CDZ Is every violent individual or group a terrorist or terrorist organization?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Xelor, Aug 23, 2017.

  1. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,958
    Thanks Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,551
    Touché

    Well, I have to say that you are in one dimension correct, yet, normatively at the very least, you should not be. LOL
     
  2. Mac1958
    Offline

    Mac1958 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    39,757
    Thanks Received:
    8,184
    Trophy Points:
    1,360
    Location:
    Independent Ave.
    Ratings:
    +30,921
    No, I sure don't.

    I just don't want Jihadism diluted by those with an ideological motivation for doing so.
    .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. PredFan
    Offline

    PredFan Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    33,983
    Thanks Received:
    5,094
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    In Liberal minds, rent free.
    Ratings:
    +16,629
    Interesting question.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. SeaGal
    Online

    SeaGal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    617
    Thanks Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    a land remembered
    Ratings:
    +569
    To answer the question - no.

    Not that terminology matters to the victims and their families. Even though the Depts of State, FBI and Homeland Sec don't have a standard definition of terrorism it's pretty much agreed that acts of violence motivated by political and/or ideological beliefs fall within the category of terrorism. McVeigh and the Unabomber were domestic terrorists, Bundy - a serial killer, Specht - a mass murderer.
    I remember reading that the victims and families petitioned the US gov't to change the classification of Ft. Hood massacre to an act of terrorism - don't recall why. Bill Ayers involvement with the Weather Underground and the bombings of public buildings is a grey area, imho...other than no one was killed as I recall. It gets sticky when violence breaks out during demonstrations from an ostensibly peaceful group of radical activists.

    And, yes, I do think we too quickly and too broadly label political or ideological opposites as evil, the enemy or despicable. I am disturbed more deeply when it is done by national figures, media, politicians, celebrities, etc. rather than one on one in a heated confrontation.

    I pretty much agree with this assessment. Bin Ladin declared war (fatwa) on America in '96 citing our occupation of 'Holy Lands', and jihad against America and Jews in '98. (even though we were invited into Saudi Arabia - where he was a wanted man). Unfortunately I don't think anyone took him too seriously at the time.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,139
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,094
    To answer the OP question, No.

    To define terrorism: I would, and do, use a fairly broad definition.

    Terror/Terrorism: An act, or failure to act, that is meant to create fear, or "terror", in a specific group (nation, town, ideology, etc.), usually involving violence or the threat thereof, to effect a desired response. Pretty simple, yet broad (even slightly ambiguous). So, a person(s) could commit terrorism by dumping blood on a person wearing a fur coat, blowing up a building, LE refusing to act on threats made, even blocking the route of a demonstration march with armed persons.

    Ted Bundy- serial killer, he never intended (as far as I know) to create fear, just death.
    AQ, ISIS, etc.- Terrorists, their point IS to create fear, among other things. Death is no more than a tool for them.
    Bloods, Crips, MS-13, etc.- Street gangs mostly, yet they do fall into the terrorist category, to me at least, because they want everyone to "respect" them, OUT OF FEAR.
    Many LE dept. in the past (the argument could be made for current ones too)- Some, yes, were terrorists. They FAILED TO ACT (and in some cases participated) to suppress groups such as the KKK, Militant Nazis, etc. Knowing what, where, and when they were likely to act.
    That "Christian Biker group" that was showing up at military funerals- Terrorists, they used the IMPLIED threat of violence in an attempt to effect a desired response.

    Now, all that said, not all terrorists are created equal, insomuch they do not all use violence (some merely use the threat), the level of violence is not all the same, nor are the "targets". I don't think anyone would say that the KKK is on the same level as ISIS, but who would deny they both have used violence in an attempt to effect a desired response? Yes, ISIS wants people to "convert or die", and the KKK merely wants to put "black people in their place", but are they not both terrorist groups?
     

Share This Page