The term "Terrorism"

[NM11046]

I'm having a hard time of late accepting that any time there are people killed in a horrific way we are quick to label it "terrorism". The latest example being the truck accident in Nice last night. Was this a terrifying event? Yes. Was it terrorism? We don't know yet, but I don't think so. Earliest reports say it was a local man from Nice, a "petty criminal" and he acted alone. (to be fair, I wouldn't qualify the Dallas Police shootings as a terrorism attack either).

 

In my mind, the definition of terrorism includes a key component, and that is that there is a specific motivation to do wrong in the name of a group or radical idea. Not one or more crazy people that commit an act of aggression. I feel that when news stations and newspapers label any event as a "terrorist attack" they do so to get watchers/clicks and the result is even more polarizing to our US political discussions. They then get a whole group of people on the bandwagon (whether it be about religion, gun control, etc) and in the long run we likely motivate others to commit heinous crimes in order to go down in a blaze of glory. And on top of this, the real terrorists get credit by default for continuing to impact the world negatively.

 

So my question for discussion - when did any mass casualty event become defined as a terroristic attack? Am I thinking about the word "terrorism" in a way that others don't? What would be a more appropriate way to report on these circumstances?

[84HuskerLaw]

You are having a hard time coming to grips with the reality that, Yes, radical Islamic terrorism and terrorists actually do exist and they are many and are spread throughout the world. This is pretty obviously a radical Muslim terror attack (reports are the guy was from north Africa) and he went and rented the truck, acquired many weapons and loaded it in the said truck, and most likely he and his buddies planned his route and the timing. He rented the truck a week or so before the attack and most likely he was not moving to his new apartment on the beach front property in the heart of Nice, France and got really pissed because he arrived too late to watch the fireworks and was irritated because all those people were blocking his drive to his driveway! This was NOT the worst case of 'road rage' in history!

 

France has more than one million hard core Muslims in their country and no doubt 20% or more of them are 'radicalized' (i.e. f-ing nuts!). They believe that their god (the prefer the Muslim term "Allah") commands them to kill the infidels (anyone that is not radicalized Muslim). They believe deeply in their insane notions of their way of life (I don't consider "Islam" a religion as such, much less a 'religion of peace'). Unlike Christianity and Judahis, Budhism, and most other recognized 'religions' of the world), Islam is a complete guide to social structure and governance and authoritarian rules to live life by. It disavows all secular laws and society norms.

 

Terrorism is REAL and alive and well and growing around the world and the great bulk of it is carried out by radical Muslims against infidels and against Muslims who fail to support and follow Sharia laws sufficiently vigorously. These attacks are going to continue and hundreds and thousands more people are going to suffer and die in the coming months and years as a direct result of radical Muslims carrying out attacks. These attacks are not only designed to injure and kill as many people as possible in a very public and conspicuous and horrible way, but are designed to shock and terrorize and strike fear into the hearts and minds of as many as possible (hence the term 'terror'). These twisted minds plan and scheme and plot to carry out these attacks in order to further their beloved Islamic ideals.

 

Far too many people simply cannot comprehend how or why any human would even contemplate or consider doing such terrible things - they don't want to believe or accept that there is such true evil in the world, much less in their own neighborhoods and communities and countries. Why, this is just not reasonable! Truth is just the opposite and true evil and radical Muslims are many and everywhere thanks to naïve and ignorant immigration polices and political leaders who are leading us astray.

 

Terrorism, the term, is not always used for some kind of mass casualty event UNLESS it is an act intended to happen for the very purpose of causing the mass mayhem and death and destruction for the purpose of striking fear of another group or ideology. So called 'lone wolf' attacks are somewhat a misnomer and apparently are being used by political leaders and media types to somehow downplay and lessen the fear factor if you will when trying to reassure the public that a terrible attack was somehow self inspired and does not represent the action of a large more powerful and capable group or organization or nation, presumably to give the impression to the public that no further attacks or dangers are present since the 'lone wolf' was killed in the course of carrying out his attack. The idea being of course that there are no more bad guys out there to present a danger to us! LOL So sad that our government is willing to give a false impression of security and safety which does not exist in reality.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Two aspects of an action need to exist before it is deemed as "an act of terrorism": (1) it constitutes a violent crime under federal or state criminal law and (2) its "intent" is to intimidate a civilian population or government. Whenever there is a mass shooting or bombing, that clearly meets the first criteria of a violent crime. It is the second criteria in which the violent crime must "appear in intent" to intimidate a civilian population or government that the label of terrorism becomes misconstrued.

 

Mass shootings are extremely tragic, violent crimes, but not all are considered terrorism as some are isolated violent crimes without the intent to coerce or intimidate the US population or government. This was the case for school shootings at Columbine back in the 90's and Sandy Hook more recently. The Oklahoma City bombing in the 90's and both attacks on the World Trade Center (the 1993 bombing and 9/11 attack) were terrorist attacks perpetrated by members of radical organizations (an extreme right-wing and militant Patriot movement and radical militant Islamic organizations, respectively).

 

Until the motives of the perpetrator of the attack in Nice is known, it can't been deemed a terrorist attack. If a radical militant Islamic group takes credit for the attack or if it is deemed that the perpetrator acted, singularly or as a member of such organizations, with an intent to intimidate the French population or government, then we can label this a terrorist attack.

 

With all that said, this action should undoubtably be assessed by the appropriate law enforcement as a potential act of terrorism. Fortunately, France's anti-terrorism investigation department has taken over the investigation of the Nice attack, which I think is the right thing at this point.

[BigRedBuster]

[huKSer]

Some of the dead and injured were Muslim

[NM11046]

You are having a hard time coming to grips with the reality that, Yes, radical Islamic terrorism and terrorists actually do exist and they are many and are spread throughout the world. This is pretty obviously a radical Muslim terror attack (reports are the guy was from north Africa) and he went and rented the truck, acquired many weapons and loaded it in the said truck, and most likely he and his buddies planned his route and the timing. He rented the truck a week or so before the attack and most likely he was not moving to his new apartment on the beach front property in the heart of Nice, France and got really pissed because he arrived too late to watch the fireworks and was irritated because all those people were blocking his drive to his driveway! This was NOT the worst case of 'road rage' in history!

 

France has more than one million hard core Muslims in their country and no doubt 20% or more of them are 'radicalized' (i.e. f-ing nuts!). They believe that their god (the prefer the Muslim term "Allah") commands them to kill the infidels (anyone that is not radicalized Muslim). They believe deeply in their insane notions of their way of life (I don't consider "Islam" a religion as such, much less a 'religion of peace'). Unlike Christianity and Judahis, Budhism, and most other recognized 'religions' of the world), Islam is a complete guide to social structure and governance and authoritarian rules to live life by. It disavows all secular laws and society norms.

 

Terrorism is REAL and alive and well and growing around the world and the great bulk of it is carried out by radical Muslims against infidels and against Muslims who fail to support and follow Sharia laws sufficiently vigorously. These attacks are going to continue and hundreds and thousands more people are going to suffer and die in the coming months and years as a direct result of radical Muslims carrying out attacks. These attacks are not only designed to injure and kill as many people as possible in a very public and conspicuous and horrible way, but are designed to shock and terrorize and strike fear into the hearts and minds of as many as possible (hence the term 'terror'). These twisted minds plan and scheme and plot to carry out these attacks in order to further their beloved Islamic ideals.

 

Far too many people simply cannot comprehend how or why any human would even contemplate or consider doing such terrible things - they don't want to believe or accept that there is such true evil in the world, much less in their own neighborhoods and communities and countries. Why, this is just not reasonable! Truth is just the opposite and true evil and radical Muslims are many and everywhere thanks to naïve and ignorant immigration polices and political leaders who are leading us astray.

