• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police: Gunman kills two at N.J. supermarket

That is why it is social terrorism. He had no goal in mind other than murder, just like the batman shooting.
Those are not acts of terrorism. The shooting in New Jersey and the shooting in Colorado are not acts of terrorism, nor do they meet any definition of terrorism.


Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Code (U.S.C.)

Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:

"Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"[53]

Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:

"[T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum."[54]

US Code of Federal Regulations

The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
US national security strategy

In September 2002 the US national security strategy defined terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents".[55] This definition did not exclude actions by the United States government and it was qualified some months later with "premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".[56]
United States Department of Defense

The United States Department of Defense recently changed its definition of terrorism. Per Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism, (24 November 2010) the Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political."

The new definition distinguishes between motivations for terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and goals of terrorism ("usually political"). This is in contrast to the previous definition which stated that the goals could be religious in nature.
USA PATRIOT Act

The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (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 U.S."
US National Counterterrorism Center

The US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) define terrorism the same as United States Code 22 USC § 2656f(d)(2). The Center also defines a terrorist act as a: "...premeditated; perpetrated by a sub-national or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." [57]
In general insurance policies

Some insurance companies exclude terrorism from general property insurance (e.g. home insurance). An insurance company may include a specific definition of terrorism as part of its policy, for the purpose of excluding at least some loss or damage caused by terrorism. For example, RAC Insurance in Australia defines terrorism thus:

"Terrorism means an act including but not limited to the use of force or violence and/or threat, of any person or group of persons done for or in connection with political, religious, ideological or similar purposes including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public, or any section of the public in fear."[58]



Terrorism Definitions

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.
-Brian Jenkins
Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.
-Vice-President's Task Force, 1986

Terrorism consitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
-Walter Laqueur

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.
-James M. Poland
Source: Terrorism Research Center
 
It was not social terrorism when the KKK were lynching blacks, republicans and anyone who sympathized or aided them, it was just pure and simple terrorism.

What exactly is confusing about this statement:

Politics may or may not play a role but the core of racism is a social ill and not government fall out.
 
What exactly is confusing about this statement:

Politics may or may not play a role but the core of racism is a social ill and not government fall out.

Again the motivations of the terrorist acts of the KKK were political, Not social. It was to intimidate and or scare black people,republicans and their supporters into submitting, it was to silence their views, it was to get people they wanted into power.
 
Again the motivations of the terrorist acts of the KKK were political, Not social. It was to intimidate and or scare black people,republicans and their supporters into submitting, it was to silence their views, it was to get people they wanted into power.

What exactly is confusing about this statement:

Politics may or may not play a role but the core of racism is a social ill and not government fall out.

Forget about the kkk and address the statement.
 
What exactly is confusing about this statement:

Politics may or may not play a role but the core of racism is a social ill and not government fall out.

Forget about the kkk and address the statement.

Again what the KKK did was political. If you actually bothered to read up on the group you would know that.You would also know that the term social terrorism doesn't exist(except in urbandictionary.com ) and that terrorism involves using violence or threats of violence to coerce people or government into a change. So therefore someone going postal is not an act of terrorism nor is some pathetic loser nutjob shooting up a place a act of terrorism because those people are not trying to intimidate or coerce some sort of change. Trying to call it 'social terrorism' is just ****en idiotic and devalues the word terrorist.
 
Again what the KKK did was political. If you actually bothered to read up on the group you would know that.You would also know that the term social terrorism doesn't exist(except in urbandictionary.com ) and that terrorism involves using violence or threats of violence to coerce people or government into a change. So therefore someone going postal is not an act of terrorism nor is some pathetic loser nutjob shooting up a place a act of terrorism because those people are not trying to intimidate or coerce some sort of change. Trying to call it 'social terrorism' is just ****en idiotic and devalues the word terrorist.

I never said the KKK was free from a political agenda. I tried like five times to get you to address the fact racism is a social ill and you refused so have a good day. Since you refuse to address something as simple as that I don't expect you to be able to understand what social terrorism means.
 
Again what the KKK did was political. If you actually bothered to read up on the group you would know that.You would also know that the term social terrorism doesn't exist(except in urbandictionary.com ) and that terrorism involves using violence or threats of violence to coerce people or government into a change. So therefore someone going postal is not an act of terrorism nor is some pathetic loser nutjob shooting up a place a act of terrorism because those people are not trying to intimidate or coerce some sort of change. Trying to call it 'social terrorism' is just ****en idiotic and devalues the word terrorist.

How could it possibly be political ?

it isnt like they

Klanwiki said:
In an 1868 newspaper interview, Forrest stated that the Klan's primary opposition was to the Loyal Leagues, Republican state governments, people like Tennessee governor Brownlow and other carpetbaggers and scalawags. He argued that many southerners believed that blacks were voting for the Republican Party because they were being hoodwinked by the Loyal Leagues.[39] One Alabama newspaper editor declared "The League is nothing more than a nigger Ku Klux Klan."[40]

Oh wait... nevermind.
 
I never said the KKK was free from a political agenda. I tried like five times to get you to address the fact racism is a social ill and you refused so have a good day. Since you refuse to address something as simple as that I don't expect you to be able to understand what social terrorism means.

Terrorism to force a social agenda? Gee... under that idea almost ALL terrorism could be classified as that .
 

