Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

CNN: Truck strikes cyclists in Manhattan, up to 6 dead


Spaceman Spiff

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Burgold said:

I think this is close, but a little narrow. It can be politically motivated and/or religiously motivated. As I hit send, I think that may be narrow too. I suspect the key is hate. Is the act of "terror" one aimed to harm or intimidate any group. 

 

I can see acts of terrorism against the US, but also against Jews, Muslims, Christians, Gays, etc. I think the key is the hate and the reaction the instigator wants to get from a group or against a group.

 

Perhaps a better criterion. 

 

Was as the target an individual or a group?  

 

To me, terrorism is violence intended to cause a change in a targeted group. You kill a few cops/gays/Muslims/Trekkies because you want all cops/gays/Muslims/Trekkies to (do something). 

 

The targeted group can be selected based on politics, or race, or religion, or any behavior. But it's a group. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Perhaps a better criterion. 

 

Was as the target an individual or a group?  

 

To me, terrorism is violence intended to cause a change in a targeted group. You kill a few cops/gays/Muslims/Trekkies because you want all cops/gays/Muslims/Trekkies to (do something). 

 

The targeted group can be selected based on politics, or race, or religion, or any behavior. But it's a group. 

I disagree.  I think there is an important distinction between terrorism and things like hate crimes, if for no other reason than clarity in communication.  Terrorism must have a broader political motivation.  Attacks on any of the groups you mentioned could be terrorism, but they could also be something else.  These distinctions aren't unimportant.  

 

Calling something terrorism doesn't mean it's somehow more serious (not saying you said otherwise Larry), only that it's politically motivated violence.  Eco terrorists have been known for decades but no one thinks some tree huggers sabotaging construction of ski resorts is as terrible as the Las Vegas shooting, or any mass murder.  Yet by committing acts of violence to express their anger over public policy allowing construction in places they want to preserve, what they are doing is terrorism by definition. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But terrorism, to most, equates a 9/11 style attack with grand schemes and an organized group behind it.  Seems like terrorism lately is just Muslims who want to kill westerners.  Not saying that it isn’t terrorism by conventional measures, it just isn’t as scary as I expect terrorism to be.  I expect cells and networks of extremists when I think terrorism, not a one-off nutjob who got influenced by the internet to kill.

 

What frustrates me the most, is that these brown people just get lumped into a “terrorist” category almost immediately.  Again, not saying that they aren’t, but that’s what it is.  Muslim kills a bunch of people and they are terrorists.  When one of the many recent white men kill a bunch of people, we get a lot of “we don’t know what set him off” and “he was mentally disturbed”.

 

White men get a lot more leniency in judgement by the media and socially (than other races/religions).  The fact that these people are mentally deranged extends across all races, yet their religion becomes front and center when trying to determine why they do the things they do.  This is an argument that is never extended to white people who by and large inflict more harm on American citizens than other races.

 

 

Sorry for vomiting my thoughts onto a post like this.  I couldn’t tell if it’s even coherent because it’s hard for me to properly articulate my thoughts on this.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Springfield said:

 

 

White men get a lot more leniency in judgement by the media and socially (than other races/religions).

 

 

But white men been killing folk here for ages, no shock value unless they kill a bunch.

 

It's like your wife ****ing....no zing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

To me, one is a terrorist if one incites fear/terror through violence. It doesn't matter the race, religion, creed, or anything else. 

Serial killers are terrorists by that definition.  So are street gangs.  The term becomes a meaningless buzz word.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

 

What frustrates me the most, is that these brown people just get lumped into a “terrorist” category almost immediately.  Again, not saying that they aren’t, but that’s what it is.  Muslim kills a bunch of people and they are terrorists.  When one of the many recent white men kill a bunch of people, we get a lot of “we don’t know what set him off” and “he was mentally disturbed”.

 

White men get a lot more leniency in judgement by the media and socially (than other races/religions).  The fact that these people are mentally deranged extends across all races, yet their religion becomes front and center when trying to determine why they do the things they do.  This is an argument that is never extended to white people who by and large inflict more harm on American citizens than other races.

 

 

 

 

the 2 most recent examples of what youre talking about (Vegas shooting and NY) appear to be what they are. No political/religious/social motive, so far, in vegas. usually, the motivations are obvious because thats the point of terrorist violence- you are sending a specific message. I get the frustration, though. there is usually an obvious motive, but whatever it was isnt apparent so far in vegas, despite the fact that it is the deadliest mass shooting in american history. but its not a mystery because of perception or bias or coverage- it really is a mystery, as far as we know. 

 

in NY, we have information that tells us what the guys motivation was- eyewitnesses who heard him and a note detailing his motivations. it seems pretty clear. 

 

are there other examples that you are thinking of when it comes to defining terrorism?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, grego said:

 

the 2 most recent examples of what youre talking about (Vegas shooting and NY) appear to be what they are. No political/religious/social motive, so far, in vegas. usually, the motivations are obvious because thats the point of terrorist violence- you are sending a specific message. I get the frustration, though. there is usually an obvious motive, but whatever it was isnt apparent so far in vegas, despite the fact that it is the deadliest mass shooting in american history. but its not a mystery because of perception or bias or coverage- it really is a mystery, as far as we know. 

 

in NY, we have information that tells us what the guys motivation was- eyewitnesses who heard him and a note detailing his motivations. it seems pretty clear. 

 

are there other examples that you are thinking of when it comes to defining terrorism?

 

With Vegas, there has to be a motive.  There HAS to.  I refuse to accept so easily that NY was terrorism and that Vegas was just a guy off his rocker.

 

To me, that says, “OK, we have a guy.  We know his motives so we can address that.  This other guy, we don’t really know what he was up to and it’s harder to address those issues so we will just let it be.”

 

That is the impression I get from the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Springfield said:

 

With Vegas, there has to be a motive.  There HAS to.  I refuse to accept so easily that NY was terrorism and that Vegas was just a guy off his rocker.

 

To me, that says, “OK, we have a guy.  We know his motives so we can address that.  This other guy, we don’t really know what he was up to and it’s harder to address those issues so we will just let it be.”

 

That is the impression I get from the media.

 

The motive might simply be he wanted to be that guy.(which we need to end imo)

 

Terrorist or simply homicidal turd doesn't really matter in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

With Vegas, there has to be a motive.  There HAS to.  I refuse to accept so easily that NY was terrorism and that Vegas was just a guy off his rocker.

 

To me, that says, “OK, we have a guy.  We know his motives so we can address that.  This other guy, we don’t really know what he was up to and it’s harder to address those issues so we will just let it be.”

 

That is the impression I get from the media.

I agree that he must have had a reason, but they might be crazy person reasons.  Either way, I'd like to know what they were.  

 

 

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The motive might simply be he wanted to be that guy.(which we need to end imo)

 

Terrorist or simply homicidal turd doesn't really matter in the end.

Might be that aliens told him to kill the lizard people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was under the impression this guy would like to die. Someone should tell Trump to stop commenting on legal proceedings. He's not some random ass on Twitter commenting on the latest news. I expect this to be brought up by whoever represents the terrorist in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...