 

Terrorism, the term, is not always used for some kind of mass casualty event UNLESS it is an act intended to happen for the very purpose of causing the mass mayhem and death and destruction for the purpose of striking fear of another group or ideology. So called 'lone wolf' attacks are somewhat a misnomer and apparently are being used by political leaders and media types to somehow downplay and lessen the fear factor if you will when trying to reassure the public that a terrible attack was somehow self inspired and does not represent the action of a large more powerful and capable group or organization or nation, presumably to give the impression to the public that no further attacks or dangers are present since the 'lone wolf' was killed in the course of carrying out his attack. The idea being of course that there are no more bad guys out there to present a danger to us! LOL So sad that our government is willing to give a false impression of security and safety which does not exist in reality.

No need to be condescending 84 - I'm quite aware that there is islamic terrorism and terrorists actually do exist. Believe it or not I prefer to wait until an investigation uncovers the reasons for the attack (if any) and background of the attacker. My question to put it bluntly, was why do people like you look at any event that results in mass tragedy and automatically call it terrorism and go on diatribes about the evils of a religion and faults of immigration and etc. Your response was actually proving the point of my question.

[Scratchtown]

I'm having a hard time of late accepting that any time there are people killed in a horrific way we are quick to label it "terrorism". The latest example being the truck accident in Nice last night. Was this a terrifying event? Yes. Was it terrorism? We don't know yet, but I don't think so. Earliest reports say it was a local man from Nice, a "petty criminal" and he acted alone. (to be fair, I wouldn't qualify the Dallas Police shootings as a terrorism attack either).

 

In my mind, the definition of terrorism includes a key component, and that is that there is a specific motivation to do wrong in the name of a group or radical idea. Not one or more crazy people that commit an act of aggression. I feel that when news stations and newspapers label any event as a "terrorist attack" they do so to get watchers/clicks and the result is even more polarizing to our US political discussions. They then get a whole group of people on the bandwagon (whether it be about religion, gun control, etc) and in the long run we likely motivate others to commit heinous crimes in order to go down in a blaze of glory. And on top of this, the real terrorists get credit by default for continuing to impact the world negatively.

 

So my question for discussion - when did any mass casualty event become defined as a terroristic attack? Am I thinking about the word "terrorism" in a way that others don't? What would be a more appropriate way to report on these circumstances?

Who gives a rip what it's called. It's senseless radicalized violence from a group of people that have a group inside of it that has, in fact, become radicalized. I'm so sick of the defense of the muslim community and giving them refuge here in our country.

 

I understand that there are MANY MANY more muslim's that are not radicalized but like we just saw in France. It just takes 1 person with the radical views of violence and without a gun. He used a vehicle for God sake. Plowing over people. Damn I'm so mad at this. We've seen this year the Orlando shooting, the Paris Shooting, the Nice incident, and who is responsible? It's people of terror, and they are all from middle eastern descent.

 

No, Ameer Abdullah isn't going to go shooting up some place or start running people over, but HOW DOES THIS STUFF STOP?!

[funhusker]

 

I'm having a hard time of late accepting that any time there are people killed in a horrific way we are quick to label it "terrorism". The latest example being the truck accident in Nice last night. Was this a terrifying event? Yes. Was it terrorism? We don't know yet, but I don't think so. Earliest reports say it was a local man from Nice, a "petty criminal" and he acted alone. (to be fair, I wouldn't qualify the Dallas Police shootings as a terrorism attack either).

 

In my mind, the definition of terrorism includes a key component, and that is that there is a specific motivation to do wrong in the name of a group or radical idea. Not one or more crazy people that commit an act of aggression. I feel that when news stations and newspapers label any event as a "terrorist attack" they do so to get watchers/clicks and the result is even more polarizing to our US political discussions. They then get a whole group of people on the bandwagon (whether it be about religion, gun control, etc) and in the long run we likely motivate others to commit heinous crimes in order to go down in a blaze of glory. And on top of this, the real terrorists get credit by default for continuing to impact the world negatively.

 

So my question for discussion - when did any mass casualty event become defined as a terroristic attack? Am I thinking about the word "terrorism" in a way that others don't? What would be a more appropriate way to report on these circumstances?

