Define terrorism.

[Finnegan]

15 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

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.

 

**** that. 

 

The press / media make these people. 

 

I know I bring it out after every mass shooting but the criminal profiler that was interviewed on the BBC  that Brooker put a clip of on Newswipe was absolutely spot on. 

 

These stories are constantly sensationalised, dramatised and hyped up and then we end up with more of them. Over and over. 

 

 

[Kitchandro]

42 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?

No, and that's the point.

 

If the victims are innocent (i.e. they haven't personally wronged the attacker) then it is irrelevant.

 

Don't know why people are so keen to make a debate about it. It's like they want to make a religious debate where there is no reason for one.

 

Just now, Fox92 said:

So would JFK's assassination be classed as terrorism? Was that a political aim?

Can of worms!

[Guest BlueBrett]

15 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.

Probably depends which news sources you subscribe to. This ar ticle was written last week and reflects the growing appreciation in US society at least that terrorism is not a 'muslim problem'

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/domestic-terrorism-white-supremacists-islamist-extremists_us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df

 

For what it's worth I don't think the distinction that the press/authorities care about is race related anyway. For them, it's all about internal vs external. They want to be able to rhetorically construct the impression that terrorists are either outsiders, or at the very least influenced by external ideas/philosophies. It's this that enables them to cobble together justifications for their absurd interventionist foreign policy or to consistently erode the civil liberties of their own people in the name of 'keeping them safe'. The phrase 'islamic terrorism' is the perfect rhetorical device for them, not because in pins the blame on Muslims, but simply because it casts the perpetrators as external/other and in doing so creates the impression that 'terrorism' is a phenomenon with tangible roots and core that can somehow be defeated...if only we all give them a pass do whatever morally dubious (or actually just borderline evil lol) acts they tell us are necessary to do so.

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

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?

That train one was the one I was thinking about, but I can't remember if it was actually confirmed he was a Muslim. 

 

Not that it particularly matters, just thought all this nonsense of it automatically being classed as terrorism was just a bit ott. 

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

So would JFK's assassination be classed as terrorism? Was that a political aim?

That's a fair question. If it was Lee Harvey Oswald, then I'd say that it was an assassination by a communist sympathiser , not necessarily meant to cause terror but revenge for JFK's actions in Cuba. I suppose you could claim it was terrorism though.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

**** that. 

 

The press / media make these people. 

 

I know I bring it out after every mass shooting but the criminal profiler that was interviewed on the BBC  that Brooker put a clip of on Newswipe was absolutely spot on. 

 

These stories are constantly sensationalised, dramatised and hyped up and then we end up with more of them. Over and over. 

 

 

How would you cover this if you were a news editor? How can you downplay the murder of 50 innocent victims?

[Guest BlueBrett]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How would you cover this if you were a news editor? How can you downplay the murder of 50 innocent victims?

Well I wouldn't give the perpetrator a cool name like 'Lone Wolf' for starters

[Captain...]

46 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?

That definition excludes ISIS, they don't have political aims as such, they want to incite holy war in Syria to bring Mohamed down from heaven and destroy all the infidels. They are more of a religious death cult than true terrorists. Al Qaeda seemed to have clearer aims, get Western influence out of the Middle East. 

 

Shootings like Columbine, West Virginia and this Las Vegas one seem to have no political motivation, the targets were either personal revenge attacks, or just random killing spree because they can.

 

The hard one to define is the Finsbury Park Mosque attack, and other revenge attacks against Muslims as a response to terror attacks. Is that terrorism? It is pure revenge and has no political motivation just hatred, but it is not senseless killing like a typical lone wolf. 

 

Then you have the Washington sniper, he was clearly spreading terror and that is probably the most terrifying of all these attacks, he was indiscriminately picking off random strangers over a few days, seemingly just to prove he could and that he was smarter than the cops. We don't know his true motivation, and this where you can get a little philosophical.

 

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If nobody hears about the motivation behind an attack, is it still a terrorist attack? If the LV shooter's reasons are never known then he can't be a terrorist. It is only by spreading his message can he be a terrorist, if he had a political agenda is it better to let it die with him and not be used to spread more fear?

[Kitchandro]

2 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Probably depends which news sources you subscribe to. This ar ticle was written last week and reflects the growing appreciation in US society at least that terrorism is not a 'muslim problem'

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/domestic-terrorism-white-supremacists-islamist-extremists_us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df

 

For what it's worth I don't think the distinction that the press/authorities care about is race related anyway. For them, it's all about internal vs external. They want to be able to rhetorically construct the impression that terrorists are either outsiders, or at the very least influenced by external ideas/philosophies. It's this that enables them to cobble together justifications for their absurd interventionist foreign policy or to consistently erode the civil liberties of their own people in the name of 'keeping them safe'. The phrase 'islamic terrorism' is the perfect rhetorical device for them, not because in pins the blame on Muslims, but simply because it casts the perpetrators as external/other and in doing so creates the impression that 'terrorism' is a phenomenon with tangible roots and core that can somehow be defeated...if only we all give them a pass do whatever morally dubious (or actually just borderline evil lol) acts they tell us are necessary to do so.

