Texas church shooting leaves many dead (atleast 27).

[Peh]

Frank_kc said:

setsunatenshi said:

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.

It is not emotional.... i am only trying to make a point here that wording (Even definition of some words like Terrorism) can be twisted to serve some groups or parties interest where such a thing can be only tied to a specific group or groups The word should not be tied to a political view as long as it causes panic, pain, terror to civilians.

On a second note, it seems like the attacker has some kind of agenda... would you believe that any one will call him a terrorist in media based on the generic interpretation of the word terrorist? i bet you not.... 

 

http://yournewswire.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/

The comment section is pretty cancerous.