Terrorism - A lost meaning?

[Kekeb]

I'm sure that most have you have heard about the event at Virginia Tech, and I'm wondering about the meaning of terrorism. Not once in the media have I heard them call the killer a terrorist. Terrorism is described as; a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals. So therefor a terrorist is one that acts out terrorism. How come I haven't heard them calling him a terrorist? He clearly was violent, and killed/injured more than 40 people. Which were all civilians. Where? Where has the meaning of terrorism gone? What are your opinions.

[RandomPscho]

for political or ideological goals.

They do not know why he did it. He did not say why he did it, so it wasn't political. Could have been ideological, but he still didn't make it evident about what, exactly.

[doob10163]

Even by your own definition, he wasn't a terrorist. He didn't do it for political or ideological goals...

[Kekeb]

Originally Posted by RandomPscho

They do not know why he did it. He did not say why he did it, so it wasn't political. Could have been ideological, but he still didn't make it evident about what, exactly.

I see what you are saying. I personally believe he either had mental issues(seems to be everyone's scape goat) or that he wanted to make history, being he committed the largest civilian killing in the US(I believe that is true)

[AriesMalvis]

i don't think it was an act of terrorism at all...tho basically a terrorist instills terror...end of story
his was a case of serious mental and emotional problems
i mean esp with that rice krispy story 0_o

[Kekeb]

Originally Posted by AriesMalvis

i don't think it was an act of terrorism at all...tho basically a terrorist instills terror...end of story
his was a case of serious mental and emotional problems
i mean esp with that rice krispy story 0_o

had he done it for personal gain, would it not be terrorism by definition?

[AriesMalvis]

i suppose, tho we still don't kno the total meaning behind his little rampage...

[devonin]

The truest definition of a terrorist act is an act for which the primary goal of the act is to instill terror, and for which all other consequences are secondary.

It is intended as a means (ALWAYS taken credit for) for a specific group in opposition to the targets of the attack to attempt to gain concessions through a desire to stop the means that were being used.

One crazy wacko killing a few dozen people does not constitute terrorism. It most likely constitutes a crazy person being crazy, but even if they felt they had some particular reason to want to kill -those- specific people, simply doing something terrific does not make one a terrorist.

[squeesfan]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there something about him leaving a tape in which he addresses how wrong the American society was?

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by squeesfan

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there something about him leaving a tape in which he addresses how wrong the American society was?

This was posted before the tape was released to the news. Hell, Netscape was about a day behind.

So yes, by definition, he is a terrorist.

Also, I remember listening to my usual morning talk show, and they were basically talking about how a good portion of America isn't as struck by terrorism as it used to be. Most of us have survived through Columbine, 9/11, attempted terrorism and/or pseudo-terrorism at school, our most recent shooting spree, and (some of us) have had fellow students deceased during the school year. It still kind of surprises me that we basically have this kind of dialogue when hearing of these events:

Chris: Wow, that sucks AND blows......Got any threes?
Josh: Gof- Oh, go to hell.......

[devonin]

So yes, by definition, he is a terrorist.

And once again, just because someone has a bone to pick does not make them a terrorist.

Columbine was not a terrorist act, this was not a terrorist act. Why is it that any time someone does something that is violent and scary is suddenly has to be "terrorism"?

[seththelezzy]

It caused terror to individuals in the schools. It caused terror to individuals throughout the US showing that even quiet, safe little places like that can be threatened. It caused terror, therefore it was terrorism.

[devonin]

It caused terror, there for it was terrorism.

You mean "It caused terror, therefore it was terrific" That doesn't make it capital T Terrorism, that's something very specific.

What organisation took credit for this supposed terrorist act? What was its motivation, which policies is it protesting, what is the American Government supposed to cede to the group responsible in order to make future attacks not happen?

Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".

He seems to lose out on premise number two of this definition.

...when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing the severity of a grievance, or drawing attention to a neglected cause.

Seems to lose out on all counts here.

I mean, deciding whether to call something a terrorist attack or not, it really does just come down to semantics, but especially in American, the word "Terrorist" has such a dearth of negative connotations, and all of this attached emotional baggage for everyone, that I think even as people become more and more likely to want to just slap "It's Terrorism" on everything bad that happens, you have to be that much more careful to not mis-apply the term.

[seththelezzy]

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Here are the Dictionary.com definitions for terrorism. Just read them and make sure we're all on the same page.

Was he doing it for political reasons? Was he insane? We don't know. Therefore, we can't make a judgmental call on if it was terrorism or not. We don't have enough information.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by seththelezzy

Therefore, we can't make a judgmental call on if it was terrorism or not.

Originally Posted by seththelezzy

there for it was terrorism

Well...you can see maybe why I'm a little confused?

[purebloodtexan]

I'll look in for some more definitions tomorrow; we just had the TAKS test (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills), had soccer practice, and I need rest.

[purebloodtexan]

OK, so as we can see in this thread, there are multiple meanings of terrorism. I'll see what I can get out of them.

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists.

Now, let's look up "terrorism". Hopefully, the root word "terror" isn't in just one big loop.

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

That was the best definition I could find without the root word "terror" in it. Now, let's look up "idealogical".

1 : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
2 : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

So for the most part, he is a terrorist by definition. However, we don't need to be politically correct, just call him whatever is comfortable.

[seththelezzy]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well...you can see maybe why I'm a little confused?

Sorry, after I thought about it I changed my story. I also misread the definition. I think it is terrorism. He struck terror through a group of people (The US, VA Tech campus), So I think it was terrorism.

Sorry for the double thoughts.

[devonin]

Struck through a group of people at -what- though? Being dead, it's a little tough to pin down his apparant motives, especially since he doesn't appear to have been a part of any particular group to assume he was trying to draw attention to their agenda.

I'm still keeping with the "perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack)" defintion, and classifying him square in the "madman" category. Perhaps if further details come forward we can have a better go at it.

[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?

I haven't been following the story because it is depressing and kind of pointless to keep following with all the hearsay the media is spewing, but his attack was not politically or ideologically motivated. It was a tragic incident, but it wasn't an orchestrated terrorist attack. It was insane guy on a killing spree.

Terrorists are almost always affiliated with a political/religious party. The KKK, IRA, al Qaeda, Army of God.

ps. Official Definition of Terrorism (wikipedia):

November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

Cho was is/was not a terrorist. Get over it. If anything, he is a Quasi-terrorist.