ArnoldRimmer said:
Lawlight said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
Why exactly is this incident called "terrorism" and the boy called a "terrorist"?
I may have a strange definition of "terrorism", but I just can't see why this australian boy is a "terrorist", when the guy from the mass shooting in Oregon a few days ago is usually just being referred to as a "shooter" or "gunman".
So, what's the difference that makes the one incident an act of "terrorism", but not the other incident?
|
I think the definition of terrorism is pretty clear - it's for ideological/political reasons.
|
There is still no universally accepted definition of "terrorism", everyone defines "terrorism" slightly different. In the US for example, even different national institutions habe different definitions of "terrorism".
But anyway, let's just use your definition for this. So, why exactly do you believe the australian boy clearly did it "for ideological/political reasons", and what makes you sure the Oregon shooter did not do it "for ideological/political reasons"?
|
He was shouting religious slogans?
