- This topic has 85 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
maybe he wanted his death to mean something other than that of a conflicted self-hating homosexual.
still. you may know that he wasn’t directly affiliated with an extremist terrorist group. but does the average american know that? will they make that distinction?
and it could be argued that it is affecting the policy and conduct of a government. look at how trump’s running with it now. trump and isis will use this for their own interests almost like a weapon. and a weapon doesn’t need to have a political agenda to be an instrument of terrorism.
does that make sense?
and does that make trump a terrorist? hahahaha!
The definition being used for terrorism easily places the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that category. “Shock and awe” in Iraq, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokya, to name just a few.
Israel is also a terrorist nation, under that definition. There are many others, of course.
I think it’s time to include states in the mix with this too. If it’s politically correct to always name things as a certain kind of ____ terrorism, it should be done when states act in this manner as well.
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorismthe use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
That would include states.
And, yes, of course, all the sides “did it” in WWII — and most, if not all, other wars. But we have virtually no control over what these other nations decide to do, with regard to future use. We have next to no ability to control other nations along those lines. We do, however, have control over our own actions. To me, that’s why it’s more important for us to recognize and admit to our use of terrorism as a tactic, when we’ve resorted to it over time. Against striking workers, dissidents of all stripes, Native Americans, blacks (and other minorities), women, etc. etc. and overseas.
And so you can think what you want, but, I am staying within the intelligible parameters of understanding what the legal definitions are of domestic and international terrorism, instead of participating in the whole “have an agenda, change the word” phenomena right now.
I know you like to continue old fights, but I was done with the hiroshima discussion and fully acknowledge that we see it very differently. I know there was some “ah but my opinion is the truth” stuff going on with that but I regard that as par for the course in discussions like this.
My eye is on the actual legal definition of terrorism and what it means.
You assume far too much in these discussions. It’s the biggest reason why you and I have these disagreements. You are forever assuming you just know the real motives behind my posts, and you don’t. You never have. You’re actually quite tin-eared about these things, routinely, primarily because you’re so certain you do know the hidden rationale behind all things. Judging from the ways you consistently mischaracterize them, your certainty is misplaced. Severely misplaced.
Please just stop. Take them on face value, or please just ignore them altogether.
I said what I said because I believe it to be true, not because I “have an agenda.”
That said, I didn’t want to get bogged down in a discussion of definitions, either.
The main thing for me, is to do whatever we can to radically reduce these tragedies, if not end them altogether. To find ways to do this.
This particular case seems among the most complex in recent times, with the most seeming contradictions. But the bottom line for me is, he could not have slaughtered so many people without the tools to do so. And the tool of choice among mass shooters is a semi-automatic gun, most often an AR-15.
We can’t solve for the variable of hate — at least not right away. But we can solve for the variable of weapons. That’s within our control. Changing the way people think about “the Other” will take decades. Changing our gun laws can be done now. Yesterday.
Well, personally, I don’t see your point at all on the effects of including states in with the definition. Honestly, I have no idea how that could lead to some sort of Islamophobic-only discussion. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Not in the slightest. In fact, I think by including states, it does the opposite of what you’re saying. It holds countries like Israel and the United States accountable for their actions against Muslims — among a host of others. And it includes state “terror” campaigns against a host of powerless domestic groups as well. As mentioned, striking workers, dissidents of all stripes, Occupy, blacks, Native Americans and other minorities, women, etc. etc.
Be that as it may . . . . I don’t want to get bogged down in definitions, either.
To be honest, I don’t think “terrorism” is an apt description of what Mateen did. I think he just snapped, and his toxic mixture of self-hatred and hatred for certain groups just boiled over. Easy access to weapons literally weaponized that self-hatred, and the rest of that toxic mix. It seems pretty clear that nothing he did by slaughtering those people could possibly further any “political” aims, so that part of the definition is out. Did he “terrorize” people? Definitely. But so do rapists and a host of other people who generally aren’t called “terrorists.”
In short, I think “mass shooter” is more appropriate than “terrorist.” Though pretty much anything we call him is really, in the scheme of things, in the midst of this tragedy, irrelevant.
Also, bnw,
In almost EVERY case, these mass shooters are stopped when they have to reload. They’re almost always tackled by very brave people without guns. The reloading part is what gets them, nine times out of ten.
Logic tells us that if we do away with all large capacity guns, ammo containers, accessories, etc, they’re going to have to reload a hell of a lot sooner, and this should dissuade all kinds of people from attempting mass carnage going in. If they know, up front, they’ll have just their six-shooter, with its internal chambers only, and will have to hand-load each bullet, one at a time . . . . rather than grabbing a magazine and slapping it in place . . . . their Rambo visions will disappear.
It WILL save lives.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
