CDZ Terrorism and two shootings

[Syriusly]

In the last month the United States has had two terrible attacks on Americans by lone shooters.

In one case- a lone gunman enters an African American church and shoots and kills 9 attendees.
In another case- a lone gunman goes first to a recruitment center and opens fire, and then to a reserve facility and opens fire- killing 4 Marines.

Are either of these 'terrorism'- and if so which?
Are both?

And why?

 

[mamooth]

The first is terrorism. The second is not.

I know that's not going to be a popular viewpoint, but it's accurate. Terrorism, by definition, involves civilian targets. In the second shooting, all the targets were military. It was war, not terrorism.

The fact that they were stateside military is not relevant, as, for example, our drones are controlled from stateside. War is global now. The fact that the attack was on a non-combat target is not relevant, as we regularly attack non-combat targets such as training centers, supply centers and leader meetings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is ‘terrorism’ is a term used so often and extensively that it has lost any relevant meaning.

Moreover, ‘terrorism’ is a term used as a partisan weapon in an effort to attack one’s political opponents for ‘failing’ to classify a given violent crime ‘terrorism.’

 

[Syriusly]

I appreciate the replies.

I asked the question because I have seen posters insist that the attack on the recruiting centers is 'terrorism' but no one (mamooth excepted and here) is saying the attack on the church is an act of terrorism.

I think that we will find that the motivation behind both attacks will be similar- both lone gunman, objecting to some perceived offenses by one group of people to 'his group of people'- and that both will have been inspired by groups that encourage hatred towards these gunmans targets, but that neither gunman will have been part of any orchestrated attack.

 

[irosie91]

I appreciate the replies.

I asked the question because I have seen posters insist that the attack on the recruiting centers is 'terrorism' but no one (mamooth excepted and here) is saying the attack on the church is an act of terrorism.

I think that we will find that the motivation behind both attacks will be similar- both lone gunman, objecting to some perceived offenses by one group of people to 'his group of people'- and that both will have been inspired by groups that encourage hatred towards these gunmans targets, but that neither gunman will have been part of any orchestrated attack.

of course the attack on the church was terrorism------IMHO-----who said it was
not?

 

[Agit8r]

In the last month the United States has had two terrible attacks on Americans by lone shooters.

In one case- a lone gunman enters an African American church and shoots and kills 9 attendees.
In another case- a lone gunman goes first to a recruitment center and opens fire, and then to a reserve facility and opens fire- killing 4 Marines.

Are either of these 'terrorism'- and if so which?
Are both?

And why?

Either both are, or neither are. Both were done for political reasons (or rather delusions), but it isn't clear that they were intended to terrorize the whole population into acquiescing to certain demands. So it boils down to semantics.

 

[irosie91]

In the last month the United States has had two terrible attacks on Americans by lone shooters.

In one case- a lone gunman enters an African American church and shoots and kills 9 attendees.
In another case- a lone gunman goes first to a recruitment center and opens fire, and then to a reserve facility and opens fire- killing 4 Marines.

Are either of these 'terrorism'- and if so which?
Are both?

And why?

Either both are, or neither are. Both were done for political reasons, but it isn't clear that they were intended to terrorize the whole population into acquiescing to certain demands. So it boils down to semantics.

both are------what WHOLE POPULATION? -----and WHAT DEMANDS? I do not agree with your definition of TERRORISM ----specifically the "certain demands" part---

 

[Agit8r]

In the last month the United States has had two terrible attacks on Americans by lone shooters.

In one case- a lone gunman enters an African American church and shoots and kills 9 attendees.
In another case- a lone gunman goes first to a recruitment center and opens fire, and then to a reserve facility and opens fire- killing 4 Marines.

Are either of these 'terrorism'- and if so which?
Are both?

And why?

Either both are, or neither are. Both were done for political reasons, but it isn't clear that they were intended to terrorize the whole population into acquiescing to certain demands. So it boils down to semantics.

both are------what WHOLE POPULATION? -----and WHAT DEMANDS? I do not agree with your definition of TERRORISM ----specifically the "certain demands" part---

If one is to adhere to the narrower definition, neither is. If one uses a broad definition both are. Hence, semantics.

 

[Asclepias]

I appreciate the replies.