Terrorism to force a social agenda? Gee... under that idea almost ALL terrorism could be classified as that .

That is not what I said or even close to it.
 
I gave you some numbers, and pointed out that MSM does not (CAN not) cover all crimes on a national level... leaving them plenty of room to pick and choose what they will cover.

To me, the media's use of hype, scarism and fearmongering and excessive dramatization is so obvious and blatant I can hardly watch TV news anymore.
What I don't like about their reporting is that they give details about the numbers killed, caliber of weapon and it's capacity, shooter's name, victims names, but little perspective of the crime's nature. For instance "gang gets wrong address and shoots up innocents in private home" speaks to the nature of the crime versus "the agenda" being pushed and frankly it's pretty frustrating.
 
What I don't like about their reporting is that they give details about the numbers killed, caliber of weapon and it's capacity, shooter's name, victims names, but little perspective of the crime's nature. For instance "gang gets wrong address and shoots up innocents in private home" speaks to the nature of the crime versus "the agenda" being pushed and frankly it's pretty frustrating.

What is the agenda being pushed?
 
An employee killing co workers is social terrorism.
No, it isn't. There is no such thing as "social terrorism", terrorism is the willful causing of fear to extort a political result. You could call the KKK terrorists because they intentionally targeted non-baptists, blacks, and minorities to advance the goal of white supremacy in law and the social pecking order. You can cal Hamas, Al-Quaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Wahabiests terrorists because they are using violence and other scare tactics to advance a particular agenda. A random shooting spree motivated by anger, psychosis, or "just because" with no agenda is murder, not terrorism.

The key aspect here is the shooter displayed no signs of disturbance before the shooting and in fact co workers have said the opposite.
Okay? Point?
 
No, it isn't. There is no such thing as "social terrorism", terrorism is the willful causing of fear to extort a political result. You could call the KKK terrorists because they intentionally targeted non-baptists, blacks, and minorities to advance the goal of white supremacy in law and the social pecking order. You can cal Hamas, Al-Quaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Wahabiests terrorists because they are using violence and other scare tactics to advance a particular agenda. A random shooting spree motivated by anger, psychosis, or "just because" with no agenda is murder, not terrorism.

Okay? Point?

You can say social terrorism does not exist but it is like creationists saying there are no rocks actually older than 10,000 years.
 
Or is the media increasing coverage of these events and overhyping them because it draws viewers and sells ad time?

In a nation of 315 million plus, stuff happens SOMEWHERE every day and most of the time we don't hear about 99% of it unless it happened in our town... or unless the media decides to blitz a certain type of story for their own reasons.


YEAH THIS ^^^^^^

I dont have a specific answer for this question but there were studies down about either murder of violent crimes in general around like 2005 and the said in the last two decades murders or violent crimes have gone down % wise but reporting on them increased over 200%.

so in general the answer is yes but I dont know the answer to the OPs specific question
 
For the last time. I'm not talking about crime in general.
So...you are talking about white people shooting incidents and not your typical Thursday night in Chicago?
 
Lol.......okay.......well then explain why the MSM doesn't do compulsory coverage on social terrorism.
You can't cover something that doesn't exist. Next question.
 
YEAH THIS ^^^^^^

I dont have a specific answer for this question but there were studies down about either murder of violent crimes in general around like 2005 and the said in the last two decades murders or violent crimes have gone down % wise but reporting on them increased over 200%.

so in general the answer is yes but I dont know the answer to the OPs specific question

I think for garden variety violent crimes that has long been the case because a fearful population is a ball of warm clay.

However, for this specific epidemic I think there is an under reporting problem not very different from police brutality.
 
You can say social terrorism does not exist but it is like creationists saying there are no rocks actually older than 10,000 years.
I don't think you get it. You can't just create terms and expect it to have any weight. Terrorism is a very specific crime, it is political, and it involves creating a situation such as assassination, mass destruction, extreme violence, or other means to create fear specifically to force governments to bend to a specific political agenda. None of that happened here, even when you have groups that claim a "social agenda" when they engage in violence to force legislation, then it is just plain ole' terrorism, there needs to be no made up qualifier.
 
Looks like a creationist's response to 2 million year old dinosaur bones.
There's no reason to get emotional, you've lost on this one. The actual criminal definition of terrorism has been posted, and all you brought to the table was a created term.
 
I think for garden variety violent crimes that has long been the case because a fearful population is a ball of warm clay.

However, for this specific epidemic I think there is an under reporting problem not very different from police brutality.

its possible but in my opinion I dont think its an epidemic or heres under reporting on it.

if it is an epidemic id actually like to see less reporting on it and just more education/prevention on how to curb (because prevention is impossible) things of this nature.

I dont want reporting on it unless its to catch somebody at large. IMO reporting on it is ONE of the reasons SOME of these people do these things
 
its possible but in my opinion I dont think its an epidemic or heres under reporting on it.

if it is an epidemic id actually like to see less reporting on it and just more education/prevention on how to curb (because prevention is impossible) things of this nature.

I dont want reporting on it unless its to catch somebody at large. IMO reporting on it is ONE of the reasons SOME of these people do these things
To your last point, I have suspected for a long time that there are copycat shootings. Once a big one makes the national news I firmly believe someone with little confidence and no morals will look to it and tell themselves that they get to also be a page in a history book.
 
Back
Top Bottom