come into their reports. The Vegas shooting is a prime example of this. When news of the incident first broke, it was labelled as "A potential terrorist attack". As soon as the prime suspect was announced - a middle aged white man, the word terrorism all but disappeared.
Finnegan Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Subject whose political ideology contradicts the author's who does something the author deems inexcusable for any reason.
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Author Posted 2 October 2017 2 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said: I think the thing that annoys a lot of people is that when a shooting/mass murder or any kind of incident takes place, and the purpotrator appears to be of ethnic orientation, the press are always very quick to label it as terrorism. When it appears to be a white person responsible, the word Terrorism doesn't even come into their reports. The Vegas shooting is a prime example of this. When news of the incident first broke, it was labelled as "A potential terrorist attack". As soon as the prime suspect was announced - a middle aged white man, the word terrorism all but disappeared. Is that true? I never heard anyone call it a terror attack until people on here said it was.
leicsmac Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 You're right, it shouldn't really matter. The problem, the real problem IMO, is the term not being used even-handedly based on demographic and so the term becomes politicised and used to push various agendas. If the definition were applied evenly across the board, then this discussion wouldn't be needed.
TiffToff88 Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Just now, Webbo said: Is that true? I never heard anyone call it a terror attack until people on here said it was. Yes. i have a friend who lives in Vegas, he shared a news report from the states about it within minutes of the news breaking, The headline stated a potential terrorist incident
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Author Posted 2 October 2017 Just now, Finnegan said: Subject whose political ideology contradicts the author's who does something the author deems inexcusable for any reason. I don't think that's true. Those idiots marching with a banner saying hang the tories could be described as political intimidation but I don't think anyone would describe it as terrorism.
ozleicester Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Anything that the government and media feel they can use to control and remove the rights from the public.
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 2 minutes ago, ozleicester said: Anything that the government and media feel they can use to control and remove the rights from the public.
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Author Posted 2 October 2017 2 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said: Yes. i have a friend who lives in Vegas, he shared a news report from the states about it within minutes of the news breaking, The headline stated a potential terrorist incident Well if that's the case so be it. there have been shooting related terrorist attacks so it's possible that some of the press jumped to conclusions. It may be that this person does have a political agenda, in which case would anyone object to him being called a terrorist?
Lovejoy Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 12 minutes ago, Webbo said: Without wanting to go into specific cases (although I'm sure we will) how do we define terrorism? The dictionary definition is this; the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Some people seem desperate to claim any act of violence is terrorism, why does it matter? Do you think it makes any difference to the victims? 1 minute ago, Webbo said: I don't think that's true. Those idiots marching with a banner saying hang the tories could be described as political intimidation but I don't think anyone would describe it as terrorism. Quite an interesting perspective. Individuals attending the CPC may well feel intimidated by seeing people marching with banners saying they want to see them hanged, which given the political agenda, could be defined as terrorism? But a 64 year old white bloke in Vegas gunning down over 250 people, at this stage with no known political motive, may not be terrorism?
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Author Posted 2 October 2017 Just now, Lovejoy said: Quite an interesting perspective. Individuals attending the CPC may well feel intimidated by seeing people marching with banners saying they want to see them hanged, which given the political agenda, could be defined as terrorism? But a 64 year old white bloke in Vegas gunning down over 250 people, at this stage with no known political motive, may not be terrorism? It's all about motivation. If the man is insane, if he has no agenda,political, religious or otherwise, does that make him a terrorist?
Lovejoy Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: It's all about motivation. If the man is insane, if he has no agenda,political, religious or otherwise, does that make him a terrorist? Bit flawed, isn't it? I think what will really rile people, dictionary definition or not, is that if this was a Muslim who'd carried out the attack, it wouldn't even be a question.
yorkie1999 Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 5 minutes ago, Webbo said: It's all about motivation. If the man is insane, if he has no agenda,political, religious or otherwise, does that make him a terrorist? No, it makes him a nutter with a gun.
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Author Posted 2 October 2017 Just now, yorkie1999 said: No, it makes him a nutter with a gun. A lone wolf you might say?
Innovindil Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Just now, Lovejoy said: Bit flawed, isn't it? I think what will really rile people, dictionary definition or not, is that if this was a Muslim who'd carried out the attack, it wouldn't even be a question. Haven't we had Muslim attacks before that weren't called terrorism? Where it was found he was just a nutter? Initially it would probably be "suspected" terror attack, as was this one, then clarified when more information was available.
ozleicester Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 10 minutes ago, MattP said: yep... please continue
yorkie1999 Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: A lone wolf you might say? No, a nutter with a gun. A lone wolf is motivated by a cause but without assistance.
Jon the Hat Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 I don't think the press is that bad to be honest. There is a knee jerk reaction that we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even if the perpetrator shouted Alluha Akbar and wore an IS flag.
leicsmac Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 3 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Haven't we had Muslim attacks before that weren't called terrorism? Where it was found he was just a nutter? Initially it would probably be "suspected" terror attack, as was this one, then clarified when more information was available. 2 I highly doubt it.
foxy boxing Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Terrorism is to commit an act that terrifies people be it with a gun, knife, bomb or form of transport to make people fearful it doesn't have to be political although in most cases it usually is! whether it be a lone nutter who just wants to go on a shooting spree who people will assume is mentally ill or a person with a certain ideology who wants to spread terror in the name of that ideology it is all terrorism
leicsmac Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 9 minutes ago, Lovejoy said: Bit flawed, isn't it? I think what will really rile people, dictionary definition or not, is that if this was a Muslim who'd carried out the attack, it wouldn't even be a question. Exactly.
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 12 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I highly doubt it. Plenty of examples. The woman in the garden who was beheaded by a Muslim last year, not terrorism. The shooting in Belgium the other week wasn't considered terrorism, didn't the Afghan who attacked all those on the train go down as being insane rather than an Islamist as well?
Fox92 Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 So would JFK's assassination be classed as terrorism? Was that a political aim?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.