Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
7. And yet, that's still not terrorism
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:56 PM
Dec 2015

unless you are willing to contradict every last subject matter on the planet.

The word terrorism has meaning. It applies to situations in which violence or the threat of violence is directed at (usually) civilian forces in an effort to coerce, influence, or disrupt in an effort to achieve some political end.

We have words to describe the other stuff already. Spree killers, mass shooters, school shooters, mad gunmen, mass killers, wholesale murderer, arsonist, bomber, etc.


Attempting to shoehorn arbitrarily assigned acts of violence into the current, accepted, and understood definition of terrorism serves no practical purpose whatsoever. Hell, you could even come up with a new term for all the other violence we're talking about here. The problem is when you conflate different things.

Sexualt battery, sexual assault, rape. Not all are rape.

battery, assault, assault with deadly intent, malicious wounding, assault with a deadly weapon. Not all are battery

Murder, manslaughter, homicide. Not all are murder.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

No, they aren't a terrorist NobodyHere Dec 2015 #1
How so? LynneSin Dec 2015 #2
Are you serious? linuxman Dec 2015 #4
It's a matter of intent, not effect Xipe Totec Dec 2015 #6
And yet, that's still not terrorism linuxman Dec 2015 #7
Definition of Terrorism Xipe Totec Dec 2015 #8
I never said there was a binding consensus. linuxman Dec 2015 #9
... Xipe Totec Dec 2015 #10
Cute cartoon. linuxman Dec 2015 #11
Out of curiosity... deathrind Dec 2015 #14
Depends. linuxman Dec 2015 #15
Fair enough. deathrind Dec 2015 #16
I should have clarified. linuxman Dec 2015 #17
Could not agree more... deathrind Dec 2015 #3
And that's the rub. linuxman Dec 2015 #5
Which is why I disagree with the OP. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #19
I go the other way. If the intent is to kill as many as possible, they are mass murderers. morningfog Dec 2015 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Dec 2015 #13
I'd like to think most combat soldiers intent is not to kill everyone in sight LynneSin Dec 2015 #21
Strongly disagree. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #18
Way TOO MUCH killing lately... A1an Dec 2015 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the intent of a person...»Reply #7