That’s what I was trying to get at - what makes a terrorist a terrorist and not a serial killer or a mass murderer. And I agree with the definition you posted but would also add after “political” “...or religious aims.”
OT: Austin bombing suspect dies near Round Rock TX
- Thread starter Ten Thousan Marbles
- Start date
That’s what I was trying to get at - what makes a terrorist a terrorist and not a serial killer or a mass murderer. And I agree with the definition you posted but would also add after “political” “...or religious aims.”
Sadly some intellectually dishonest folks like to ignore parts of a definition that don’t fit their preferred political narrative.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Don't get caught up or boxed in by definitions. Having said that, here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
Definition of terrorism
:the systematic use of terror especially as means of coercion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism
You can certainly terrorize people without a political or religious agenda. Some dolts here may think that's impossible, but that's why they're dolts.
Some of his victims were specifically targeted and no information has been released as to why, I don't believe the police know why. But some targets were also random. Also the victims are a mix of races, genders and ages. Anyone looking at this factually can't fairly say that this person was targeting a specific race, gender or religion based on the information that has been released to date. Anyone doing so is jumping to conclusions.
Bomb 1 - Addressed to and left at home of a specific individual. Deceased victim is African American male adult.
Bomb 2 - Addressed to and left at home of a specific individual. Deceased victim is African American male teenager, injured victim is African American female (teen's mother).
Bomb 3 - Addressed to and left at wrong home, it was addressed to an adult female (I'm not sure of her race) with the same last name as the teenage victim but she had no ties to the boy or his family. This may have been a mistake by the bomber, it's unknown. A victim was injured while carrying bomb to the correct address. It is unknown if placement at the wrong house was intentional or unintentional. Injured victim is an elderly Hispanic female.
Bomb 4 - Tripwire bomb placed on sidewalk in public area of a neighborhood. No specific person targeted. 2 injured victims are Caucasian males. Neighborhood is believed to be predominantly Caucasian.
Bomb 5 - Addressed to somewhere or someone in Austin but exploded in transit at Fed Ex facility. Who this was addressed to hasn't been released so the intended target is unknown. I believe there were some injuries by some Fed Ex employees but I don't know their information so I will not mention it here.
Bomb 6 - unexploded bomb recovered at FedEx facility. Addressed to specific individual in Austin. Addressed to Caucasian adult female.
This is just an intellectual exercise. That definition of terrorism is rather general. Using that definition most anyone that commits violent acts in succession could be labeled a terrorist. In fact, that definition doesn’t even stipulate that the act has to be violent. There are ways to “terrorize” someone than by violence alone. Maybe a blackmailer could be construed as a terrorist? The Son of Sam killer a terrorist? I guess he could be labeled so, certainly by using that definition, but something about that doesn’t seem right.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
That’s the point. And terror is about instilling fear - doesn’t have to be literal - the threat alone is enough. I think the key word is systematic. But you do you.
Be careful, intellectual exercises can be a bit much for some on here. I tried a similar exercise in another post about a definition and some quickly devolved into political rants and name calling. It’s sad people can’t check their agenda at the door and have an adult discussion.
I agree with your post, you can terrorize without being considered a terrorist. I was just talking to a teacher friend who was talking about a kid in her 2nd grade class class who “terrorized” her all the time.
Seriously? You want to equate a 2nd graders actions to the same level as someone who murders groups of people?
That's how far you have to stretch to try to make your point?
That is just sad.
Last edited:
What if this was France and the attacker's name was Radouane Lakdim, 26, a Moroccan-born French national who was a petty criminal already on the radar of French police for his links to radical Salafist networks? And, what if he killed two people and wounded more than a dozen others in a supermarket raid and, before then, he had killed another person while stealing a car? Also, what if police found two unexploded homemade bombs, a 7.65 mm pistol and a hunting knife when they searched the market after the attack, as a French judicial source told CNN?
According to CNN:
More than 230 people have died in a series of Islamist-inspired terror attacks in France over the past three years, including 17 in a mass shooting at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris in January 2015 and 130 in the Paris attacks the following November. In 2016, 86 people died in Nice when a truck rammed into crowds during Bastille Day celebrations. There have also been a string of "lone wolf" ISIS-inspired attacks, including the killings of a priest and rabbi.
Here is excerpt from an article from The Washington Post regarding France's gun laws after the Charlie Hebdo massacres:
French gun laws date back to April 18, 1939, though they have been amended a number of times since. They are certainly tough: There is no right to bear arms for the French, and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation. According to Gun Policy, a project by the University of Sydney, the punishment for illegally having a gun is a maximum of seven years in prison and a fine. In 2012, the French government estimated that there were at least 7.5 million guns legally in circulation.
As The Post's Thomas Gibbons-Neff notes, the men who attacked Charlie Hebdo appeared to be carrying two different types of Kalashnikov rifles. Such weapons are highly restricted and require extremely stringent background checks to buy (CNN describes it as rivaling the "clearance work done by the FBI for anybody employed at the White House").
As The Post's Thomas Gibbons-Neff notes, the men who attacked Charlie Hebdo appeared to be carrying two different types of Kalashnikov rifles. Such weapons are highly restricted and require extremely stringent background checks to buy (CNN describes it as rivaling the "clearance work done by the FBI for anybody employed at the White House").
It is kind of fascinating that our worldly, and highly enlightened PC herd missed this story and these statistics. Or, did they simply choose to ignore it all since it would not push the agenda forward?
Seriously? That's what you got from my post? That is just sad. I suggest you read it again a little slower.
Similar threads
