Everyone's Trying Really Hard Not to Call the Germanwings Co-Pilot a Terrorist

A terrorist has a political, ideological, or religious agenda which he/she advances through the threat or use of violence. Lacking this agenda, a person using violence or the threat of violence is probably a mental case or a criminal or both. Neither the act or threat, even if resulting in fear, makes the designation terrorist automatically accurate.

 

It's not an obsession; it's a case of correcting a perceived labelling injustice - and I'm with Channe in that regard. The fact is far too much terrorist activity is mislabeled or obfuscated. Many acts - like the terrorist attack on Fort Hood that was hand-wringed by many in the media and other leftist circles as not a terrorist attack, but the act of a deranged and disgruntled military member - are a good example.

Many of us understand this battle against the Islamist ideology involves public persuasion, and central in that effort is properly identifying examples of terrorism engaged by sympathizers.

Do we know everything yet? Certainly not: but we DO know that Islamists are the enemy of freedom and have declared all out war against examples of it. So, even if those who wish to call this deranged act terrorism based upon an intuitive analysis of the evidence are premature, they are certainly committing no injustice against anyone who does not deserve it.

 

Seems that's a crucial component of terrorism.

 

A Terrorist is anyone who uses Fear/Terror, and the violence which creates it, as a tool to achieve political goals.

You know, Like the people over at Occupy Wall Street.




Hey, look, those are WHITE American Terrorists!

Go Figure....

-

 

suicidal terrorists do things to get what they want through terror, it appears this guy was just suicidal, but not a terrorist (he was not trying to use fear to change the minds of people), could be wrong, just going on what we know so far (these are the kinda folks religious fanatics try to enlist though, as they want to die, if they can convince them God would approve, they can control them)

.

 

that is the problem, you blame all of a people for the crimes of the worst among them, do you blame all cops for the worst amount them too, let's just blame those that commit crimes for the crimes they commit, not an entire group of people, what about the cops assaulting OWS's with mace and the like trying to escalate the situation? does that represent all cops?



.

 

Does that cop belong to a larger organization which is unified in planning and executing such violence on a routine basis with the object of achieving a specific political goal?

Or just an out of control individual who was demoted and censured for his casual brutality, which was done out of disregard for the damage such a chemical weapon can induce? Did the Cop have a Manifesto? Did the Cop have a list of Political Demands?

See the difference?

-