I asked the question because I have seen posters insist that the attack on the recruiting centers is 'terrorism' but no one (mamooth excepted and here) is saying the attack on the church is an act of terrorism.

I think that we will find that the motivation behind both attacks will be similar- both lone gunman, objecting to some perceived offenses by one group of people to 'his group of people'- and that both will have been inspired by groups that encourage hatred towards these gunmans targets, but that neither gunman will have been part of any orchestrated attack.

of course the attack on the church was terrorism------IMHO-----who said it was
not?

The FBI

 

[irosie91]

I appreciate the replies.

I asked the question because I have seen posters insist that the attack on the recruiting centers is 'terrorism' but no one (mamooth excepted and here) is saying the attack on the church is an act of terrorism.

I think that we will find that the motivation behind both attacks will be similar- both lone gunman, objecting to some perceived offenses by one group of people to 'his group of people'- and that both will have been inspired by groups that encourage hatred towards these gunmans targets, but that neither gunman will have been part of any orchestrated attack.

of course the attack on the church was terrorism------IMHO-----who said it was
not?

The FBI

sheeeesh

 

[Debra K]

In the last month the United States has had two terrible attacks on Americans by lone shooters.

In one case- a lone gunman enters an African American church and shoots and kills 9 attendees.
In another case- a lone gunman goes first to a recruitment center and opens fire, and then to a reserve facility and opens fire- killing 4 Marines.

Are either of these 'terrorism'- and if so which?
Are both?

And why?

First, the word "terrorism" must be defined.

TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

(TERROR: a very strong feeling of fear)

Similarly, the word "systematic" must also be defined.

SYSTEMATIC
: relating to or consisting of a system

(SYSTEM: a group of related parts that move or work together)


Using the generally-accepted definitions of words, then the answer is no ... neither case involving a lone gunman is terrorism.

Their acts are criminal and terrifying, but their acts were not part of a system, i.e., a group of related parts that move or work together, and were not used as a means of coercion.

All things that terrorize are not terrorism.

 

[irosie91]

In the last month the United States has had two terrible attacks on Americans by lone shooters.

In one case- a lone gunman enters an African American church and shoots and kills 9 attendees.
In another case- a lone gunman goes first to a recruitment center and opens fire, and then to a reserve facility and opens fire- killing 4 Marines.

Are either of these 'terrorism'- and if so which?
Are both?

And why?

First, the word "terrorism" must be defined.

TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

(TERROR: a very strong feeling of fear)

Similarly, the word "systematic" must also be defined.

SYSTEMATIC
: relating to or consisting of a system

(SYSTEM: a group of related parts that move or work together)


Using the generally-accepted definitions of words, then the answer is no ... neither case involving a lone gunman is terrorism.

Their acts are criminal and terrifying, but their acts were not part of a system, i.e., a group of related parts that move or work together, and were not used as a means of coercion.

All things that terrorize are not terrorism.

wrong ---both cases were terrorism----both "lone" gunmen were involved with
a much larger ORGANIZED FORCE ---and acted for those organized forces

1 Anti USA islamicism
2 White supremacism

 

[Syriusly]

In the last month the United States has had two terrible attacks on Americans by lone shooters.

In one case- a lone gunman enters an African American church and shoots and kills 9 attendees.
In another case- a lone gunman goes first to a recruitment center and opens fire, and then to a reserve facility and opens fire- killing 4 Marines.

Are either of these 'terrorism'- and if so which?
Are both?

And why?

First, the word "terrorism" must be defined.

TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

(TERROR: a very strong feeling of fear)

Similarly, the word "systematic" must also be defined.

SYSTEMATIC
: relating to or consisting of a system

(SYSTEM: a group of related parts that move or work together)


Using the generally-accepted definitions of words, then the answer is no ... neither case involving a lone gunman is terrorism.

Their acts are criminal and terrifying, but their acts were not part of a system, i.e., a group of related parts that move or work together, and were not used as a means of coercion.

All things that terrorize are not terrorism.

wrong ---both cases were terrorism----both "lone" gunmen were involved with
a much larger ORGANIZED FORCE ---and acted for those organized forces

1 Anti USA islamicism
2 White supremacism

There is no indication that either gunman were actually involved with any other organized force.

