Texas church shooting leaves many dead (atleast 27).

[setsunatenshi]

Frank_kc said:

setsunatenshi said:

You're guessing here at what people will or will not say.

And there's a difference between a terrorist act and some guy that simply wants to kill a bunch of people.

Terrorist acts have the intention of creating political/societal change through the use of violence. A rando shooting up a church/movie theatre/concert for personal reasons is not an act of terrorism.

Words have meaning, and it has nothing to do with this murderer being muslim or not.

The IRA was a terrorist organization and none of their members was muslim afaik.

So the guy goes into a rampage to kill people because he feels like it... and you wont consider it a terrorist  attack because you believe it should be tied to a political reason? It is the hypocrisy of defining the things the way you see it fit.... (and I know it is how it it defined in WIKI), but who decided so? using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians should be considered a terrorist  attack because it terrorizes civilians regardless of the motive. Wouldnt you be afraid and terrorized if you have been in the middle of something similar? Would you think about he political motive in the middle of this or you just want to survive?

IRA is irrelvant to discussion by the way....

 

You are confusing the real meaning of the word terrorism, to the new age use of this word that basically labels everything a specific group of people disapproves of as terrorism.

Terrorism IS only when the goal is to act some specific political or ideological change through the use of violence. Governments usually label as terrorists all kinds of groups that are fighting them, though in my personal oppinion, if these groups go after soft targets, then yes, I would label them terrorists. If they go after military or government targets I would rather call them enemy combatents.

Terrorist acts have a goal they want to achieve. A rando just shooting people in a crowd with no specific ideological goal only makes him a mental case (no matter how scary that thought could personally be)

The IRA was labeled for several years as a terrorist organization. How is that irrelevant? They wanted political change and used violence to achieve their goal. That is terrorism.

 

On a last note, you seem to be making some sort of emotional argument here, which missed the whole point of when something is or isn't terrorism.