No it isn't. People being terrorized makes something terrorism. You do see the root word is terror in the word terrorism do you not? It isn't politicalism. Do you not know how english works?Motive is pretty much what delineates "terrorism" and "not terrorism."
I see we're denying definitions now. Ooh, fun.
No it isn't. People being terrorized makes something terrorism. You do see the root word is terror in the word terrorism do you not? It isn't politicalism. Do you not know how english works?
I think the difficulty with that is that it would apply to a great many people or things--the Son of Sam as Kobie mentioned, or the Hillside strangler, or The Night Stalker or even Jack the Ripper would all be terrorists if that is the definition. Hell even Mafia Crime families and street gang activity would be considered terrorists if 'people being terrorized' is the only criteria for terrorism. I think a good way to separate terrorism from other murderous behavior is to recognize that terrorism is killing or inflicting terror to further some political agenda. Killing for sport or turf or out of just shear madness should carry a different label
No it isn't. People being terrorized makes something terrorism. You do see the root word is terror in the word terrorism do you not? It isn't politicalism. Do you not know how english works?
What does terror mean? What is the root word of terrorist? Again have you forgotten how english works?So basically, anyone who scares people is a terrorist. Alrighty then.
I think it's pretty well established he didn't; he was just nuts.
James Holmes didn't appear to have any overt political aims when he shot up a theater. The VT shooter didn't either. Yet by some, both are considered "terrorist attacks." Why?
James Holmes converted to Islam after the shooting. It is a way he found to justify his murders. See how Islam does that? Pretty neat.
No you don't. First the dictionary is a lexicon. It explains how words are commonly used. It isn't the god of definitions.
I'd like to see a credible link to that. The Daily Mail and the Moonie Times got it from the National Enquirer.
No, I'm not. The dictionary doesn't define words we define them and write these definitions into a book. The book changes and gets updated because the definitions are always changing.You're mixing up two different methods to define a word: prescriptive (dictionary) and descriptive (how the words are used).
So terror is synonymous with religion and politics? Show me in the thesaurus.The major problem with your argument is that both of those methods disagree with you.
No that is what you are doing.You are pulling the root (terror) of the word to assert what the "real" meaning is, in dismissal of the dictionary's actual meaning. You're trying to prescribe your own definition.
Yes, and it's also the user of violence and intimidation without political aims. One is political terrorism and the other is psychotic terrorism.Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation for political aims.
No, I'm not. The dictionary doesn't define words we define them and write these definitions into a book. The book changes and gets updated because the definitions are always changing.
So terror is synonymous with religion and politics? Show me in the thesaurus.
No that is what you are doing.
Yes, and it's also the user of violence and intimidation without political aims. One is political terrorism and the other is psychotic terrorism.
So what it changes all the time words get added new definitions are added and old ones are taken away. It's not the authority on definitions. It's how the word is used.I am referencing the dictionary.
Because it doesn't fit with the current dictionary definition? That's all your argument really amounts to.You are trying to redefine the word "terrorism" because of the word "terror". Linguistically, your argument is in error.
So?Consider "social" compared to "socialism"- the doctrine indicated by the addition of the "ism" suffix may be more loosely related to the root word as the "ism" develops.
So what it changes all the time words get added new definitions are added and old ones are taken away. It's not the authority on definitions. It's how the word is used.
Because it doesn't fit with the current dictionary definition? That's all your argument really amounts to.
So?
You're failing to demonstrate your case in any meaningful way. The dictionary disagrees with you.
So what? Do you still not understand what a dictionary is?
I rest my case.
On misunderstanding? Fair enough.
You're failing to demonstrate your case in any meaningful way. The dictionary disagrees with you.
So what? Do you still not understand what a dictionary is?
So what? Do you still not understand what a dictionary is?
Says the guy who pooh-poohed the dictionary not 2 pages ago.
The news likes to make terrorism this scary boogeyman and that the only way to stop them is to spy on civilians. Terrorist attacks make easy news because they usually kill multiple people at a time.
However when you look at the statistics, you find that relatively few people die from terrorist attacks, at least in America.
View attachment 67206624
From 1988 to 2005, around a million people died from car accidents. Meanwhile the bar for terrorist attacks is barely visible and a majority of them died in 9/11.
So next time you see Donald Trump on television talking about how Obama isn't doing enough to keep America safe or a campaign ad attacking a candidate who dares support a bill which may limit the ability to find terrorists, remember that you are fare more likely to die in a car accident or a non terrorist homicide than a terrorist attack and I can tell you from experience that I know only 1 person who died from a car accident.
So how many participants in "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" worldwide menace America's "national security?" How many threaten us so badly that our rulers insist on suspending much of the Bill of Rights to counteract the danger?
Try 184,000. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...re-there-not-as-many-as-you-might-think.shtml
With around 162 Known and Registered Terrorist Groups in the World, if there are only 184,000 people in all of those groups, that would mean that there are around 1,136 members to each known registered Terrorist organization. Countries Compared by Terrorism > Number of Known Terrorist Organizations Present. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
I think the 184,000 number is for Isil members only...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?