Who gives a rip what it's called. It's senseless radicalized violence from a group of people that have a group inside of it that has, in fact, become radicalized. I'm so sick of the defense of the muslim community and giving them refuge here in our country.

 

I understand that there are MANY MANY more muslim's that are not radicalized but like we just saw in France. It just takes 1 person with the radical views of violence and without a gun. He used a vehicle for God sake. Plowing over people. Damn I'm so mad at this. We've seen this year the Orlando shooting, the Paris Shooting, the Nice incident, and who is responsible? It's people of terror, and they are all from middle eastern descent.

 

No, Ameer Abdullah isn't going to go shooting up some place or start running people over, but HOW DOES THIS STUFF STOP?!

 

How does this stop? Sorry to tell you, but it never will. It just changes forms. The world has evil in it and it will until the end. All we can do is try to minimize it, that requires thoughtful and intelligent conversation to come up with ideas.

 

Micah Johnson wasn't from the Middle East. Adam Lanza wasn't from the Middle East. Almost all of the murders that are happening right now are not being committed by Middle Easterners. I know you are referencing attacks from ISIS, but the OP wasn't focusing solely on those attacks. She was speaking of mass violence in general.

[JJ Husker]

I would tend to agree that the word "terrorism" is becoming overused or sometimes prematurely used by the media. However, I'm not so sure the recent events in Nice France are a good example to make a point of this. This situation seems highly likely to be correctly considered terrorism, even if the required criteria has not been completely proven out yet. Referring to it as a "potential act of terrorism" might be more appropriate early on, but it is likely only a matter of time before it is confirmed.

 

The media of late has been quick to label mass killings and other crimes as terrorism and it kind of bugs me too. Most any crime is terrifying to the victim(s) but that doesn't make every mass killing an act of terrorism. Unfortunately, it is somewhat understandable given that ISIS and certain radical Islam elements have made it extremely well known that they are more than willing to commit these atrocities. However, I do wish the media would refrain from prematurely labeling garden variety (if that is an acceptable way to phrase it) murders and crimes as terrorism.

[The Dude]

 

 

I'm having a hard time of late accepting that any time there are people killed in a horrific way we are quick to label it "terrorism". The latest example being the truck accident in Nice last night. Was this a terrifying event? Yes. Was it terrorism? We don't know yet, but I don't think so. Earliest reports say it was a local man from Nice, a "petty criminal" and he acted alone. (to be fair, I wouldn't qualify the Dallas Police shootings as a terrorism attack either).

 

In my mind, the definition of terrorism includes a key component, and that is that there is a specific motivation to do wrong in the name of a group or radical idea. Not one or more crazy people that commit an act of aggression. I feel that when news stations and newspapers label any event as a "terrorist attack" they do so to get watchers/clicks and the result is even more polarizing to our US political discussions. They then get a whole group of people on the bandwagon (whether it be about religion, gun control, etc) and in the long run we likely motivate others to commit heinous crimes in order to go down in a blaze of glory. And on top of this, the real terrorists get credit by default for continuing to impact the world negatively.

 

So my question for discussion - when did any mass casualty event become defined as a terroristic attack? Am I thinking about the word "terrorism" in a way that others don't? What would be a more appropriate way to report on these circumstances?

Who gives a rip what it's called. It's senseless radicalized violence from a group of people that have a group inside of it that has, in fact, become radicalized. I'm so sick of the defense of the muslim community and giving them refuge here in our country.

 

I understand that there are MANY MANY more muslim's that are not radicalized but like we just saw in France. It just takes 1 person with the radical views of violence and without a gun. He used a vehicle for God sake. Plowing over people. Damn I'm so mad at this. We've seen this year the Orlando shooting, the Paris Shooting, the Nice incident, and who is responsible? It's people of terror, and they are all from middle eastern descent.

 

No, Ameer Abdullah isn't going to go shooting up some place or start running people over, but HOW DOES THIS STUFF STOP?!

