Unless there's some political angle to the attack.

It's not hard to figure out.

Terrorist - they are terrorizing a group of people

Enough said

Why must it be political?

There isn't a law enforcement, intelligence, or judicial agency on the planet that shares your definition of what terrorism is. It's a real word, with real meaning. You can give it your own, but nobody outside of your own head is going to give it any validity.

By your standard, a man who robs a liquor store, thereby terrorizing the customers is a terrorist. Of to gitmo, I suppose!

Jesus Christ. The information age and nobody can be bothered to learn a thing.

If the purpose of the act is to terrorize then it is terrorism.

One can argue that the purpose of a robber at a liquor store is to rob. That patrons are terrorized is a side effect of the act, not it's purpose.

While most acts of terrorism are indeed politically motivated, there is room I think to consider the possibility of acts of terrorism that are not aimed at political change but simply for the purpose of terrorizing.

unless you are willing to contradict every last subject matter on the planet.

The word terrorism has meaning. It applies to situations in which violence or the threat of violence is directed at (usually) civilian forces in an effort to coerce, influence, or disrupt in an effort to achieve some political end.

We have words to describe the other stuff already. Spree killers, mass shooters, school shooters, mad gunmen, mass killers, wholesale murderer, arsonist, bomber, etc.


Attempting to shoehorn arbitrarily assigned acts of violence into the current, accepted, and understood definition of terrorism serves no practical purpose whatsoever. Hell, you could even come up with a new term for all the other violence we're talking about here. The problem is when you conflate different things.

Sexualt battery, sexual assault, rape. Not all are rape.

battery, assault, assault with deadly intent, malicious wounding, assault with a deadly weapon. Not all are battery

Murder, manslaughter, homicide. Not all are murder.

There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.

Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination." These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

So much for your planetary consensus.

I merely asserted that nobody who works in the field of stopping, prosecuting, or researching terrorism has a definition in line with yours.

Feel free to read through all of that wikipedia article. You won't find anyone that agrees with you, I'm afraid. Terrorism requires more than an intent to kill and scare for it's own sake. I'm sorry that inconveniences you for some reason.

If you have nothing to respond with, you can just say so.

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." — Winston Churchill

Night.

Would you label the "Mob" a terrorist organization?

What about the Roman Cathloic Church? Before the reformation.

How about The US Government? Look at our actions in Vietnam / ME / Cuba in 50,60,70's or our actions in the Southern Cone in 70's, 80's.?

Which mob? What did they do? It all depends. I need an example.

RCC? Sure, some things during the middle ages seem to fit that description.

As to the US government in those periods, I'd have to say no. For one, I don't recall us targeting civ populaces with the intent of shaping their policy. If we did, as a government entity, the term war crime fits better than terrorism. The nazis, for example weren't terrorists. They were war criminsls.

By the mob I mean organized crime families like the ones in NY / Chicago back in the early 20th century was Al Capone a terrorist or just an opportunist? Perhaps a better entity as an example would be the Cartels such as the Zeta's or Sinaloa.

As for the US government. I disagree the support we gave Pinochet alone qualifies. We may not have pulled the trigger but we provided the gun. Another way that we have targeted civilians is by embargoes / sanctions hoping that by making life so miserable for the population that they would rise up and over throw the dictator or regime of the sanctions target. Iraq is a good example of this before we got tired of waiting and invaded in 2003.

I mean I need specific incidents involving the mob. I really don't know a thing about them outside of batman cartoons.

Embargoes are an interesting take, but I'd have to disagree in the end. We aren't threatening violence or using violence to influence policy. Making things suck? Yeah, but in the end it doesn't meet the definition. Following that reasoning, tariffs on foreign goods could be viewed as terrorism, depending on the situation and the goals.

But apparently for some it is very difficult to figure out.

There is no difference between the guy who killed people at PP or the couple that killed people in the Regional center. Both were driven by an ideological hatred.

POLITICAL.

If terrorism is used to describe someone who killed and terrorized people outside of a political, religious, or social aim, Dahmer, Gacy, Typhoid Mary, a drunk crashing into a bike rally, and executioners are all terrorists.

The OP denied political connotation, and that's contrary to the (perfectly good) existing definition of the term. What their cause is or what they look like is indeed irrelevant...no issues with that claim.

Dead is dead. Intent to kill many is intent to kill many.

When we classify a mass murder as terrorism, it accepts the political position of the murderer. Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare. If we say it's terrorism, we are joining (or perpetuating) the war. If we keep it criminal, the response is thorough investigation, following leads to where there was assistance, track down the access to firearms, make arrests. Moving forward, we craft our intel to catch what we missed.

Sure they might end up killing people and technically they are suppose to be killing people whose are suppose to be bad people (like ISIS or the Taliban). I know in the end unfortunately civilians get caught in the crossfire. But most soldiers do not join the military for the sole purpose of wanting to kill people.

"Terrorist" is a term that's always had political connotations, and I'm fine with it remaining that way. Expanding it just makes it less precise.

Who would have imagined a decade ago that mass killings would terrorize the American psyche? Is there any place sacred where one could go and be guaranteed they would be safe from a random shooting?

Pretty sad state of affairs in this country these days. For the life of me I don't understand why the latest trend is innocent bystanders are now being targeted too. War!, war!, war!, guns! guns! guns!, kill! kill! kill! What is this world coming to?!