2 ms·

A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Revenge murders or anger murders are not terrorists. They kill peop

A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Revenge murders or anger murders are not terrorists. They kill people and then kill themselves; directly or by police. Because they are dead they are no longer a threat. There is no parent organization to fear. At least that's my definition. And what I think along the lines of what most people intuitively think.

froo 11y ago
> A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Not trying to nitpick, but with this definition, any police officer who has used the threat of shooting someone with their firearm or taser is using the threat of violence to coerce people. I'm not a supporter of terrorist organisations in the slightest. I am just sick of the racial profiling that goes on which is helping to fuel their cause.
- krrrh 11y ago
  I think that having a political agenda, and stating that they were loyal to an organization (ISIS) that is calling for acts of violence in order to achieve political aims is what moved San Bernadino into the category of terrorism, and something that was missing from Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.
- chopin 11y ago
  >Terror on the other hand is practiced by governments and law enforcement officials, usually within the legal framework of the state.[1] Depending on the circumstances the scenario you describe can be terror. IMHO swatting on shaky grounds would qualify. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics)
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
"Terrorism" is a topic where we have to come to grips with definitions early on, or the analysis goes seriously astray. To me, terrorism is the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in a media effort to change political opinion. I've had this definition for several years, and I have never reached some of the crazy conclusions other commentators reach about the topic "George Washington was a terrorist!" "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and so on. Definitions matter. Note: This is not related to the merits of the FBI's case. My point is simply that we can all use the word "terrorism" and all actually be talking about different things.

froo 11y ago

> A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Not trying to nitpick, but with this definition, any police officer who has used the threat of shooting someone with their firearm or taser is using the threat of violence to coerce people. I'm not a supporter of terrorist organisations in the slightest. I am just sick of the racial profiling that goes on which is helping to fuel their cause.

krrrh 11y ago
I think that having a political agenda, and stating that they were loyal to an organization (ISIS) that is calling for acts of violence in order to achieve political aims is what moved San Bernadino into the category of terrorism, and something that was missing from Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.
chopin 11y ago
>Terror on the other hand is practiced by governments and law enforcement officials, usually within the legal framework of the state.[1] Depending on the circumstances the scenario you describe can be terror. IMHO swatting on shaky grounds would qualify. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics)

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

"Terrorism" is a topic where we have to come to grips with definitions early on, or the analysis goes seriously astray. To me, terrorism is the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in a media effort to change political opinion. I've had this definition for several years, and I have never reached some of the crazy conclusions other commentators reach about the topic "George Washington was a terrorist!" "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and so on. Definitions matter. Note: This is not related to the merits of the FBI's case. My point is simply that we can all use the word "terrorism" and all actually be talking about different things.