http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34954474

 

A man kills people because he disagrees with a govt policy and not a single mention of the word "terror".

Whats even more surprising is that he is alive. Heck he shot and killed a police officer, by american standards he should be a sieve by now

As I said before, it would qualify as a terror attack if he received organizational support to carry out his actions or if he acted on behest of an organization. I don't know if this was the case or not, I'm just objecting to calling crazy loners terrorists, simply because it's misleading.

 

To put it simply:

Crazy guy shooting up an abortion clinic = not terrorist, just crazy

Group conspiring to carry out attacks against abortion clinics = terrorists

Guy shooting up an abortion clinic after being inspired by, but not directly related to above group = terrorist

Your definition makes sense however it unfortunately is not followed by the media.

 

The media effectively uses a paint chart with shades of brown to determine if it was terrorism or not.

As I said before, it would qualify as a terror attack if he received organizational support to carry out his actions or if he acted on behest of an organization. I don't know if this was the case or not, I'm just objecting to calling crazy loners terrorists, simply because it's misleading.

To put it simply:

Crazy guy shooting up an abortion clinic = not terrorist, just crazy

Group conspiring to carry out attacks against abortion clinics = terrorists

Guy shooting up an abortion clinic after being inspired by, but not directly related to above group = terrorist

Is that like an official definition or your opinion? No double meaning, just asking, it kinda fits well in to how media portrays who is terrorist and who isn't.

 

 

Also, your third point, while this wouldn't fit the republicans but there appears to be a very thin line. These are the kind of incidents that occur when you spew hatred, sure you could legalspeak your way out of it, bit the extremists/crazy don't really care about that and dead person is a dead person.

 

As I said before, it would qualify as a terror attack if he received organizational support to carry out his actions or if he acted on behest of an organization. I don't know if this was the case or not, I'm just objecting to calling crazy loners terrorists, simply because it's misleading.

To put it simply:

Crazy guy shooting up an abortion clinic = not terrorist, just crazy

Group conspiring to carry out attacks against abortion clinics = terrorists

Guy shooting up an abortion clinic after being inspired by, but not directly related to above group = terrorist

Is that like an official definition or your opinion? No double meaning, just asking, it kinda fits well in to how media portrays who is terrorist and who isn't.

 

 

Also, your third point, while this wouldn't fit the republicans but there appears to be a very thin line. These are the kind of incidents that occur when you spew hatred, sure you could legalspeak your way out of it, bit the extremists/crazy don't really care about that and dead person is a dead person.

 

 

Well, that depends on how you look at it. While the official definition of terrorism theoretically applies to lone perpetrators who act to further an agenda (which might just be their own), modern terrorism is considered to be a group activity of sorts. I tend to agree with this classification, otherwise, you could label every school shooter as a terrorist, and put them on the same page as ISIS. Of course, their acts are no less horrific, but still, they're two very different things.

 

I agree on the third, the line IS very thin. Free speech has limits, for example, you may not cry out that you see a bomb under your seat in a movie theater, when you do not, that you can be held accountable for inciting panic. Openly calling for violence against an ethnic or religious group, parcticioners of a profession, etc is also against the law, but there are gray areas.

 

For example, if I said: "Gee, I sure wouldn't complain if that abortion clinic burned to the ground with all the doctors in it" would it still be acceptable? Would I be able to legalspeak my way out of it?