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.
I suppose some of the violence against blacks is just stupidity - they just want to hurt somebody. But most of it has an aim. Like lynching. It wasn't about punishing the perpetrator of a crime. It was about putting all black people on notice. Keeping them in their places. That's what I mean about it being political.
In correct. There have been a number of named domestic terrorist attacks in the past 20 years or so in the US that were called terrorism, such as Oklahoma City, the 1996 Olympic bombing, attacks against abortion providers, etc.
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
Exactly...my thought. Fbi definition that it must be stared prior to acting on it. It was....... horrible.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment