What is Terrorism?

[Captdon]

A radicalized Muslim in the U.S. uses a drone to assassinate a military officer who works in the Pentagon by blowing up his suburban D.C. home, killing his family and several neighbors.

A U.S. drone strike in Pakistan targets and kills an Al Quaida planner by blowing up his home, killing his family and several neighbors.

Terrorism? Act of war? Some say it's fair game to go after "terrorists" by whatever means and wherever they are because "The world is now the battlefield". So, does that world include the United States?

The United States and ISIS are not equivalent. I can't imagine anyone believing that outside of a few nut bags here.

[Captdon]

It was the TSA, as stated. Flying out of Dulles. Think before you speak.

Yea, TSA does go overboard at times. You know how it is. Give some people a little power and they go all crazy.

[Captdon]

"Terrorism require alienated individuals, a complicit community, and a legitimizing ideology motivated by a desire for revenge, renown, and reaction from the enemy." Louise Richardson

http://www.ted.com/talks/sharmeen_ob...e_bombers.html

"Study Says White Extremists Have Killed More Americans in the U.S. Than Jihadists Since 9/11"

http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-e...adi-dangerous/

"Of course, Jones got away with this, whereas if he had been a Muslim and said the same thing, his sorry ass would be in Gitmo or droned by now. It has not been proved that Anwar al-Awlaki, and American citizen killed by a US drone in Yemen, did more than threaten the US.... Did what Jones said amount to terrorism?"

http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/cont...terrorism.html

The attack on Emmanuel wasn't an act of terrorism. Roof's agenda was racism. He has never said another thing. He was part of no group and could not have started anything on his own.

His was a one time shooting. He didn't intend to strike fear. He wanted to kill some blacks and did. He doesn't come close to being a terrorist.

[littlejohn]

Well just a person talking out of anger about something couldn't be terrorism. But if you did have a really public figure who was inciting others to violence like for them to rise up and overthrow their nation. Or asking them to harm others. I would consider that a form of being a terrorist, but not terrorism yet perse.

Along time ago I listed to a youtuber a few times and he had a lot of viewers and he was constantly telling his subs to rise up and shed blood in the streets. He was literally inciting terrorism. Like Alex Jones he almost was just as bad, he would constantly tell people how long are you going to take these lies? You need to rise up and take your nation back. He was insisting on war and revolution and spilling of blood on our own soil. I think he has future potential to be on a terrorist list.

That being said I still don't agree with how he got shut down. We bypassed the correct way of dealing with things, and went straight for taking away his rights. I do not agree with what they did. It just makes me see what is coming for the rest of us, if they would do it to someone so public, then it will be much worse for us.

They could have just told him that he can stay on the air as long as he doesn't tell people to bring civil war to their nation, don't incite terrorism. If you can follow that simple rule you can talk all the vile hate you want. It is not a crime to be angry at the people leading your nation, it is your right, because it is our nation.

Interesting point, in my current thinking - straight up battle, or violence associated with a rebellion is just that. In particular, when directed at a government. Violence directed at a population used in conjunction with straight up rebellious assaults, to scare the population, for the purpose of limiting their willingness to take sides, or participate -- this is a terrorist tactic included in the overall strategy. This backfires on the rebels so far as I can tell. It silences their potentially worthy message by reducing them to mere terrorists. As we know, we are mostly all conditioned to believe a terrorist is incapable of having a worthy cause, we are auto-conditioned to believe they are just crazy.

If the governments of the world can succeed in causing their respective populations to associate anti-government speech as terrorism -- game over

[Mister D]

This is fairly typical of such "studies". They begin their calculations on 09.12. If they didn't the study would find that Islamists have killed more Americans than "White extremists" have in over a century.

[Standing Wolf]

The United States and ISIS are not equivalent. I can't imagine anyone believing that outside of a few nut bags here.

Avoids the question. The question is whether the act is equivalent or in any way comparable - not the status of the actors.

[Mister D]

Avoids the question. The question is whether the act is equivalent or in any way comparable - not the status of the actors.

The status of the actors decides the question. I get what you're all saying and the concept of "state terrorism" is valid, IMO, but there is a crucial distinction to be made here between state and non-state actors.

[Standing Wolf]

The status of the actors decides the question. I get what you're all saying and the concept of "state terrorism" is valid, IMO, but there is a crucial distinction to be made here between state and non-state actors.

Okay. Make the individual who launched the drone on U.S. soil and killed the Pentagon worker a soldier in the army of some Middle Eastern nation.

Although, I honestly fail to understand how someone can consider an act to be terrorism on the one hand, and simply a war-related tactical action on the other, based on whether or not the guy at the controls is wearing a uniform.

[Lummy]

Someone explain what the difference is between an arsonist that tosses a jar of gasoline at a drug store and burns it down, killing some people inside, and a "terrorist" that tosses a jar of gasoline at a drug store and burns it down, killing some people inside?

Does one get special considerations over the other?

Is the distinction between them something rattling around in your head that you must expand upon to satisfy some intellectual urge to complicate everything?

[Captdon]

Avoids the question. The question is whether the act is equivalent or in any way comparable - not the status of the actors.

And the answer is no. You can't avoid the who.