Terrorism - A lost meaning?

[purebloodtexan]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

I'll look in for some more definitions tomorrow; we just had the TAKS test (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills), had soccer practice, and I need rest.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

OK, so as we can see in this thread, there are multiple meanings of terrorism. I'll see what I can get out of them.

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists.

Now, let's look up "terrorism". Hopefully, the root word "terror" isn't in just one big loop.

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

That was the best definition I could find without the root word "terror" in it. Now, let's look up "idealogical".

1 : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
2 : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

So for the most part, he is a terrorist by definition. However, we don't need to be politically correct, just call him whatever is comfortable.

[seththelezzy]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

Well...you can see maybe why I'm a little confused?

Sorry, after I thought about it I changed my story. I also misread the definition. I think it is terrorism. He struck terror through a group of people (The US, VA Tech campus), So I think it was terrorism.

Sorry for the double thoughts.

[devonin]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

Struck through a group of people at -what- though? Being dead, it's a little tough to pin down his apparant motives, especially since he doesn't appear to have been a part of any particular group to assume he was trying to draw attention to their agenda.

I'm still keeping with the "perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack)" defintion, and classifying him square in the "madman" category. Perhaps if further details come forward we can have a better go at it.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

Is everyone just ignoring what devonin's posts? He is not considered a terrorist. He was a loner who was mental ill and killed a bunch of people. Did he instill fear in the minds of Americans? Yes. But what did he prove to accomplish in killing 32 other seemingly random individuals?

I haven't been following the story because it is depressing and kind of pointless to keep following with all the hearsay the media is spewing, but his attack was not politically or ideologically motivated. It was a tragic incident, but it wasn't an orchestrated terrorist attack. It was insane guy on a killing spree.

Terrorists are almost always affiliated with a political/religious party. The KKK, IRA, al Qaeda, Army of God.

ps. Official Definition of Terrorism (wikipedia):

November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

Cho was is/was not a terrorist. Get over it. If anything, he is a Quasi-terrorist.

[craZ_kylo]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

anything that strikes terror into people is an act of terror, and to my brother im a terrorist so im just waiting till bush comes after me

[purebloodtexan]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

to my brother im a terrorist so im just waiting till bush comes after me

Terrorist by what means?

[devonin]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

Is everyone just ignoring what devonin's posts? He is not considered a terrorist. He was a loner who was mental ill and killed a bunch of people. Did he instill fear in the minds of Americans? Yes. But what did he prove to accomplish in killing 32 other seemingly random individuals?

Is everyone just ignoring what Jewpinthethird posts?

[purebloodtexan]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

Need a motivation for idealogical goals? He was primarily angry at the "rich guys". That seems like "a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture" to me. So he is a terrorist by definition, but again, call him whatever you want, I'm just justifying some peoples' reasons to call him a terrorist.

[Adude6464]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

well, actually it was an insane guy, who had his girlfriend cheat on him, then went on a killing spree intending to kill his girlfriend and the person who had her cheat on him. i don't know about the intentions on the classroom kill tho.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

well, actually it was an insane guy, who had his girlfriend cheat on him, then went on a killing spree intending to kill his girlfriend and the person who had her cheat on him. i don't know about the intentions on the classroom kill tho.

According to Wikipedia, there may have been no relationship between them at all. He did stalk women, however.

[devonin]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

He was primarily angry at the "rich guys".

That makes him someone who hates rich guys, not a terrorist. Unless by his attack he was somehow trying to make "The Royal Order of Rich Guys" change some of their policies out of fear of further attacks (tough when he's also dead)

[purebloodtexan]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

Then his "idealogical goal" was to "get back" at the "rich guys" for what he didn't like.

And those involved in 9/11 didn't get us to change our policies out of fear and are also dead. Does that not make THEM terrorists?

[devonin]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

And those involved in 9/11 didn't get us to change our policies out of fear and are also dead. Does that not make THEM terrorists?

The point is the reasoning behind the attack. Whether it succeeds or not is irellevant. If the -point- of the attack was to try and force a policy change through killing civilians and creating terror, you're a terrorist. There's no organization of "Rich guys at that college" that Cho was trying to force a change in, therefore, not a terrorist.

Also...I will argue that the United States responded in the exact way those behind 9/11 wanted them to: Goading them into trampling roughshod all over the middle east and furthering anti-US sentiment there.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: Terrorism - A lost meaning?

The point is the reasoning behind the attack. Whether it succeeds or not is irellevant. If the -point- of the attack was to try and force a policy change through killing civilians and creating terror, you're a terrorist. There's no organization of "Rich guys at that college" that Cho was trying to force a change in, therefore, not a terrorist.

Also...I will argue that the United States responded in the exact way those behind 9/11 wanted them to: Goading them into trampling roughshod all over the middle east and furthering anti-US sentiment there.

Our primary goal was to capture Osama. Our goal now is to clean up the mess we made.