I'm sure that most have you have heard about the event at Virginia Tech, and I'm wondering about the meaning of terrorism. Not once in the media have I heard them call the killer a terrorist. Terrorism is described as; a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals. So therefor a terrorist is one that acts out terrorism. How come I haven't heard them calling him a terrorist? He clearly was violent, and killed/injured more than 40 people. Which were all civilians. Where? Where has the meaning of terrorism gone? What are your opinions.
-
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
They do not know why he did it. He did not say why he did it, so it wasn't political. Could have been ideological, but he still didn't make it evident about what, exactly.for political or ideological goals. -
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
Even by your own definition, he wasn't a terrorist. He didn't do it for political or ideological goals...lolwtfbbqComment
-
Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
i don't think it was an act of terrorism at all...tho basically a terrorist instills terror...end of story
his was a case of serious mental and emotional problems
i mean esp with that rice krispy story 0_o
Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
i suppose, tho we still don't kno the total meaning behind his little rampage...Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
The truest definition of a terrorist act is an act for which the primary goal of the act is to instill terror, and for which all other consequences are secondary.
It is intended as a means (ALWAYS taken credit for) for a specific group in opposition to the targets of the attack to attempt to gain concessions through a desire to stop the means that were being used.
One crazy wacko killing a few dozen people does not constitute terrorism. It most likely constitutes a crazy person being crazy, but even if they felt they had some particular reason to want to kill -those- specific people, simply doing something terrific does not make one a terrorist.Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there something about him leaving a tape in which he addresses how wrong the American society was?Time to start indexing again.
Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
This was posted before the tape was released to the news. Hell, Netscape was about a day behind.
So yes, by definition, he is a terrorist.
Also, I remember listening to my usual morning talk show, and they were basically talking about how a good portion of America isn't as struck by terrorism as it used to be. Most of us have survived through Columbine, 9/11, attempted terrorism and/or pseudo-terrorism at school, our most recent shooting spree, and (some of us) have had fellow students deceased during the school year. It still kind of surprises me that we basically have this kind of dialogue when hearing of these events:
Chris: Wow, that sucks AND blows......Got any threes?
Josh: Gof- Oh, go to hell.......
Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
And once again, just because someone has a bone to pick does not make them a terrorist.So yes, by definition, he is a terrorist.
Columbine was not a terrorist act, this was not a terrorist act. Why is it that any time someone does something that is violent and scary is suddenly has to be "terrorism"?Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
It caused terror to individuals in the schools. It caused terror to individuals throughout the US showing that even quiet, safe little places like that can be threatened. It caused terror, therefore it was terrorism.Last edited by seththelezzy; 04-19-2007, 08:04 PM.
I support using the Edit Button. You should too.Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
You mean "It caused terror, therefore it was terrific" That doesn't make it capital T Terrorism, that's something very specific.It caused terror, there for it was terrorism.
What organisation took credit for this supposed terrorist act? What was its motivation, which policies is it protesting, what is the American Government supposed to cede to the group responsible in order to make future attacks not happen?
He seems to lose out on premise number two of this definition.Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".
Seems to lose out on all counts here....when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing the severity of a grievance, or drawing attention to a neglected cause.
I mean, deciding whether to call something a terrorist attack or not, it really does just come down to semantics, but especially in American, the word "Terrorist" has such a dearth of negative connotations, and all of this attached emotional baggage for everyone, that I think even as people become more and more likely to want to just slap "It's Terrorism" on everything bad that happens, you have to be that much more careful to not mis-apply the term.Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
Here are the Dictionary.com definitions for terrorism. Just read them and make sure we're all on the same page.Originally posted by Dictionary.com
Was he doing it for political reasons? Was he insane? We don't know. Therefore, we can't make a judgmental call on if it was terrorism or not. We don't have enough information.
I support using the Edit Button. You should too.Comment
-
Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?
Originally posted by seththelezzyWell...you can see maybe why I'm a little confused?Originally posted by seththelezzyComment
Comment