Welcome to our new beta design! Click here to go back to the old Newschoolers.
MinggBecause he's a White Christian.
nocturnalHe attacked a target for a reason.
VinnieFthat's pretty much what terrorism is. An attack based on ideology. If he just attacked it for no reason then that's not terrorism. What he did was terrorism.
nocturnalBecause he did it at a plan parent and had a plan and an idea to fight. not kill all Americans because allahu akbar. He attacked a target for a reason. He didn't blow up a marathon or drop a bomb on a subway for no reason.
I thought you liked to defend people who do these kinds of things op, like you say isis and people who believe killing is a good thing is only a small amount (which is false but that set aside) we shouldn't criticize these ideas because its offensive and hurts peoples feelings.
nocturnalI dont think that's what op is talking about, by definition yes I think we can all agree he used violence for a reason and idea. But I think OP is asking why this guy is being talked about and treated differently in the headlines and not be compared and talk about like Muslims who have attacked and blown up america before.
I think that over the last ten years terror attacked has a new meaning/persona just like commy had a twisted different negative meaning during the war.
_MNice_Violence motivated by reason/idea is terrorism, no matter which way you look at it. OP is asking why this guy is not being called a terrorist. If a white, Christian, American male were to be called a terrorist on national TV, think of the uproar that would stem from the right-wingers. There is absolutely no doubt that this lunatic is a terrorist in every definition of the word.
The.Natty.VeganBut notice how I didn't say christianity was a dangerous religion? Notice how I didn't condemn all christians? Notice how I don't want to ban churches? Because I can tell the difference between a fucking terrorist and a practicer of religion.
nocturnalno no no this was one person. What if the same number of isis people were running around under jesus doing this. what would you say then, and no lying.
Also Ive been saying for years we should get rid of all religions or at the least have them pay taxes, they do more harm than good. that was WAY before this shooting
nocturnalagain I think after 9/11 I think that word and term terror attack now has a different meaning, why the hell are we sitting here acting like what we call him changes anything, yes get upset because we aren't putting him in the same box as isis fighters. not getting mad because a bunch of people were shot because of gun laws in this country.
The.Natty.VeganAnd Paris was three people...
And again christianity has had their fair share of terrorism. The KKK, but everyone can realise the difference between a moderate christian and a Klu Klux Klan member.
But for someone who loves to harp on about freedom of speech you sure do you want to infringe on the constitution and ban freedom of religion. LOL
_MNice_No question that 9/11 changed everything, however, as a nation, we need to stop thinking that terrorism only comes in the form of Muslim extremists (and some would just say Muslims), and that terrorism only comes in the form of some international group invading our land.
I couldn't even tell you the amount of adults that I have heard say "there could never be another terrorist attack in the US". IT'S HAPPENING ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS IN THE US!!! We cannot turn our backs to what US citizens are doing to other US citizens. It is not acceptable to just say "oh he is just mentally ill". Yes, he probably is, but that doesn't change the fact that he killed 3 people and shot another 9, all because he strongly disagrees with abortion (and Planned Parenthood).
It is important that we talk about this guy being a terrorist because we need to stop thinking so narrowly about terrorism. The media (especially Fox News) portrays the quintessential terrorist as a radical Muslim, so the majority of news watchers also think that terrorists can only be radical Muslims.
nocturnalAnd what about the other millions of people who believe if you leave the Muslim religion you should be killed or if a woman's rape she should also be killed for having sex out of marriage. That's not a few bad apples that's millions and millions of people.
I know I can't ban religion I'm saying the world to be a much better place if religion didn't exist I've been saying that for probably over 5 years.
This has nothing to do about terrorism calling him a terrorism is it going to stop this atrocity gun control is going to stop these things. So we should be talking about gun control and not be bitching about why a new station isn't calling him by the proper definition.
And yes we've been at war for a very long time of the country and I think most of the country would agree that the term terrorist attack refers in the sense of an act of war against America. This guy seemed to be against abortion not against America that was my point in the first post.
If you started shooting and then said something about all Westerners should be killed after being arested then it would be called "terrorism" by everyone.
LonelyThe current question is why the media will only ever classify someone as a terrorist as a Muslim. It's fucking important because it is generalizing a statistically peaceful religion. Classifying all Muslims as terrorists yet refusing to do that for others who fit the same bill just breeds hate for the west.
LonelyLol man for real? The definition of terrorism for you changes to fit a certain group? Also don't try to change what we are talking about, everyone understands that gun rights are an issue. There's a thread about that. The current question is why the media will only ever classify someone as a terrorist as a Muslim. It's fucking important because it is generalizing a statistically peaceful religion. Classifying all Muslims as terrorists yet refusing to do that for others who fit the same bill just breeds hate for the west. And if terrorism is only an attack agaist America then what the fuck was France, or Beruit, or any of the other places it happens. Issues don't just go away if you ignore them, but I guess this is how people think now.
nocturnalI think this thread would have been much more appropriate during the Colorado movie theater shooting. Not during a small shooting.
onenerdykidTimothy McVeigh was definitely labeled as a terrorist by all media outlets, so that's not completely true. However, I do agree and think that this lunatic is by all accounts a terrorist but not all terrorists have the same motives or reasons for doing what they did. I think it's important for our understanding of the situation to know what kind of terrorist he is. For example, is he a political terrorist or a religious terrorist? It's clear that he is anti-abortion, but has he actually stated that he acted in reference to following the will of God/Jesus or quoting a specific passage from the Bible that encouraged him to do this?
