What is Terrorism?
 

"[URL="https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/19/refusal-call-charleston-shootings-terrorism-shows-meaningless-propaganda-term/"]Refusal to Call Charleston Shootings “Terrorism” Again Shows It’s a Meaningless Propaganda Term[/URL]"
-Glenn Greenwald

[QUOTE]That is the crucial backdrop for yesterday’s debate over whether the term “terrorism” applies to the heinous shooting by a white nationalist of nine African-Americans praying in a predominantly black church in Charleston, South Carolina. Almost immediately, news reports indicated there was “no sign of terrorism” — by which they meant: [I]it does not appear that the shooter is Muslim[/I].


Yet other than the perpetrator’s non-Muslim identity, the Charleston attack from the start had the indicia of what is commonly understood to be “terrorism.” Specifically, the suspected shooter was clearly a vehement racist who told witnesses at the church that he was acting out of racial hatred and a desire to force African-Americans “to go.” His violence was the byproduct of and was intended to publicize and forward his warped political agenda, and was clearly designed to terrorize the community he hates.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;404443]"[URL="https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/19/refusal-call-charleston-shootings-terrorism-shows-meaningless-propaganda-term/"]Refusal to Call Charleston Shootings “Terrorism” Again Shows It’s a Meaningless Propaganda Term[/URL]"
-Glenn Greenwald[/QUOTE]

I would argue that Terrorism is not a meaningless term.

Although I would agree it is often overused by western ("Democratic" (?)) leaders to justify serious violence and oppression of others (usually from other countries). And, of course, with serious cost (read: Trillions of dollars (gross; profit only in the billions), and hundreds of thousands of lives) being spent in its pursuit.

While the Tamil Tigers are often recognized as the first modern users of terrorism, the random killing of innocents goes way back, and continues today.

One measure I have heard is that if you have fighter-bombers, their use on others does not constitute terr'rism.

[QUOTE=kladner;404463]One measure I have heard is that if you have fighter-bombers, their use on others does not constitute terr'rism.[/QUOTE]

As I noted in another thread (forget which), the late great actor [url=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001811/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm]Peter Ustinov[/url] had some pithy insights about war and terrorism, e.g. [on the invasion of Iraq in 2003] "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."

==================

[url=www.alternet.org/its-not-about-mental-illness-big-lie-always-follows-mass-shootings-white-males]It’s Not About Mental Illness: The Big Lie That Always Follows Mass Shootings By White Males[/url] | Alternet

As long as we all can agree that irrespective of mental-illness claims and counterclaims, since it was a white guy (and one not-adherent-to-Islam, to be clear), it could not possibly be labeled 'terrorism' under any reasonable definition, 'kay?

Further, we must always bear in mind that 'guns don't kill people', and the indisputable fact that their entire purpose is to make it really *easy* to kill people (and on rarer occasions, other living things) shall be studiously treated as the utmost-discussion-taboo subject which it is. The one exception to this is speechifying by political 'leaders' in an effort to demonstrate social-liberal credentials, in which cases it shall be dismissed as the shamelessly opportunistic political wind which it is, much like e.g. 'fat-cat bankers must be held to account for their role in the 2008 financial crisis', and 'this trade agreement will be good for American workers'.

Carry on.

:goodposting: With the quibble that mental health excuses are general only available to certain parts of the population.

I guess the meaning morphs and conforms to whatever the speaker wishes it to be at the time. But I will try to define it anyway.

Terrorism is the indiscriminate act, or acts, of creating fear (terror) in one group of people perpetrated by another group of people.

Notice the use of the phrase "group of people". While a single person might try to create terror because of hatred, or whatever reason happens to be at hand, I doubt that most people consider it more than just some dangerous nutcase behaving in unpleasant ways. And once that person has been stopped there is no one else to come along and continue the behaviour.

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33205339[/url] contains an analysis from the POV of a BBC journalist.

[QUOTE=retina;404473]Terrorism is the indiscriminate act, or acts, of creating fear (terror) in one group of people perpetrated by another group of people.

Notice the use of the phrase "group of people".[/QUOTE]

I think that is an excellent definition.

Edit: But, thinking about this a bit more, what defines a "group". Is a "lone wolf" who resonates with a particular group part of a group? Is a "sleeper cell"? It's a very complex domain.

[QUOTE=chalsall;404529]Edit: But, thinking about this a bit more, what defines a "group". Is a "lone wolf" who resonates with a particular group part of a group? Is a "sleeper cell"? It's a very complex domain.[/QUOTE]So some idiot who thinks he is part of a group but has never been in contact with the group goes on a rampage. I think that is just another dangerous nutcase looking for an excuse to harm people.

[QUOTE=retina;404544]So some idiot who thinks he is part of a group but has never been in contact with the group goes on a rampage. I think that is just another dangerous nutcase looking for an excuse to harm people.[/QUOTE]

Was [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timothy_McVeigh"]Timothy McVeigh[/URL] a terrorist?

Or an idiot?

Or, perhaps, both?

[QUOTE=retina;404544]I think that is just another dangerous nutcase looking for an excuse to harm people.[/QUOTE]

I spoke too quickly... I think a deeper question must be asked -- why is there so much anger around?

I understand that this goes back hundreds (possibly thousands) of years, but bloody flying f***ing Christ why can't dialog work?

(It is, of course, a rhetorical question; there's money to be made in killing people. And profit outweighs life.)