The media haven't come up with the definition of the word 'terrorist' or for 'Islam'.

 

By definition terrorism generally takes place as a result of wildly different political and cultural ideologies clashing. That is why those two words go togther so often in this country.

 

In other countries around the world, terrorism is commited by different groups and it's usually those outside of the status quo that instigate it.

 

And sometimes people just go nuts and shoot people with no motives at all. But that's what happens when you give everyone a gun.

 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

That definition excludes ISIS, they don't have political aims as such, they want to incite holy war in Syria to bring Mohamed down from heaven and destroy all the infidels. They are more of a religious death cult than true terrorists. Al Qaeda seemed to have clearer aims, get Western influence out of the Middle East. 

 

Shootings like Columbine, West Virginia and this Las Vegas one seem to have no political motivation, the targets were either personal revenge attacks, or just random killing spree because they can.

 

The hard one to define is the Finsbury Park Mosque attack, and other revenge attacks against Muslims as a response to terror attacks. Is that terrorism? It is pure revenge and has no political motivation just hatred, but it is not senseless killing like a typical lone wolf. 

 

Then you have the Washington sniper, he was clearly spreading terror and that is probably the most terrifying of all these attacks, he was indiscriminately picking off random strangers over a few days, seemingly just to prove he could and that he was smarter than the cops. We don't know his true motivation, and this where you can get a little philosophical.

 

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If nobody hears about the motivation behind an attack, is it still a terrorist attack? If the LV shooter's reasons are never known then he can't be a terrorist. It is only by spreading his message can he be a terrorist, if he had a political agenda is it better to let it die with him and not be used to spread more fear?

The establishment of a caliphate could be described as political.

 

IIrc wasn't the Washington sniper doing it to extort the authorities into paying him money?

[Kitchandro]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That definition excludes ISIS, they don't have political aims as such, they want to incite holy war in Syria to bring Mohamed down from heaven and destroy all the infidels. They are more of a religious death cult than true terrorists. Al Qaeda seemed to have clearer aims, get Western influence out of the Middle East. 

 

Shootings like Columbine, West Virginia and this Las Vegas one seem to have no political motivation, the targets were either personal revenge attacks, or just random killing spree because they can.

 

The hard one to define is the Finsbury Park Mosque attack, and other revenge attacks against Muslims as a response to terror attacks. Is that terrorism? It is pure revenge and has no political motivation just hatred, but it is not senseless killing like a typical lone wolf. 

 

Then you have the Washington sniper, he was clearly spreading terror and that is probably the most terrifying of all these attacks, he was indiscriminately picking off random strangers over a few days, seemingly just to prove he could and that he was smarter than the cops. We don't know his true motivation, and this where you can get a little philosophical.

 

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If nobody hears about the motivation behind an attack, is it still a terrorist attack? If the LV shooter's reasons are never known then he can't be a terrorist. It is only by spreading his message can he be a terrorist, if he had a political agenda is it better to let it die with him and not be used to spread more fear?

If we're delving into that sort of logic, if a body is never found, is it still a murder?

 

What's best is people know facts. If it spreads fear, fine. If it spreads hate, fine. If it brings people together, fine.

 

What we want is facts and then everyone can make their own interpretation of the world.

[yorkie1999]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That definition excludes ISIS, they don't have political aims as such, they want to incite holy war in Syria to bring Mohamed down from heaven and destroy all the infidels. They are more of a religious death cult than true terrorists. Al Qaeda seemed to have clearer aims, get Western influence out of the Middle East. 

 

Shootings like Columbine, West Virginia and this Las Vegas one seem to have no political motivation, the targets were either personal revenge attacks, or just random killing spree because they can.

 

The hard one to define is the Finsbury Park Mosque attack, and other revenge attacks against Muslims as a response to terror attacks. Is that terrorism? It is pure revenge and has no political motivation just hatred, but it is not senseless killing like a typical lone wolf. 

 

Then you have the Washington sniper, he was clearly spreading terror and that is probably the most terrifying of all these attacks, he was indiscriminately picking off random strangers over a few days, seemingly just to prove he could and that he was smarter than the cops. We don't know his true motivation, and this where you can get a little philosophical.

 

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If nobody hears about the motivation behind an attack, is it still a terrorist attack? If the LV shooter's reasons are never known then he can't be a terrorist. It is only by spreading his message can he be a terrorist, if he had a political agenda is it better to let it die with him and not be used to spread more fear?

It's not just political, it's also religious and ideological aims.

[Jon the Hat]

24 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Well I wouldn't give the perpetrator a cool name like 'Lone Wolf' for starters

Agreed, I would go for "the cowardly murderer of innocent men, women and children" for starters.

