I disagree that all mass shootings are terrorist attacks. A terrorist attack has to be in service of some political agenda or political position. The Columbine massacre, the Aurora movie theater massacre and other school shootings weren’t terrorist attacks. The killers just wanted to kill people.
Violence against abortion providers is (sadly) common, and is clearly in the service of a political agenda, so it qualifies as terrorism. If this guy attack Planned Parenthood on purpose, because it provides abortion services, then that would be terrorism. If he shot up the place because his ex-girlfriend works there, or something like that, or because he just wanted to shoot some people and he by the veriest chance walked into a place that is the frequent target of politically motivated violence, then he isn’t a terrorist.
You truly don’t believe that violence against Planned Parenthood and similar clinics is supported by not one but many influential people and organizations, either expressly, implicitly, or through the recklessness of their propaganda?
You’re right CardinalFang. We shouldn’t call everything terrorism.
Your example is very clear: if this guy attacked Planned Parenthood because he disagreed with their existence, then it’s terrorism, motivated by a twisted view of religion used as a pretext to maim and destroy.
(Faith is very practical, since God(s) never come down to say “this isn’t on me, that guy is insane”.)
Except for Columbine. It seems to me that it was political, since the perpetrators referred to Hitler, shot the school in honor of Hitler’s birthday, wore trenchcoats to honor the SS… They had no specific revendication, but neither does ISIS.
Yeah, if you conclude that the Columbine attack was motivated by Nazi ideology, then it would be terrorism. But if you conclude that they just wanted to kill people for the sake of killing, then not.
There’s an excellent review and analysis on a commentary-blog called Arun with a view, that due tp TOS I can’t link to here but you can look for it. It’s by an American professor who lives in Paris.
It’s the transcript of a recent speech at a conference. The speaker, Olivier Roy, examined the trajectories of individuals who became radicalized and joined Daesh. He discovers that the radicals were not brought up to be radicals, and did not gain their radicalism in their local mosques. They are either converts, or people whose parents were nominally Muslim but not particularly religious, or people who reject the moderate Islam of their parents for the radical killer Islam of their jailmates or their recruiters. They were not pious Muslims before they became radicalized, and they don’t become a part of the greater Muslim society after they are radicalized.
You know the worst part? Some people know this - heck, most people with a brain do - they just don’t care. Hating on a group of people is just too much fun, I guess.
One thing to be observed from the article though: all those radicalized already have a history of violence/animal torture/abusive behaviors etc. Maybe there should be a database for all such people <-------- Directed at bloated-ken-doll looking politician (who probably doesn’t read this forum) who we all know and love
I did not see a section that indicated ALL those radicalized had a history of violence/animal cruelty/abusive behavior. “Many” we’re petty criminals, but their crimes were not necessarily violent; drug dealing was mentioned as an example of petty crime. I. doubt that the jihadi brides had a history of violence.
@“Cardinal Fang” All might have been a gross overestimate, and I apologize.
No, but they never identified as Muslims whilst growing up, and are mostly converts. Per your post above:
I’m guessing the majority of the ‘brides’ are converts, as it is easier to manipulate someone with little to no knowledge of Islam. The males are a different matter. It doesn’t seem to matter whether they were Muslim or not before joining; all they need to be is violent enough, religion just provides them with a pretext.
EDIT:
It is a crime nonetheless. I somehow doubt that these men stole or sold drugs to provide for their families.
InfinityMan, I’m not defending drug dealers. The point I wanted to make was that many of the recruits had been punks and petty criminals, but not necessarily violent petty criminals. Drug dealing is not necessarily a violent crime.
