-
Or religious? In fact any goal that is achieved by scaring people in a hurting manner
Wiki knows all.. ish..
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.
-
When they started reporting the incident yesterday they said 2 people 'who look like muslims' which since islam is a religion not a race is ridiculous. Which reflects Jeez point 3
(3) By making the people / government treat terrorists (and suspects, and people who might look a bit like terrorists) different from ordinary criminals. (easy if government or the people are thick as pig shit, ie easy)
-
Like if Someone shouted 'jesus' when doing something they'd be christian terrorists no doubt
Funny you should say that...
After Deyan Deyanov beheaded a British woman in a supermarket in Tenerife in May 2011 he later told a court that he was "an angel of Jesus Christ who is going to create a new Jerusalem".
Apparently he's insane and therefore not a terrorist. Or maybe it's because he's a Christian, not a Muslim?
Does anyone really think these guys in Woolwich were sane? Was that the act of a rational person?
-
While there is no agreed and ratified definition of terrorism it is generally agreed that what falls under the term are acts that want to achieve goals of political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious motivation.
If you go outside and murder someone you are not a terrorist. What makes yesterdays plebs terrorists is their rhetoric.
-
Help the Heros pretty much trade on rhetoric. Why are soldiers heros? There are plenty of documented cases of these 'heros' killing children.
Also, what Gatti said. Jeez I got my definition from Wikipedia but as there's no agreed definition I can't see the point in debating that. I never said it trumped all others.
-
"for king and country" is rhetoric
well then you get into a conversation about legitimate state actors / the legality of wars. One mans freedom fighter etc etc. Knock yourself out, i've been there and done that, it's like being on a roundabout, or a swing.
-
The only difference between terrorist killing & murder is the reaction from the populace, the press, and the government.
Everybody loves a common enemy.
-
How reporters work out how to cover these things:-
http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/journalists-guide-reporting-violent-death/ -
The only difference between terrorist killing & murder is the reaction from the populace, the press, and the government.
Everybody loves a common enemy.
Really? So the IRA, with their structures, chains of command, hierarchy, organisation, shared goals, systematic targeting of high profile targets, that was just a bunch of unrelated murders was it?
-
Wiki knows all.. ish..
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.
But then, let's apply this to the Iraq war
Was Blair using it as a means of coercion? Yup.
Did it involve violence? Sure.
Was it intended to create fear among Saddam and his party? Definitely.
Was it perpetrated for a political or ideological goal? Not half!
Was the safety of non-combatants disregarded? Unfortunately yes.
Starting to see the problem with the "T word"?
It's completely subjective.
-
in other less marketable news http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police
-
Really? So the IRA, with their structures, chains of command, hierarchy, organisation, shared goals, systematic targeting of high profile targets, that was just a bunch of unrelated murders was it?
My point is more that it doesn't really matter what you call it. What matters is how you react to it. And the act itself, of course. -
Yeah. So if I walked outside and cut someone's head off it wouldn't be terrorism?
Important to note that in her interview with The Guardian today the woman who spoke with both perpetrators at the scene is certain there were no signs of the victim being beheaded, or even efforts made to do so. I doubt she's mistaken so if this is a device used by the media to stir up bloodlust it should be followed up with a correction. That's guaranteed not to happen though, as by now the headline used by those papers who mention it has done its job for them.
-
http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2013-05-22/cycle-tweet-girl-breaks-her-silence/
blown out of precaution
What a stupid, selfish and annoying person.
She's gutted and feels really sorry for herself.
It was a bit overblown but that's democracy in action, fuck her.
hippy
skydancer
Emyr
Fox
BastianBalthazarBux
Mirius
NotThamesWater
adroit
deleted
TheorySwine
StandardPractice
lynx-
Post a reply
About
In the news
Posted by
@Platini
Yeah. So if I walked outside and cut someone's head off it wouldn't be terrorism?
So, the bombings in the US that I've not heard any motive for - why were they terrorism and not just bombings. Do you need to kill more than one person to get automatically upgraded to terrorism?