I have a problem with using the word ‘terrorist’ as a catch all term for ‘nasty person’. See @force majeure122’s comment below, which I agree with. Might as well call someone who cuts you off at the lights a child molester, which is apparently also becoming a catch all phrase for a nasty person too. Inaccurate (maybe), excessive and doesn’t actually describe the nature of the offence all that well. Which I suppose name calling is supposed to do. Let’s keep it accurate folks, or at least as accurate as we can given the limitations of the murdoch media.
Martin Bryant had mental health problems, shot a whole lot of people but because he wasn’t part of a terrorist organisation it wasn’t terrorism. Like fuck it wasn’t. Terrorism.
I have a problem with using the word ‘terrorist’ as a catch all term for ‘nasty person’. See @force majeure122’s comment below, which I agree with. Might as well call someone who cuts you off at the lights a child molester, which is apparently also becoming a catch all phrase for a nasty person too. Inaccurate (maybe), excessive and doesn’t actually describe the nature of the offence all that well. Which I suppose name calling is supposed to do. Let’s keep it accurate folks, or at least as accurate as we can given the limitations of the murdoch media.
Martin Bryant had mental health problems, shot a whole lot of people but because he wasn’t part of a terrorist organisation it wasn’t terrorism. Like fuck it wasn’t. Terrorism.
In the past terrorism wasn’t even from stateless organisations, it was a tactic used by foreign governments or rebels.
Good examples are in the Ridley Scott movie, Last Duel. In the modern era Russia is using terror and they aren’t a terrorist organisation.
The whole point is destabilisation of government.
Bush jr changed the definition of terrorism to further his money driven foreign policy.