Oooh, be careful! Now Midnightrider is going to come on here and call you a retard.
Based on the radio ad I heard yesterday, I believe the correct term is "intellectually disabled."
Nope, not a terrorist. He's white...
- Thread starter LibertyBeacon
- Start date
Based on the radio ad I heard yesterday, I believe the correct term is "intellectually disabled."
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I'm really not trying to split hairs, and as someone who's read those types of exchanges it gets boring quickly.
I am saying that one must define what terrorism is. A broad definition helps no one, and in a more real-world sense, allowing people (especially the media and govt.) to classify many, many things as terrorism has got bad news written all over it.
Just picture the calls for "more". Perfect example is media and govt. pundits using the false "355 mass shooting this year" stat that was taken from an anti-gun site that classifies a gang shooting where 3 people died the same as Aurora, CO shooting, and using it to call for more gun control.
I believe a definition can, and should, be set before discussing it.
In terms of what was asked (defining terrorism), many share the sentiment that it is motivated solely by political or societal change. I disagree with that, as there have been attacks which I would classify as terrorism that weren't politically or socially motivated.
Last edited:
Tell MR - he's the one who used that term.
Which begs the question: why does it matter if someone is officially labeled a "terrorist" or not? Do you get extra special punishment if they can call you a terrorist?
That's a real question. Why does it matter what we call them?
And others consider your distinction irrelevant or disagree with it entirely. I'm capable of discussing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism without getting all OCD about the nuances of the term as it may or may not apply to others. But that's just me.
Exactly. It matters not. We can call them the "enemy" and that's fine too. Unfortunately, our own government has decided that it needs certain categories with certain labels in which to place many violent acts. Not sure where most of what goes on in Chicago fits in...looks a lot like various gangs and ethnic groups terrorizing each other to me.
Last edited:
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Not really about public perception, but more about govt. classifications.
We've seen laws and new calls for laws that limit the Constitutional rights of American citizens suspected of terrorism.
But this thread isn't about a Middle Eastern person or someone suspected of being a radical Muslim, so why discuss terrorism in terms of Islamic extremists in this thread?
In this case, a white dude (politically connected one at that) got caught building a bunch of bombs an it's not being treated as a terrorist investigation. If the guy had been Middle Eastern, somehow I bet it would.
If they determine this guy's motive, targets, objective, etc fit their models, he may well be classified as a terrorist by the government. And if so..so what? What does that change?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Nothing.
Restitution
New Member
Not sure where most of what goes on in Chicago fits in...looks a lot like various gangs and ethnic groups terrorizing each other to me.
C'mon Gilligan... you have been around long enough to know.
2 or 3 African American thugs murder 30 people in Chicago in one day and that story is the outro to the commercial break. One CAUCASIAN idiot shoots 5 African Americans and it is the lead story, cause to bring down monuments, and the reason to start a new movement.
Last edited:
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Nope he isn't a terrorist, he is a college professor. Teaching our youth , isn't that nice.
To quote him " Guilty as sin and free as a bird.
Plus he isn't one of Barry's closest friends, just a guy who happened to live in the neighborhood----if you listen to that lying PO crap in the WH.
It whips the crowd into a frenzy, that's why. In cases where the crime is labelled (e.g. act of terror, hate crime, racially motivated) it garners more sympathy for the victims and demands more severe punishment for the perpetrators. We are in essence punishing the criminal because of their ideology, not the criminal act alone. IMO, this is utter bull####. It fits the bill of today's movement to scare the populace into submitting to the government limiting their freedoms, all in the name of safety. Having "terror" breeds wonderful inventions (see Safe Spaces).
PsyOps
Pixelated
Well, it seems pretty obvious to me we are at war with radical Christianity. I suppose our resident anti-Christian folks (just looking for ANYTHING to show that Christians are just as dangerous as terrorist Muslims) will be demanding Churches and homes of Christians be raided to find more evidence that Christians are on a jihad against _____________ <--------- what? Abortion clinics? Are all white Christians beholden to the KKK?
Whatever... we need to get the fed on this immediately. We are at WAR!
Whatever... we need to get the fed on this immediately. We are at WAR!
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
I am pretty sure the people, like me, who are pointing out the bad acts of christians are also the people who are saying you shouldn't judge all people in a religion based on the actions of a few fundamentalists/radicals. :shrug:
i.e. we are the ones saying the fed shouldn't be persecuting people based on religion.
MMDad
Lem Putt
It matters because you cannot effectively fight a threat unless you understand it. Unfortunately, the definition of "terrorism" has morphed over the years into a meaningless label.
I would argue that the white supremacist is more of a terrorist than the San Bernardino shooters. His goal is to incite an uprising by terrorizing people. The terror is the goal, not the killing.
The San Bernardino killers did not care if people were scared or not, they just wanted to kill infidels. They didn't care if we feel terror, they just wanted us all dead. That makes them murderers, not terrorists.
But since our "leaders" are more interested in sound bites and power than actually doing anything the terror label doesn't really matter.
A little nativity scene freaks you out, but Muslims shooting people and blowing #### up...nah, that's okay in your book.
Newsflash: it's not everyone else who has screwed up values.
I guess public safety. A serial killer on the West Coast is not a threat to you, especially if he has a pattern that doesn't include you. A gang killing is probably not a threat to you, because you don't live in a gang area, and don't live or associate with gangs.
A terrorist however could conceivably be your next door neighbor, and they don't seem to worry about who they kill.
It doesn't mean they will get punished more, but we do tend to judge terrorists or pedophiles or cop-killers more harshly than your typical killer.