General Discussion

BumRushDaShow

(128,842 posts)

5. It's inconsistent

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:12 PM

Jun 2016

and this is the problem of the use of the word "terrorism" and only using it for those of (or suspected of being of) a certain religion.

White Christians shooting up abortion clinics or black churches are never called "terrorists" and the acts are rarely if ever even called "hate crimes" unless alot of blowback happens.

Any individual or individuals, no matter their origin or religion causing mass casualties should be considered "terrorists". And their crime should be considered a hate crime because those willing to do what they do are hateful POSes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This may be a dumb question [View all] spartan61 Jun 2016 OP

Good question. The shooter allegedly pledging fealty to ISIS did the trick. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #1

in this case it is certainly both Skittles Jun 2016 #2

.+1 840high Jun 2016 #7

One is part of an international movement and religion, for a global cause. braddy Jun 2016 #3

Over the years, terrorists have become freedom fighters and vice versa. libdem4life Jun 2016 #6

You are going to pull a muscle playing such mental games. braddy Jun 2016 #8

Say what? My mind hardly broke a sweat libdem4life Jun 2016 #9

Now I get it. Hadn't seen your post. libdem4life Jun 2016 #10

I'd say if it wasn't for the 911 call Skink Jun 2016 #4

It's inconsistent BumRushDaShow Jun 2016 #5

Eric Rudolph was never described as a terrorist? Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #11

He definitely was described as such... Chan790 Jun 2016 #13

Oh, he will. Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #14

Oh, I'm aware. Chan790 Jun 2016 #15

Post-9/11 the "rules" changed. Try Dylann Roof or Robert Dear. BumRushDaShow Jun 2016 #16

+1,000 n/t malaise Jun 2016 #17

Human beings invented language out of thin air The2ndWheel Jun 2016 #12