If the most influential Islamic scholars would be unified in roundly condemning the principles of jihad, martyrdom, and apostasy it would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

It's tough because in order to do so you essentially have to say Muhammad's ideas were wrong. You can imagine how controversial this would be.

 

As it is, the scholars are left playing a game of semantics with these ideas. Trying to interpret them in a less literal way that fits in with the modern world.

 

The problem is there's plenty of self-appointed scholars who are arguing you're not a true Muslim if you don't follow the literal interpretation.

 

This is a much bigger problem than a few dozen goobers in Kansas interpreting the Bible literally.

[zoogs]

 

 

If the most influential Islamic scholars would be unified in roundly condemning the principles of jihad, martyrdom, and apostasy it would be a huge step in the right direction.

It's tough because in order to do so you essentially have to say Muhammad's ideas were wrong.

 

Really? I don't think this is an accurate representation. Perhaps I have imagined or am not remembering properly the widespread Muslim condemnation of every terrorist incident known to the West, and all the many more mostly ignored here.

 

 

 

This is a much bigger problem than a few dozen goobers in Kansas interpreting the Bible literally.

 

We all know there are a few reasons for this. One, Christianity has sorted out a large number of internecine disputes and violence over the course of its first two millenia. Second, there are only a few dozen goobers in Kansas because the U.S. is enormously wealthy and stable, not fractured and war-torn with no political or social institutions to speak of.

 

Exchange one for the other, and I'm sure you'll bring out the rabid and wild en masse.

[The Dude]

Really? I don't think this is an accurate representation. Perhaps I have or am not remembering properly the widespread Muslim condemnation of every terrorist incident known to the West, and all the many more mostly ignored here.

 

I didn't say anything about condemning terrorist incidents. What's with resorting to strawman arguments at every turn? That's not the path to productive discussion.

[zoogs]

*checks thread title, just to be sure.*

 

It seemed like you were making the charge that Islamic scholars are not able to stop terrorism because in order to do so they would have to reject Muhammad's ideas.

 

If I was mistaken, and we agree that rejecting terrorism hardly has to involve overturning anything Muslisms all hold dear, then I apologize.

[AFhusker]

I would tend to agree that the word "terrorism" is becoming overused or sometimes prematurely used by the media. However, I'm not so sure the recent events in Nice France are a good example to make a point of this. This situation seems highly likely to be correctly considered terrorism, even if the required criteria has not been completely proven out yet. Referring to it as a "potential act of terrorism" might be more appropriate early on, but it is likely only a matter of time before it is confirmed.

 

The media of late has been quick to label mass killings and other crimes as terrorism and it kind of bugs me too. Most any crime is terrifying to the victim(s) but that doesn't make every mass killing an act of terrorism. Unfortunately, it is somewhat understandable given that ISIS and certain radical Islam elements have made it extremely well known that they are more than willing to commit these atrocities. However, I do wish the media would refrain from prematurely labeling garden variety (if that is an acceptable way to phrase it) murders and crimes as terrorism.

The problem with the label of Terrorism is that some acts such as the one in Dallas are Hate Crimes but are mislabeled by some as Terrorism. By definition an act of Terrorism is a Hate Crime as someone really has to hate a group of people if they are willing to give their lives to kill those people. But they are different as a Hate Crime is against one race of person and Terrorism is for political or religious reasons.

[The Dude]

*checks thread title, just to be sure.*

 

It seemed like you were making the charge that Islamic scholars are not able to stop terrorism because in order to do so they would have to reject Muhammad's ideas.

 

If I was mistaken, and we agree that rejecting terrorism hardly has to involve overturning anything Muslisms all hold dear, then I apologize.

Forgive my impatience.

 

I'm talking about diminishing the spread of cognitive extremism, and in turn reducing the frequency of behavioral extremism.

 

You're talking about frowning upon instances of behavioral extremism after the fact. Which is all well and good, but has proven to be useless.

 

And the possibility that people may hold these archaic and barbaric ideas near and dear to their hearts doesn't impress me in the slightest.