Why are mass killings not considered an act of terrorism? The people/victims affected in these incidents clearly felt nothing but terror in those moments and later.
That would only apply for the US today though. In Germany in the 70s and 80s the RAF were Germans, and they were not anti-German as such, more like anti-capitalism, and anti-democratic.
I don't get these definitions anyway. Killing is killing. Depending on the side that recounts it, it's either murder, terrorism, or heroism. And that goes both ways.
A definition stated below indicates a political aim. That sounds more like what you're thinking, and I would tend to agree with that.
But I think that a racist agenda is political. Much of the aggression toward blacks in this country is perpetrated with the aim of keeping them in their place. That place being subservient and out of sight.
Possibly more importantly, it's all about us versus them. The majority groups are outraged when somebody attacks us. An attack by us on us doesn't get people outraged, and therefore doesn't count as terrorism. Now multiply that by the fact that black people aren't "us."
I guess the political aim works for terrorists in most places. Also, that they usually focus on attacking innocents rather than strategically valuable places. Their aim is to spread terror in the general population to increase the pressure on the government and to imbalance society.
I guess a racist agenda *can be* political or it can be just stupidity and hatred. Was he just mad at the black people he knew personally for whatever made-up reason or was he trying to imbalance peace by killing blacks explicitly. I dunno, but it's horrible in any case.
This question came up on my FB feed, and one person's answer is that terrorism is the infliction of terror _for a political goal_ or _with a specific political aim in mind_. These killings are terrible, in the most literal sense of the word, but they are not terrorism.
If you ask me, no matter for what reason you take another human life, it's always bad. I am probably going to get flamed, but even if sometimes a military conflict seems reasonable to save your own country, people killing other people in a war are never ever "heroes" for me. They are killers and they should at the very least grieve the people they killed and the lives they ruined. Terrorists, mass murderers, psychopaths... all the same. Bastards, all of them.
This is so true! We used veterans for our move. At the end we were talking about where they served etc. And i shared that my grand-uncle served in world war two. And they knew and yet were surprised. It wasn't just Americans who fought these wars and i think a lot of these parades and celebrations make your forget at what cost these wars have come at.
And yet, in India there really is no acknowledgement of their role.
Yes, of course it matters. If someone threatens you and your loved ones, you are morally and legally allowed to prevent that, if need be by killing the offender. The difference is though how you'd feel after the fact. I would probably tell myself it was necessary but I would still suffer from the knowledge that I took a life, and I would wish for another possibility, and very much resent being called a heroine for it.
I guess that's one of the more modern reasons governments give when sending their soldiers to war. "It's in self-defense because the other country attacked first/threatens us/will attack us soon..." That's why war is a grey area. There always seems to be a reason, but it depends very much at the point of view if it is valid or not.
To be honest I'd say the majority of sources I've seen about the shooting in Charleston have been calling it terrorism. I've seen it also called a hate crime and I think part of the difference may be due to a possibility of federal or state jurisdiction depending on the death penalty for the crime.
The normal definition of it is something like "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
The FBI has their own definition for it; however, considering that he is claiming to want to create a "race war" it likely both fits as a hate crime and act of terrorism.
Comments 17
But in one recent case, there was a stated agenda of racism. So... ?
Reply
I don't get these definitions anyway. Killing is killing. Depending on the side that recounts it, it's either murder, terrorism, or heroism. And that goes both ways.
Reply
But I think that a racist agenda is political. Much of the aggression toward blacks in this country is perpetrated with the aim of keeping them in their place. That place being subservient and out of sight.
Possibly more importantly, it's all about us versus them. The majority groups are outraged when somebody attacks us. An attack by us on us doesn't get people outraged, and therefore doesn't count as terrorism. Now multiply that by the fact that black people aren't "us."
Reply
I guess a racist agenda *can be* political or it can be just stupidity and hatred. Was he just mad at the black people he knew personally for whatever made-up reason or was he trying to imbalance peace by killing blacks explicitly. I dunno, but it's horrible in any case.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
This is so true! We used veterans for our move. At the end we were talking about where they served etc. And i shared that my grand-uncle served in world war two. And they knew and yet were surprised. It wasn't just Americans who fought these wars and i think a lot of these parades and celebrations make your forget at what cost these wars have come at.
And yet, in India there really is no acknowledgement of their role.
Reply
I guess that's one of the more modern reasons governments give when sending their soldiers to war. "It's in self-defense because the other country attacked first/threatens us/will attack us soon..." That's why war is a grey area. There always seems to be a reason, but it depends very much at the point of view if it is valid or not.
Reply
The normal definition of it is something like "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
The FBI has their own definition for it; however, considering that he is claiming to want to create a "race war" it likely both fits as a hate crime and act of terrorism.
Reply
Leave a comment