Are mass shootings considered acts of terrorism?

We have a tendency to label any act of violence that is the product of a foreign culture as a 'terrorist,' and use that label to indict that culture or religion. But when the act of violence is a product of our own American culture, such as Dylan Roof or the Unabomber, we tend not to label those as acts of terrorism, as that becomes an indictment of our culture.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: scorpio84

originally posted by: ABNARTY
PITA POV Warning:

Just look at the responses to this thread. All over the map. Each one thinking they have nailed it. How can they all be right?

How on Earth do we define 'terrorism'? Something that causes terror or fear. People are fearful of spiders, are spiders terrorists?

That sounds silly as we have been inundated with imagery of a suicide bomber or burning towers in connection with the word terrorist. The word has been invented and defined for us. Who chooses this imagery? Who is framing this narrative?

I am sure the folks getting shot in any of the mass shootings were terrified of the shooter. So why is he not considered a terrorist? Seems pretty straight forward but it deviates from the story line so it is as silly as the spider.

Sorry. Rant over.

Terrorism is not about just making people afraid - it's about using violence or the threat of violence to force political change. Any definition deviating from the political one is simply incorrect and you may dismiss it as such.

Two words......

Dylann Roof

What's your point? If he shot the church up b/c he hates blacks, it's racism, but not terrorism. If he genuinely believed doing so would lead to Civil War and helping the South "rise again" then it'd be terrorism (with a good bit of racism mixed in, of course). His actions do not change the definition of a word.

Also, let's stop using his name - he doesn't deserve the attention. He'll just be "the racist who killed 9 people at a church in Charleston."

a reply to: scorpio84

That rascist DID do what he did to start a race war. So he IS by definition a terrorist.

What about this guy?

Cop calls in bomb threat and pretends to get shot at to change political policy regarding cops:

maxchantha.wordpress.com...

Is he a terrorist?

a reply to: scorpio84

I trust you believe that.

This definition is not bullet proof. What is 'political change'? Mass shootings have created a huge social debate about how we run our country.

We get governmental authority issues, citizen responsibility issues, politicians espousing views, incumbents losing their office, challengers gaining office, heck the UN voicing their opinion, etc. But we will not call that 'political'?

Can those embracing this definition guarantee those executing terrorism do it for only that outcome? Nope. So why is it embraced?

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: scorpio84

That rascist DID do what he did to start a race war. So he IS by definition a terrorist.

A race war is not politics. Of course, it could spill into politics, but it isn't politics in ipso.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: scorpio84

I trust you believe that.

This definition is not bullet proof. What is 'political change'? Mass shootings have created a huge social debate about how we run our country.

We get governmental authority issues, citizen responsibility issues, politicians espousing views, incumbents losing their office, challengers gaining office, heck the UN voicing their opinion, etc. But we will not call that 'political'?

Can those embracing this definition guarantee those executing terrorism do it for only that outcome? Nope. So why is it embraced?

The definition is bullet proof. That or we can throw dictionaries away since people can just attribute whatever random meaning they want to words. Your question regarding political change implies some sort of grand revelation. What is 'reality?' What is 'here and new?' Honestly, how can you not know what political change is? Please don't confuse it for social change.

Let's take Dylann Roof. Let's assume he figured on starting a civil war - that would be a political motivation, as it involved a change in government. Still, that doesn't prove the OP's premise, which is school shooters=terrorists. Rather it shows that a). some school shooters are terrorists and conversely b). some terrorists are school shooters.

Furthermore, the following are true:
Some a$$holes are school shooters.
Some a$$holes are terrorists.
Some a$$holes are school shooters and terrorists.
All people who are either school shooters, terrorists, or both are a$$holes.

FYI....political change - changing the political situation (i.e. govt)

a reply to: atlscribe


Pardon me, but what has Timothy McVeigh got to do with school shootings?

He blew up the OKC building in retaliation against the government, for it's handling of the Waco siege/Ruby Ridge
Personally, I would classify him as a terrorist, but others have not...of course, that is just my opinion



One issue that is being swept under the rug is the fact that many young people are on some kind of anti-depressant drugs
The ones that have carried out school shootings, most have been found to be on meds
But no one wants to talk about that



Yes, we have a drug epidemic in our country....one that is carried out by doctors themselves, pill doctors --legally
And the pharmaceutical companies are more than happy to help them out
$$ ka-ching $$



ETA: IMO, the Dylan Roof tragedy should be labeled as a "Hate Crime", being as he targeted a specific group of people (blacks)

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: snarky412
And many of those shooters have been found to have been prescribed psychiatric drugs
So no, school shootings are not the same as a terrorist act IMO
But more of a mental issue gone seriously wrong

Whoever decides to kill innocent people,be it in school,at a cafe,concert or football game has mental issues IMHO. Do you think that terrorists are perfectly sane people ? Look at the terrorists from Paris. Drug addicts. Most of them already had a criminal background.

The point I was getting at if you would look into some of these anti-depressant drugs and their side effects, is some of these kids might not have done what they did if for not being on those prescribed drugs

Seriously, start doing some research on some of those drugs
It is spooky how it alters one's way of thinking
THAT is the issue I was bringing up




Yes, anyone who takes another life, unless it is in self-defense, is lacking something "upstairs"
You will get no argument from me there!!

originally posted by: atlscribe
I'm genuinely curious about this. Terrorism by definition usually has some political or religious motives behind them while school shootings tend to be as a result of psychological or internalized issues of the perpetrators. On the other hand, a lot of perpetrators of school shootings (or mass shootings) tend to leave behind detailed manifestos as to why they orchestrated their acts, and they often times have quasi-political motives behind them (race for example).

So my question is if they are considered acts of terrorism why aren't they as politicized as Islamic fundamentalism for instance? On American soil you are more likely to be a victim of an act of 'domestic terrorism' than Islamic extremism:

Perhaps someone can elucidate this point.

Better still why is simply not referr to as crime like it was all over the world before 911. What do they say, ask who gains? Who gained as a result of a word change? (the power of words.)

More people are afraid of terroism than would otherwise would be if the word crime was used. Somebody wanted to introduce a new concept, they gained didn't they? Who might they be??

Hint: who were the first people to start using the word terroism, terroism, terroism, terroism?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: atlscribe

School shootings tend to be acts of desperation not terrorism.

Ummm blowing ones self up with a bomb seems pretty desperate to me and to be quite honest it's freaking terrifying!

I also think the definition of terrorism is pretty dumb. It's has to be political to terrify someone?


en.m.wikipedia.org...

Acts of TERROR ...ism? Acts of terror? KEYWORD: TERROR. Don't lose site of that. If someone is shooting at you to take your life -- when you're just going about your everyday business -- YEAH, I'd say that causing such an act of INFLICTING TERROR UPON YOU (AND OTHERS) fits the bill. HENCE THE NAME. Yes, to inflict TERROR on others by taking their life -- is pretty self-explanatory, and shouldn't be tolerated.

a reply to: snarky412

So is the PPH shooting in Colorado Springs an act of terrorism or not?

a reply to: Kromlech

Xenophobia[/i is not usually taken to mean a literal fear of foreigners.

I could apply my own definition to any word to make my case. It's much harder when you have to use words based on their actual definitions.