Terrorism - A lost meaning?

[craZ_kylo]

anything that strikes terror into people is an act of terror, and to my brother im a terrorist so im just waiting till bush comes after me

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by craZ_kylo

to my brother im a terrorist so im just waiting till bush comes after me

Terrorist by what means?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

Is everyone just ignoring what devonin's posts? He is not considered a terrorist. He was a loner who was mental ill and killed a bunch of people. Did he instill fear in the minds of Americans? Yes. But what did he prove to accomplish in killing 32 other seemingly random individuals?

Is everyone just ignoring what Jewpinthethird posts?

[purebloodtexan]

Need a motivation for idealogical goals? He was primarily angry at the "rich guys". That seems like "a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture" to me. So he is a terrorist by definition, but again, call him whatever you want, I'm just justifying some peoples' reasons to call him a terrorist.

[Adude6464]

well, actually it was an insane guy, who had his girlfriend cheat on him, then went on a killing spree intending to kill his girlfriend and the person who had her cheat on him. i don't know about the intentions on the classroom kill tho.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by Adude6464

well, actually it was an insane guy, who had his girlfriend cheat on him, then went on a killing spree intending to kill his girlfriend and the person who had her cheat on him. i don't know about the intentions on the classroom kill tho.

According to Wikipedia, there may have been no relationship between them at all. He did stalk women, however.

[devonin]

He was primarily angry at the "rich guys".

That makes him someone who hates rich guys, not a terrorist. Unless by his attack he was somehow trying to make "The Royal Order of Rich Guys" change some of their policies out of fear of further attacks (tough when he's also dead)

[purebloodtexan]

Then his "idealogical goal" was to "get back" at the "rich guys" for what he didn't like.

And those involved in 9/11 didn't get us to change our policies out of fear and are also dead. Does that not make THEM terrorists?

[devonin]

And those involved in 9/11 didn't get us to change our policies out of fear and are also dead. Does that not make THEM terrorists?

The point is the reasoning behind the attack. Whether it succeeds or not is irellevant. If the -point- of the attack was to try and force a policy change through killing civilians and creating terror, you're a terrorist. There's no organization of "Rich guys at that college" that Cho was trying to force a change in, therefore, not a terrorist.

Also...I will argue that the United States responded in the exact way those behind 9/11 wanted them to: Goading them into trampling roughshod all over the middle east and furthering anti-US sentiment there.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by devonin

The point is the reasoning behind the attack. Whether it succeeds or not is irellevant. If the -point- of the attack was to try and force a policy change through killing civilians and creating terror, you're a terrorist. There's no organization of "Rich guys at that college" that Cho was trying to force a change in, therefore, not a terrorist.

Also...I will argue that the United States responded in the exact way those behind 9/11 wanted them to: Goading them into trampling roughshod all over the middle east and furthering anti-US sentiment there.

Our primary goal was to capture Osama. Our goal now is to clean up the mess we made.

[devonin]

I'd argue that the damage done by "The mess you made" far outweighs the good you tried to do.

Also...I wasn't really aware that leaving your mess behind, to invade somewhere else, leaving the mess to be cleaned by other nations counted as "Cleaning up the mess [we] made"

But we're wandering more than a little off topic, this could easily be its own seperate thread.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'd argue that the damage done by "The mess you made" far outweighs the good you tried to do.

Also...I wasn't really aware that leaving your mess behind, to invade somewhere else, leaving the mess to be cleaned by other nations counted as "Cleaning up the mess [we] made"

But we're wandering more than a little off topic, this could easily be its own seperate thread.

By "the mess", I mean we're somewhat trying to bring peace to the middle east.

Anyway, I don't have much else to say.

[purebloodtexan]

Indeed, it is, but I don't remember us having to go through this much before Saddam lost power.

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

Then his "idealogical goal" was to "get back" at the "rich guys" for what he didn't like.

And those involved in 9/11 didn't get us to change our policies out of fear and are also dead. Does that not make THEM terrorists?

9/11 was an orchestrated attack by a militant Islamic fundamentalist group, known as the Talibad..you know, the guys who ran Afghanistan from 1996-2001. They were motivated both by political means and ideological means...fueled by a grudge they still hold that dates back to the Crusades. They want to kill all the infidels...especially American infidels who are the epitome of everything they hate.

The history of the United State's involvement in the Middle East is long, and I'm not well versed on the topic, but we are still engaged in a war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are still harboring Osama bin Laden, and they are still causing terror.

Contrast that with Cho, a mentally ill college student who never talked and had no friends who decided to go on a killing spree. He killed random people indiscriminately. It doesn't matter what his justification was for doing what he did, as he was mentally ill. A majority of his victims were 18-21 year old college students. How is he getting back at the "rich guys" by killing college students? That makes no sense. It's poor logic. There's no connection.

Also, purebloodtexan, your argument is based on speculation, you have no evidence to back what you are saying.