Posted: 6/21/2017 2:49:40 PM EDT
|
I have used the following definition: Terrorism is violence used against civilians for the purpose of influencing the political views of the population of which the victims are members. I'm not sure it's adequate, or at least that it's properly used.
Assuming the London Van ("white") guy meant to kill Muslims, I'm not sure it was terrorism. It seems more like an effort at mass murder of a despised group for its own sake. The Nidal & Akbar attacks weren't terrorism IMO because the targets were military. The firebombing of Japanese cities in WWII was arguably terrorism since the goal was to undermine popular support for the government/military. The bombing of civilians in Germany (for the most part) wasn't terrorism because the deaths were a consequence of the proximity of worker homes to war materiel factories rather than targeting. Roof, Sandy Hook, and Columbine had no political component. They were just murders of people the killers didn't like. More and more, Muslim attacks seem like plain murder. The San Bernardino and Pulse massacres seemed to have death rather than political influence as their motives. It seems that the more I ponder the question, the more elusive the definition becomes. So, what is terrorism? |
| Terrorism in my opinion is when a person or group motivated by religious, ethnic, racial or political aspirations, uses violence against any other group, nation, religion, ethnic or racial group, in order to create fear in that group and cause change, either political, religious or to cause a particular group to flee a region or geographic area. Terror attacks often target civilians but attacks on military and police may also be terror attacks. |
|
A couple definitions, for whatever they are worth:
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal. In most cases, NIJ researchers adopt the FBI definition, which stresses methods over motivations and is generally accepted by law enforcement communities. LINK |
|
Quoted:
Assuming the London Van ("white") guy meant to kill Muslims, I'm not sure it was terrorism. It seems more like an effort at mass murder of a despised group for its own sake. That incident caused a new term to be created. REVENGE TERRORISM Something the muslim terrorists did not plan for. |
|
Quoted:
ter·ror·ism 'ter??riz?m/ noun noun: terrorism the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. A.W.D. But I also see the police charge citizens with communicating terroristic threats. And I am sure politics is not involved. Not in the trailer parks around me, anyways. |
| After 9/11, the Fed and States went full retard with redefining what was terrorism. They also changed the traditional definition of 'weapons of mass destruction' from nuclear, biological, chemical weapons to include conventional weapons that can cause multiple casualties |