General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis may be a dumb question
but I am curious. Is a mass shooting by a Muslim called a Terror Attack while a mass shooting by someone other than a Muslim called a Hate Crime? What is the difference since the victims are dead? I'm sure it has something to do with politics.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Otherwise I would just call it a hate crime.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)braddy
(3,585 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)It is a political definition. Kind of like War killing: OK because it is sanctioned by the state. Any other kind of killing: Bad. Not sanctioned or by a state we don't like.
Another I've noticed...if we agree with them, it's OK. If we don't, they are terrorists.
Long been the story. It's how we continue the War Machine...and justify the ginormous sums of money made for a few ... and cost in human and taxpayer capital it destroys. Then we wrap it up in patriotic hoopla, like the icing on a deadly cake.
braddy
(3,585 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)How inappropriate.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Still inappropriate but I guess you took it personally???
Skink
(10,122 posts)It would only be a hate crime.
BumRushDaShow
(128,958 posts)and this is the problem of the use of the word "terrorism" and only using it for those of (or suspected of being of) a certain religion.
White Christians shooting up abortion clinics or black churches are never called "terrorists" and the acts are rarely if ever even called "hate crimes" unless alot of blowback happens.
Any individual or individuals, no matter their origin or religion causing mass casualties should be considered "terrorists". And their crime should be considered a hate crime because those willing to do what they do are hateful POSes.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Google suggests otherwise.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)in fact, I can't recall him being described any other way. It was always "domestic terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph, suspected of the Olympic Park bombing."
It took way way too long to catch that asshole and I was so relieved when they did. There is no better argument for life-without-parole than Eric Rudolph...he needs to die in his cell at Florence ADMAX of old age.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I'm a staunch opponent of the death penalty and just throwing this disgusting person in a cell and letting him rot there for the rest of his miserable life, no drama, no fuss, is just fine with me.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)...even if we do disagree on the DP.
Every once in a while though, someone or another here gets on a high-horse about the cruelty and inhumanity of LwP. I always want to know which one of the current inmates serving life-without-parole in the Supermax unit of ADX Florence they want to move into their neighborhood after their humane release.
I mean, if they've got to be let go, they've got to go somewhere.
BumRushDaShow
(128,958 posts)Even before 9/11, it took alot of backlash to force calling McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier "terrorists" since they were not looking for white all-American militia types.
malaise
(268,993 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)so human beings use language to their own particular advantage. It's all subjective. It all depends on what the speaker wants to emphasize about a particular situation.