• 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!

Why is everything called terrorism?

Skeptic Bob said:
I would certainly put 9-11 and many others into that category. But would you consider, say, the Oklahoma City bombing an "act of war"?
Click to expand...

No. War is waged by groups. It is also an ongoing effort. The Jihadi are waging war. Terrorism is a tactic of war. They say they are waging war and have declared it.
 
PirateMk1 said:
No. War is waged by groups. It is also an ongoing effort. The Jihadi are waging war. Terrorism is a tactic of war. They say they are waging war and have declared it.
Click to expand...

I think I agree on your war definition. So the Oklahoma City bombing was not an act of war. We agree on that. Which leads me to ask if you believe the Oklahoma City bombing was terrorism? Or do you believe terrorism can only be an act of war?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I think I agree on your war definition. So the Oklahoma City bombing was not an act of war. We agree on that. Which leads me to ask if you believe the Oklahoma City bombing was terrorism? Or do you believe terrorism can only be an act of war?
Click to expand...

Oklahoma city was an act of reprisal for Waco and Ruby Ridge. Reprisal is a version of the terrorism tactic. Can we say that McVeigh was at war with the US? Possibly. It gets murky with singular people if its war or just a criminal act.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Should we just go ahead and get rid of the word "murder" and replace it with "terrorism"?

I feel like the only reason we are calling the Charlottsville car ramming "terrorism" is because a car was used. And maybe it was terrorism. Maybe this guy wasn't involved in the violent back and forth between the two groups beforehand. Maybe he had planned this from the beginning. If he did plan it from the beginning, like a Dylann Roof, then I can see the argument. But here is a hypothetical scenario:

Two groups are in a bar. One group is a bunch of Berkley students and the other group is a bunch of White Nationalists. They get into a verbal argument with each other based on their opposing political views. Then they start shoving each other. Then punching each other. Then one of the White Nationalists finally pulls out a gun and starts shooting them.

Is that terrorism? Or is it just heat of the moment plain old murder?
Click to expand...
Repetitive and continued loose use of the language causing a conflation of terrorizing with terrorism.

The second incorporates the first but is done for political purposes, while the first alone doesn't necessitate any political purpose.




Unitedwestand13 said:
I looked up the general definition.

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Click to expand...

Shooting someone in a bar due to a heated argument over politics is not terrorism.

[highlight]On the other hand, intentionally targeting a building full of a specific group of people and throwing multiple sticks of dynamite at the building could be defined as terrorism.[/highlight]
Click to expand...
If done "in the pursuit of political aims", sure.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Should we just go ahead and get rid of the word "murder" and replace it with "terrorism"?

I feel like the only reason we are calling the Charlottsville car ramming "terrorism" is because a car was used. And maybe it was terrorism. Maybe this guy wasn't involved in the violent back and forth between the two groups beforehand. Maybe he had planned this from the beginning. If he did plan it from the beginning, like a Dylann Roof, then I can see the argument. But here is a hypothetical scenario:

Two groups are in a bar. One group is a bunch of Berkley students and the other group is a bunch of White Nationalists. They get into a verbal argument with each other based on their opposing political views. Then they start shoving each other. Then punching each other. Then one of the White Nationalists finally pulls out a gun and starts shooting them.

Is that terrorism? Or is it just heat of the moment plain old murder?
Click to expand...

No. Its not "terrorism" in any meaningful sense of the word.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The example I use often is that I am pissed off that so-called sexual assault can mean anything from not being able to remember having sex with a guy because they were drunk....they got themselves drunk......and being thrown down and penetrated at knife-point against will.

A phrase that wide is nearly useless because once it is employed we still need to have a whole conversation to find out what the person who used the term "sexual assault" is talking about, which gets us to wondering how we got here...who wanted us here....and why.
Click to expand...

I always feel sentimental about, when liberal meant tolerant. It must have been a golden time.
 
PirateMk1 said:
You should be a rebel like me and use niggardly anyhow. Its especially fun to use other more colorful frowned upon words in polite society. Its nails on a chalkboard to them. Fun times.
Click to expand...

Oh, I do continue to use the word depending on the audience. Funny you should mention "chalkboard"; the last time I publicly used "niggardly," I was at a lectern standing in front of a whiteboard. When I saw the audience's faces, I was aghast.
 
joG said:
I always feel sentimental about, when liberal meant tolerant. It must have been a golden time.
Click to expand...

I always feel sentimental about when liberals generally said "hey everyone bring your best ideas, lets check them out, see which ones are best" rather as they do now "Any idea we dont agree with is by definition a bad idea, dont you dare speak them" as they do now.

It must have been a golden time.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Should we just go ahead and get rid of the word "murder" and replace it with "terrorism"?

I feel like the only reason we are calling the Charlottsville car ramming "terrorism" is because a car was used. And maybe it was terrorism. Maybe this guy wasn't involved in the violent back and forth between the two groups beforehand. Maybe he had planned this from the beginning. If he did plan it from the beginning, like a Dylann Roof, then I can see the argument. But here is a hypothetical scenario:

Two groups are in a bar. One group is a bunch of Berkley students and the other group is a bunch of White Nationalists. They get into a verbal argument with each other based on their opposing political views. Then they start shoving each other. Then punching each other. Then one of the White Nationalists finally pulls out a gun and starts shooting them.

Is that terrorism? Or is it just heat of the moment plain old murder?
Click to expand...

I call it murder but I reject the premise that we call everything terrorism.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Should we just go ahead and get rid of the word "murder" and replace it with "terrorism"?

I feel like the only reason we are calling the Charlottsville car ramming "terrorism" is because a car was used. And maybe it was terrorism. Maybe this guy wasn't involved in the violent back and forth between the two groups beforehand. Maybe he had planned this from the beginning. If he did plan it from the beginning, like a Dylann Roof, then I can see the argument. But here is a hypothetical scenario:

Two groups are in a bar. One group is a bunch of Berkley students and the other group is a bunch of White Nationalists. They get into a verbal argument with each other based on their opposing political views. Then they start shoving each other. Then punching each other. Then one of the White Nationalists finally pulls out a gun and starts shooting them.

Is that terrorism? Or is it just heat of the moment plain old murder?
Click to expand...

It has gotten out of hand. And, the left doesn't understand that all this media attention, and calling every murder terrorism, it just breads more of the same. Sometimes the press works against us because if these wackos got zero media attention they wouldn't even be doing most of this stuff, including actual terrorists. They want to make the news, whether it is just protests or killings. What would have happened if the media gave the white supremacists or terrorism itself zero coverage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom