Topic: So, which shootings do we call terrorism? - page 2. (Read 1472 times)

The article does NOT say what you claim it says.

Well, that's changing the goalposts, changing the question.  The original question was this -

What determines who is called a terrorist? Religiously motivated violence? "Terrosim" is an arbitrary way to label violence, a way to drive the narrative. Don't be fooled by it.

Just saying.

Also I don't care if you go in a different direction, just don't assert I addressed a question of that different direction when I simply answered the original one.  But on that subject, no, you can't belittle Mulsim/Islamic Terrorism, the counts are very high.

www.thereligionofpeace.com

Question: So, which shootings do we call terrorism?  
Answer: So some whack job is shouting Allah Akbar while he cuts someone's head off and says it's for the glory of Islam, and you want to say "oh, it's a way to drive a narrative?" That's ridiculous. That ignores the stated intent of the perpetrator.

Hm, it's almost as if that's not the answer to the question. A question meant to invoke thought of how our media portrays different shootings. To get you thinking about the huge expense that the "war on terror" in the middle east is, despite the fact that right-wing extremists seem to be a larger threat to American lives (you can find an in-debt analysis of that here: politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/08/sally-kohn/kohn-911-right-wing-extremists-killed-more-america/). Should we prioritize intent? Sure, ISIS has the intent to "destroy all western infidels"... but their over-ambitious intent does not make them a more urgent cause than other (more deadly things) we have to deal with in the homeland. So, no... we should not prioritize intent. Intent may be key to finding a solution to the violence's root, but we should not prioritize which we deal with by intent. Drug cartels are another violent organization that is much more deadly to American lives, but we prioritize the sunni/shia/kurd conflict in the middle east, it makes no sense to prioritize intent.

My whole rant had a point. The point I that we're not responding to the threat of Muslim extremists in an appropriate manner. We're not solving the problem, we're just spending trillions of dollars on wars that yield little to no results.

Saying that our response to the threat of Muslim extremist is not appropriate (and that in fact, our efforts [unconstitutional spying programs, torture and murder in Guantanamo Bay, and missile strikes that kill tons of civilians] might be making the problem worst), does not mean I am making excuses for violence! We're wasting our resources intervening in a conflict halfway around the world. We're fighting in a conflict of no consequence to us, fueling discontent and hatred towards the nation with missile strikes that cause huge collateral damage.

No, the rants fine.  You simply haven't proved your point - if you had a point, other than some diffuse anger.  I just answered your question in a very simple way.

"Which do we call Muslim terrorism?"

Answer "Those which the perp says are Muslim terrorism."

Alah Akbar and all that.

You see, your rant doesn't address your initial question posed - it represents sort of a justification for terrorism.  That's really a different question isn't it?

Oh, and by the way - maybe my answer isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.  Should you make intent a priority?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Of course you do.

"Oh, I shot the cop/blackman/etc.  I intended to shoot the cop/blackman/etc."

Gee, should we prioritize intent?

I feel like you asked a question, did not like the answer, then went off in five different directions?

There's always one person that decides to ignore 80% of of what one is talking about to take a sentence out of context. "What is the post about? Gun violence? Mass shootings and the way the media portrays the shooters? Nah, it's about decapitation videos!" Religious fundamentalism and violence fueled by that fundamentalism is not exclusive to Islam, yet there is little to no coverage of the Christian fundamentalists that are pushing communities to be bible literalists and persecute witches.

Intent is good and all, but is that enough to make it priority? "We hate America, and the infidels will burn for Allah's glory"... so? We have so much more to deal with back home, we have a much better use for the money we're wasting in this sunni/shia/kurd conflict in the middle east. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez and Dylan Roof were equally radicalized in different ideology, what makes Youssef Abdulazeez's a larger threat? Nothing. Yet, "domestic terrorism" is why we have to... what did bush say? "get them over there, before they get us over here"?

"Gee, they hate American intervention in their country! Better intervene some more! We will solve this violence with more violence. No way that will help muslims inside the US to feel persecuted. No way that will fuel radicalization of the mentally ill that just happen to be muslim." Didn't some white guy with a persecution complex (I believe he said something like "the government is racist towards white people") just shoot up a theater? Then you have someone hearing about how much collateral damage the US does in the middle east (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147), in predominantly Muslim places, and of Guantanamo Bay, where (I would guess) a mostly Muslim population is tortured and murdered for fun (no useful information came from those tortures or from those murders)... and he bombs a Boston athletic event.

Thos two suffered from the same kind of dementia. Both performed deadly acts of violence. For one, we say "the gun laws and mental illness issues in the country must be better addressed", for the second, we say "we have to increase our military expenditure abroad, and increase our unconstitutional wiretapping programs". There is a clear double standard that I wanted to illustrate by using shootings, and how the media is portraying them.

PS: Sorry about the rant, my response is mostly the underlined sentence.

Fooled by it?  So some whack job is shouting Allah Akbar while he cuts someone's head off and says it's for the glory of Islam, and you want to say "oh, it's a way to drive a narrative?"

That's ridiculous.  That ignores the stated intent of the perpetrator.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/a_new_syndrome_anything_but_islam_.html

OP, this is a very good question.
I'm not sure, a political motivated attack is the best I can come up with.

everyone know what is they "muslim do terrorism" and making disorder.
and may be we still remember what happen in WTC, USA in 11 septembre 2001.
with the incident Muslim having image teroorism, make they phobia with Muslim until now as e know.
but not all of muslim doing that, doing terrorism and making disorder, guys. in this world many good and bad people.

Nowdays people definition for terrorism is being a muslim . If it's a muslim kid at school they call him Osama Ben Laden or joke about him making a bomb on the school .
If someone got killed on the street by Gangsters and there was a muslim on the street , It would be him the killer even if he didn't do anything but when an atheist or christian or X religion kills a Muslim it's pretty normal and we change the word to something more polite like "Sick" "Psycho" etc .

i dont think so, but terrorism is identic with a religion as we know that.
but cause is it make a image in the religion that so when there a any people doing shootings we call terrorism.
but the definition about terrorism is not that. terrorrism is like who people terrorizing continuately.
and make we self threaten. thats i think.

Dylan Roof   killed 9 people, injured none. Joseph Jesse Aldridge killed 8 people, injured 1. Thomas Jessee Lee killed 5, injured none. Cedric G. Prather, 5 killed, 2 injured. Christopher Carrillo killed 5 people and injured none. Michael “Augustine” Bournes killed 5 and injured none.
Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez killed 5 people and injured 3 people.
Which shooting was jumped on at a moment's notice, with mentions of terrorism? What determines who is called a terrorist? Religiously motivated violence? "Terrosim" is an arbitrary way to label violence, a way to drive the narrative. Don't be fooled by it.