Oct 3, 2017 I feel race and party affiliations clouds over the actual act of terrorism itself, unfortunately
Oct 3, 2017 Antman took some words out of my mouth. Like "mass murder with a centralized agenda" is to me what terrorism is. As there wasn't a motive/agenda found with this one guy in particular, i'd say he wasn't a terrorist. But then it gets weird, like where do you draw a line between mentally ill breakdown+mass murder/mass killing with an agenda/terrorism. Like you could argue, both the gay-nightclub shooter and the vegas shooter aren't terrorists but mentally ill and vice versa; Florida Guy -Was a closeted self-hating muslim h---------- who commited an act of terrorism against gays likely in an attempt to "cleanse" himself of sin (or that's what I believe the motives were after info presented) and therefore mentally ill -Hated gays and committed an act of terror against them. Therefore making him a terrorist.
Oct 3, 2017 and also you have to be mentally ill to commit an act of terror too. you also have to be mentally ill to commit mass murder. it's so f----- like what is what, words are for fa----s i'm gonna just smoke signalf rom now on or something
Oct 3, 2017 Any violent crime can be perceived as terrorism if you look hard enough. If a wife leaves her abusive husband and he shows up at some family gathering with a rifle and shoots up the place, there is ‘terrorism’ involved there but he can’t be legally classified as a terrorist For a suspect to be a terrorist he needs to commit crime for a political, religious or ideological cause. You can be a mass murderer without being a terrorist, like the usual school shooters. This isn’t saying that white people can do no wrong, infact school shooters are probably worse because they k--- kids for no particular reason where as terrorists have revenge or payback on their side. No one is saying white people can do no harm Someone being a terrorist is a specific legal definition. It’s not arguing semantics. Otherwise rapists are terrorists, abusive husbands, street gangs and literally any other group of people who commit violent crimes. No one is saying white people can do no harm McVeigh’s reasoning for the Oklahoma bombing: "I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco). From the formation of such units as the FBI's Hostage Rescue and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the 80s, culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens“ ^ this is terrorism Aum Shinrikyo’s sarin gas attacks in japan to bring forth their doomsday prophecy and their other attacks against judges and political leaders plotting against them were terrorist attacks Breivik’s Norway massacre was in response to the left leaning Norwegian government’s push for multi culturalist policies. This was a terrorist it was a far right terrorist The Paris attackers reason was a response to France’s continuous attacks and airstrikes in Syria. This is terrorism The Aussie port Arthur killer’s reason was, well, nothing in particular. He is a mass murderer, he not a terrorist Now that we’ve established that white people, Asians AND Arabs can be terrorists, can we be honest that nowadays if there is a terrorist attack (if we’re going by the legal definition) it will most certainly be a muslim arab because that’s the nature we’re living in atm However things vary much differently from Europe to the U.S. in the U.S if there’s a mass shooting it is more likely to be the usual white, deranged mass murderer with no specific reasons behind it. You’re much more likely to be killed by a white guy with a gun in the U.S than a muslim extremist If it’s Europe however it’s the opposite , any mass murder attack nowadays can be pretty much guaranteed to be isis inspired muslims The Vegas shooting can be called terrorism if you like and it was no doubt mass murder but unless they find out that his motives have some sort of political or cultural or even religious meaning, he is not by definition a terrorist. It doesn’t mean he’s any better than a terrorist but he doesn’t fit the criteria to be called one. It’s not defending or lessening the crime
Oct 3, 2017 thanks for the reply dont get mad at me plz dude i did not mean to imply that it should be called terrorism i was trying to see what opinion do people have on this
Oct 4, 2017 i know its not but i just wanted to explain a few things about terrorism from a muslim's point of view
Oct 4, 2017 No, Because it's the easiest thing to do. Immediately when terrorism is brought up, people think of 9/11, Paris, and now Las vegas inspired one. All other two major terrorist attacks were made by Muslims. And the thing is, to us Muslims, they are textbook definition not Muslim. They have values, they believe you need to do and not do certain things when you are a Muslim. But Quran verses and scholarly education doesn't budge to many people. You guys think that if you just go back to the surface of the issue, then you can resolve it. You can't just judge a situation from the first thing you see or hear. After 9/11 all people associated us Muslims with was terrorism. You have to look deep Into the situation, but when you are in a state of panic, all you do Is blame the first thing you remember. So then when Paris attacks happened, people immediately asked “was it a Muslim?” And when It was, you just stop right there.
