Definition on terror? Rethink?

[maryjane48]

President Donald Trump on Tuesday did not say whether he thought the Las Vegas shooting was an act of "domestic terrorism," joining law enforcement officials who have so far declined to use that term to describe the largest massacre in modern American history.

Trump said the shooter, identified by authorities as Stephen Paddock, was a "sick man, demented man," but did not answer reporters' questions at the White House about whether he committed an act of domestic terror. On Monday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said it was "premature" to judge that question, pointing to the ongoing investigation.
Law enforcement authorities similarly declined to use the term.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politics/ ... VODtopLink



now the nevada state law allows for the shooting to be declared terrorism the act yet the fed law bases it on intent . it is realy semantics geared towards avoiding calling white folks terrorists

[FreeRights]

now the nevada state law allows for the shooting to be declared terrorism the act yet the fed law bases it on intent . it is realy semantics geared towards avoiding calling white folks terrorists

Absolutely incorrect, the difference is designed to separate two very different sorts of events. If you'd take the time to do your research, you'd discover - based on the information we currently know - it cannot be deemed terrorism on an academic level.

The definition is the same and it has nothing to do with skin colour, race, religion or any others physical attributes.

[maryjane48]

try reading what i wrote. in nevada it is terrirism . on fed level it isnt. most states define the act which is basicaly killling folks for no other reason than killing a bunch while on fed level it is the why . which is silly . the definition of the word terror is itself defined on the act .

after 9 11 bushs govt made sure terror went hand in hand with muslims or non whites . it needs to be changed to include every bad act that induces terror in a population

[MalaPropina]

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

As of yet., they have found no evidence the attack was politically or ideologically motivated. If such evidence is found then they may change their choice of words.

[jimmy4321]

it is realy semantics geared towards avoiding calling white folks terrorists

Some people in the past would say being so quick to call every event a terrorist act is a way the government tries to spook it's citizens into giving up some freedoms in lieu of safety.

It's important to differentiate between a terrorist and just another crazed gunman, the severity of the crime has nothing to do with how it's labelled.

[Ka-El]

it needs to be changed to include every bad act that induces terror in a population

The absolute worst thing we could do is muddy this definition further. We already have some of the more partisan posters referring to child soldiers as terrorists. Start calling everyone a terrorist and the word becomes meaningless.

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

[The Green Barbarian]

The absolute worst thing we could do is muddy this definition further. We already have some of the more partisan posters referring to child soldiers as terrorists. Start calling everyone a terrorist and the word becomes meaningless.
]

I completely agree. As we saw with Khadr though, some extremely partisan people try and pin the "child soldier" designation on people who clearly do not meet this definition, to try and meet political goals rather than acknowledge reality. Politics seems to be more and more interwoven into these arguments, especially when the terrorist happens to be a member of a certain religion especially. And then we have those who are not even interested in arguing fine points. All they want to do is muddy the waters in some desperate attempt to deny the obvious about said fundamentalist adherents of this religion. The machinations of those desperately trying to paint "Christians" with the same brush just exposes the level of stupidity and evil they will drop down to in order to push a political agenda. I am not sure if "partisanship" is the right word to describe these people. "Idiots" is also too kind. I am not sure there will ever be enough 9/11's to convince these people that maybe just maybe, there is a problem here.

[Ka-El]

The absolute worst thing we could do is muddy this definition further. We already have some of the more partisan posters referring to child soldiers as terrorists. Start calling everyone a terrorist and the word becomes meaningless.

I completely agree. As we saw with Khadr though, some extremely partisan people try and pin the "child soldier" designation on people who clearly do not meet this definition, to try and meet political goals rather than acknowledge reality.

Child soldier might not be the perfect definition for Khadr, but it is clearly a more accurate and appropriate definition than terrorist. That is the uncomfortable reality that some extreme partisans want to avoid acknowledging as it would mean our previous government did fail in this matter.

Child soldiers are children (individuals under the age of 18) who are used for any military purpose.

https://www.child-soldiers.org/who-are-child-soldiers

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Again, the absolute worst thing we could do is muddy this definition further. While calling Khadr a terrorist serves well to deflect from Harper's failure as a PM, if we start calling everyone a terrorist the word becomes meaningless.

[The Green Barbarian]

Child soldier might not be the perfect definition for Khadr, but it is clearly a more accurate and appropriate definition than terrorist..

I'm sorry but we're just never going to agree on this point. I accept the fact that we should just agree to disagree and move on, if that's ok with you.

[Ka-El]

I'm sorry but we're just never going to agree on this point. I accept the fact that we should just agree to disagree and move on, if that's ok with you.

Sure. Like many others here, I have long recognized your rigid partisan affiliations. Not a big deal.

[The Green Barbarian]

Sure. Like many others here, I have long recognized your rigid partisan affiliations. Not a big deal.

I see you changed your response before I could respond in kind. Ok here goes - so we're in agreement to agree to disagree on the Khadr child soldier nonsense you are peddling, and now we are also in agreement that we both are guilty of rigid partisan affiliations, apparently. I know you will deny this on your part, but that's all part of your mystique I suppose, to live in self-denial. All right then, like many others here, I will keep posting, and while continuing to disagree with you on many fronts, including the terrorist non-child-soldier Omar Khadr, I look forward to the continual agreement to disagree.

[Ka-El]

I will keep posting, and while continuing to disagree with you on many fronts, including the terrorist non-child-soldier Omar Khadr, I look forward to the continual agreement to disagree.

As someone with absolutely no partisan loyalty, I’m sure I will continue to agree with some of your better-informed opinions, and disagree with most of your more poorly informed opinions. Either way, your posts are almost always entertaining. Cheers.

[The Green Barbarian]

As someone with absolutely no partisan loyalty, .

this is as far as I got, before I fell off my chair laughing. Thanks for that.

[Ka-El]

this is as far as I got, before I fell off my chair laughing. Thanks for that.

No worries. We are all used to seeing you "stop reading when ..."

[The Green Barbarian]

No worries. We are all used to seeing you "stop reading when ..."

Not sure what this means, but ok...

anyway, as I said, we can agree to disagree on things, and that's ok. Diverse opinions are a good thing.