[Captain...]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The establishment of a caliphate could be described as political.

 

IIrc wasn't the Washington sniper doing it to extort the authorities into paying him money?

Just rereading about, 3 weeks of sniper attacks!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks

 

The motive section is interesting, he was a Muslim and made some references to Jihad, but he was also thought to be trying an elaborate cover up to kill his ex-wife in the middle of it all as another seemingly random victim, but he also testified that his motive was to kidnap kids and extort money from the government and train them up to be warriors and terrorise the whole US. He was also convicted in Virginia of terrorism, but not Maryland. So yeah make of that what you will.

 

I see that whole episode as the most terrifying event, if you get caught up in a one off incident then that is bad luck, but if you live in a city where you know there is a random sniper just picking off targets at random, over 3 weeks, that is just scary as anything.

[Jon the Hat]

 

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

Just rereading about, 3 weeks of sniper attacks!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks

 

The motive section is interesting, he was a Muslim and made some references to Jihad, but he was also thought to be trying an elaborate cover up to kill his ex-wife in the middle of it all as another seemingly random victim, but he also testified that his motive was to kidnap kids and extort money from the government and train them up to be warriors and terrorise the whole US. He was also convicted in Virginia of terrorism, but not Maryland. So yeah make of that what you will.

 

I see that whole episode as the most terrifying event, if you get caught up in a one off incident then that is bad luck, but if you live in a city where you know there is a random sniper just picking off targets at random, over 3 weeks, that is just scary as anything.

I was in DC about 8 months after the Snipers were caught, and they were still in shock.

[Captain...]

18 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

If we're delving into that sort of logic, if a body is never found, is it still a murder?

 

What's best is people know facts. If it spreads fear, fine. If it spreads hate, fine. If it brings people together, fine.

 

What we want is facts and then everyone can make their own interpretation of the world.

Yes, although without a body it is very hard to get a conviction for murder.

 

The point of terrorism is to spread your message through fear and indiscriminate violence and killing. You take away that message then it is just senseless violence and killing. We do not have a right to know everything, the government and security forces have a duty to protect us and if that means hiding the truth to deny a terrorist organisation the oxygen of publicity then they should do that.

[leicsmac]

44 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

That train one was the one I was thinking about, but I can't remember if it was actually confirmed he was a Muslim. 

 

Not that it particularly matters, just thought all this nonsense of it automatically being classed as terrorism was just a bit ott. 

Fair enough, guess it depends on the source.

 

I think the point about the term not being applied evenly still stands though, outliers aside.

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, guess it depends on the source.

 

I think the point about the term not being applied evenly still stands though, outliers aside.

It does, in a way, but you have to take into account people's actions during the events. This guy was in a hotel room well away from anyone who could speculate on his motives. The people on ground level yelling akbar nonsense are usually categorised (rightly or wrongly) pretty quickly. 

 

In the end most mainstream media sucks balls. Now that it's mostly online it's who can break the story most dramatically first. All about that ad revenue. People don't help themselves though, all the people on twitter and such looking for "likes" through pictures and videos are just the same. 

[Redouane]

That's the proper definition, but the mainstream media definition: 

"An act of violence committed by an individual of Islamic faith" 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Redouane said:

That's the proper definition, but the mainstream media definition: 

"An act of violence committed by an individual of Islamic faith" 

We had terrorism before all this Islamism started.

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

How would you cover this if you were a news editor? How can you downplay the murder of 50 innocent victims?

 

Not being funny Webbo but seriously, did you watch the video? 

 

The professional expert literally answers your question there. 

[Redouane]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We had terrorism before all this Islamism started.

Obviously. The US revolution was by definition terrorism. But mainstream media now only associate it with one particular group of people.

 

Honestly, respect to the BBC, at-least they have the balls to say it how it is. But look at how the rest describe Breivik.. "Mass murderer" really? His attacks were purely politically charged

 

EDIT: Even the BBC labeled him as a mass murderer, what a joke. 

 

 

[Webbo]

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

Not being funny Webbo but seriously, did you watch the video? 

 

The professional expert literally answers your question there. 

I didn't but I remember when it was on Newswipe. Seemed a bit trite to me at the time. I'll watch it again though.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Redouane said:

Obviously. The US revolution was by definition terrorism. But mainstream media now only associate it with one particular group of people.

 

Honestly, respect to the BBC, at-least they have the balls to say it how it is. But look at how the rest describe Breivik.. "Mass murderer" really? His attacks were purely politically aimed

 

 

The Sun also describe him as a right wing terrorist. I'd have to read the articles to say whether the other papers described him as a terrorist but there's no link.

[Redouane]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

The Sun also describe him as a right wing terrorist.

Actually, I just noticed even the BBC labeled him as "mass murder" but they referred to the actual act as "terror attack"