_MNice_The movie theater shooting was not done for religious or political reasons, it was done by psychosis and insanity. The Planned Parenthood attack is much more terroristic than the movie theater shooting was, or even Sandy Hook.
nocturnalThe whole point of this thread is not why are we not calling this guy a terrorist. The whole point is why is he not being compared to Muslim extremists.
I think he said it best, there are different motives and form of terrorist attacks. So to just generalize terrorist as a broad stroke of anyone who commits a violent act isn't the thing to do. Why is he not being compared to a suicide bomber who blew himself up in the name of Allah? Because it was a different attack then what we are used to in the main stream news so it is being talked about diffrently. That seems to be the question op asked.
School shooting assassinations random mass shootings Shootings done for religious reasons. Theyre all bad but why are we arguing this meaningless thing about what we call the person who did it. Why don't we fix the issue to make them stop happening and then we can attack how we view others who commit these acts. Because another mass shooting will probably happen in a couple weeks.
_MNice_I'm not saying we should classify everyone who commits a violent act as a terrorist. What I am saying is that everyone who instills fear onto others because of religious OR political reasons should be considered to be a terrorist, which according to the FBI, is the definition of a terrorist. So if the FBI defines him as a terrorist, why shouldn't the mass media?
And yes, gun control is a coinciding issue with this, but I think that more people will be on board with gun control if the media acknowledges this guy as a terrorist. But our right-wing friends would never do such a thing because the instant they call a white male who gunned down a bunch of people a terrorist, I can almost guarantee you that the NRA will shut them down as politicians.
Also, please educate yourself on mass shootings in the US. If you honestly think that there is a mass shooting only every couple of weeks, then you have absolutely no credibility when talking about why we need stricter gun laws.
UPSIDEDOWNDICKlet me help with this argument
noun ter·ror·ism \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
[ter-uh-riz-uh m] =
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
nocturnalYou want to argue semantics I was referring to a mass killing that will go on the tv I understand many people get shot and wounded and its still considered a mass shooting.
Putting violent acts set aside this thread is Muslim terrorists compared to all other terrorists and why they're not being treated the same. I don't know what the new news is now, but also the day it happened there was speculation of why he did it. I heard he was allegedly yelling no more baby parts, but maybe it's been confirmed by now.
nocturnalDid you read any of this thread?
_MNice_Please tell me where in OP's post did he mention Muslim terrorists.
Also, if you don't know what the current news is, then why the fuck are you arguing on here? Get yourself educated.
nocturnalIt wasn't in his original post it was in his response to my post arguing about religon. And also the news I read at the time I was posting about that it still wasn't clear why he committed that act there was just speculation about him yelling about baby parts. So by your term of terrorist attack we couldn't actually can't classify him of that yet until we figure out his motive.
So again why do we immediately classify a Muslim who does a mass shooting as terrorist attack because that's what we're used to from 9-11 and the media.
But how come when a white person shoots up a place its not considered terrorism because we don't know his motive yet. Because he didn't strap a bomb to himself and blow himself up while yelling death to all westerners.
So are you saying op is trying to say something else?
nocturnalBut I think OP is asking why this guy is being talked about and treated differently in the headlines and not be compared and talk about like Muslims
_MNice_You make absolutely no sense
TeafastAnd please nobody tell me this is "Christian Terrorism", that's just as unfair as calling what ISIS does "Islamic Terrorism".
MinggBecause he's a White Christian.
onenerdykidWell if he believes that God told him to do it and/or he was carrying out his interpretation of the Bible, then yes we should label him as a Christian terrorist. He would be using the Bible as defense for his acts of terrorism, so it would seem plausible to label him as a Christian terrorist. Likewise, when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi orders the death of apostates and calls for the genocide of the entire state of Israel by quoting the Qur'an, we are right in calling him an Islamic terrorist. Why do you think it is unfair to call what ISIS does Islamic terrorism?
TeafastNo. Just because a crazy person carries out an attack on "behalf of a religion" does not merit the all encompassing "Christian" or "Islamic" terrorism tag. Why? Because they don't reflect the religion or the people that practice it. It's terrorism. Was this guy motivated by religion? Yes. Does this mean Christianity is to blame? No.
At the end of the day, I think that this guy wasn't representative of Christian values, and to label the attack as "christian" terrorism unfairly portrays the religion, and people who practice it as promoting bloodshed.
ROBOTHe killed 3 people, injured a dozen and was taken away alive. Meanwhile a teenager was shot 16 times for walking down a highway while carrying a knife.