On the stretching of meanings

[Rusty Nails]

I bet the victims stand there thinking,

' is this categorised as terrorism'

as the first slit of the knife disembowels them

Of course they would have been terrified and didn't think that and it has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. You are using it to justify or deflect from your rushing in to brand the attack as terrorism without waiting for, or even wanting, the facts. You probably hoped it would be terrorism to start you off on another X filled rant.

You were wrong, just be big enough to admit it.

 

[CXRAndy]

Not on my opinion, that was a terrorist act. It terrorised those directly involved. I bet there are thousands travelling on that and other train lines looking over their shoulder worrying what could happen. That is what terrorism does, alters behaviour

 

[Rusty Nails]

Not on my opinion, that was a terrorist act. It terrorised those directly involved. I bet there are thousands travelling on that and other train lines looking over their shoulder worrying what could happen. That is what terrorism does, alters behaviour

Of course not on your opinion. But in this case your opinion bears no relation to the facts.

It is difficult to argue sensibly with someone who genuinely confuses opinion with fact...and what is worse is proud of his ignorance.



P.s. I remember you referring to the Brize Norton "terrorists" yet nobody was terrified or terrorised. Go figure. You could at least try to be consistent.

 

[icowden]

Not on my opinion, that was a terrorist act. It terrorised those directly involved.

Sorry - we use the Oxford English Dictionary, not the Webster ABC for new readers.

A terrorist is

a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

There were no political aims in this attack as far as we are aware. Therefore it is not a terrorist attack. The goal of terrorism is to advance a political, religious racial or ideological cause intending to intimidate the public or influence government or a political organisation.

Even the etymology of terrorism supports the notion that there must be a political motivation

• Latin root: The word "terror" comes from the Latin terrere, meaning "to tremble" or "to cause to tremble".
• French origin: The term "terrorism" was formed from the French terrorisme, itself a combination of terreur (terror) and the suffix -isme.
• Early English use: The first known use of the English word "terrorism" was in 1795, in reference to the French government's actions during the Reign of Terror (1793–1794).
• State-sponsored violence: Initially, "terrorism" specifically described violence used by a state against those it considered to be undermining its authority. For example, Maximilien Robespierre famously stated, "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible".
• Modern usage: The term gained renewed and broader currency in the 1970s to describe politically motivated violence by non-state groups

 

[matticus]

You were wrong, just be big enough to admit it.

Are you new here??

 

[briantrumpet]

Sorry - we use the Oxford English Dictionary, not the Webster ABC for new readers.

A terrorist is


There were no political aims in this attack as far as we are aware. Therefore it is not a terrorist attack. The goal of terrorism is to advance a political, religious racial or ideological cause intending to intimidate the public or influence government or a political organisation.

Even the etymology of terrorism supports the notion that there must be a political motivation

Words, schmords... you seem to think that agreeing on definitions matters. It only matters if you are looking for a logical discussion. Otherwise they can mean anything you want them to mean.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Are you new here??

An eternal optimist!