Inspired- almost certainly. Encourage- perhaps. But we have not heard any facts that indicate that they were acting with any other group or organization.

 

[irosie91]

In the last month the United States has had two terrible attacks on Americans by lone shooters.

In one case- a lone gunman enters an African American church and shoots and kills 9 attendees.
In another case- a lone gunman goes first to a recruitment center and opens fire, and then to a reserve facility and opens fire- killing 4 Marines.

Are either of these 'terrorism'- and if so which?
Are both?

And why?

First, the word "terrorism" must be defined.

TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

(TERROR: a very strong feeling of fear)

Similarly, the word "systematic" must also be defined.

SYSTEMATIC
: relating to or consisting of a system

(SYSTEM: a group of related parts that move or work together)


Using the generally-accepted definitions of words, then the answer is no ... neither case involving a lone gunman is terrorism.

Their acts are criminal and terrifying, but their acts were not part of a system, i.e., a group of related parts that move or work together, and were not used as a means of coercion.

All things that terrorize are not terrorism.

wrong ---both cases were terrorism----both "lone" gunmen were involved with
a much larger ORGANIZED FORCE ---and acted for those organized forces

1 Anti USA islamicism
2 White supremacism

There is no indication that either gunman were actually involved with any other organized force.

Inspired- almost certainly. Encourage- perhaps. But we have not heard any facts that indicate that they were acting with any other group or organization.

not a valid response------such people need not be RANKING recruits-----they did it for their ORGANIZED CREED------two creeds which are historically and presently associated with terrorism and have actively encouraged it. -----the two were not RANDOM "just happened to feel like shooting up" criminals. It is Dangerous to not call it what it is-----TERRORISM instigated by organized terrorist advocates----is actually dangerous. Doing so trivializes both white supremacist
and Islamic terrorism---------in order to cure it, it must have a name. Before the HIV virus was discovered----there was not hope for finding a treatment. ----
before the illness was named in 1981----ACQUIRED COMBINED SYSTEMS IMMUNODEFICIENCY----there was no hope of finding the causative agent. Failing to properly attribute it, is a service to the specific creeds

 

[M14 Shooter]

The problem is ‘terrorism’ is a term used so often and extensively that it has lost any relevant meaning.
Moreover, ‘terrorism’ is a term used as a partisan weapon in an effort to attack one’s political opponents for ‘failing’ to classify a given violent crime ‘terrorism.’

Like when leftist anti-gun loons refer to the NRA as a "terrorist" organization?
NRA terrorist - Google Search

 

[irosie91]

For the record----I am a registered democrat. I have never referred to the NRA as a terrorist organization. Even then an avid hunter accidentally shoots a person that he mistook for a deer-----I have never called that act "terrorism"-----It someday----a virulent activist for GUN OWNERSHIP----shoots up a household of persons engaged in attempting to tighten gun control laws-----I will call that LONE GUNMAN a "terrorist"

 

[M14 Shooter]

Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or the threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for an economic,[1] religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Another common definition sees terrorism as political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors.
Terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Did Dylan Roof shoot up that church to cause fear among blacks, as a means to further his goals?
Seems to be he just wanted to kill black people and did not go much further than that.
That being the case, i don't think you can call it terrorism.

 

[Debra K]

Here's another definition of "terrorism" from the United States Code, 22 U.S. Code § 2656f (d) (2): "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

Edited to add another definition from the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 2331:

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended-

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and


(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Debra K]

If crimes committed by lone gunmen or others are intended by them to intimidate a civilian population, then their acts are probably "terrorism" as defined by federal law. Under this definition, the Zodiac Killer was engaged in terrorism. Violent gangs are engaged in terrorism. It is difficult to divorce the word terrorism from crime in general because all crime in one form of another causes people to be in fear. Personally, I don't think the word "terrorism" should apply to all crimes, but only to crimes that are politically motivated and intended as coercion, i.e., as a threat to the targeted society to change a policy or suffer ongoing retribution.

 

[Debra K]

Federal charges including hate crimes for accused shooter - Yahoo News

Federal charges including hate crimes for accused shooter

The federal government secured a multi-count indictment against Dylan Roof. The article didn't mention terrorism as one of those charges.