MovieChat Forums > Big Game (2015) Discussion > Stop calling every murderer a Terrorist

Stop calling every murderer a Terrorist

posted 9 years ago by drbits
10 replies | jump to latest

This is an assassination plot - not terrorism. People seem to want to use the word terrorism very loosely.

Terrorism has a specific definition: An action to instill terror in the general public. This requires a general target (could happen to anybody), not a specific target. It is always a Mass Casualty (many murders or injuries) event.

An attack against an influential person in a government is an assassination. It does not have a general target and it is not a mass casualty event.

Even the recent US marine recruiter shootings are not terrorism. First, they are against military targets. An attack against a military target is not a general attack. Second, two people were killed in two separate locations. This fits the definition of Spree Killing, but not terrorism.

For example: A drive-by shooting of a single home or store is not terrorism. Multiple, coordinated drive-by shootings across a neighbourhood are terrorism.

Another example: A jet hijacker is not a terrorist, unless the goal is to use the jet to harm the general public.

Guerrilla warfare is at least as old as the biblical Maccabees. It is much harder to combat random attacks than an attack by an orderly group of people, so people try to classify these attacks as terrorism.

[–] WatchAnythingOnce 9 years ago

terrorism
noun ter·ror·ism \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

The violent act need not be directed at the general public - it just needs to be designed to create fear among the populace in the furtherance of a political agenda.

[–] ManToTrust 9 years ago

Good point and great examples.

[–] elephant_sounds 9 years ago

Yes. We wouldn't want to give terrorists a bad name...

[–] jake_randi_mom 9 years ago

I don't think it is about giving terrorists a bad name. It is about diluting the meaning so much it has NO meaning... When things start to become "meaningless" we become numb to them.

[–] Blubonnet_Spearman 9 years ago

Who cares. In die hard the bad guys were called terrorists and no one cared

[–] tinus42 9 years ago

"Are you, are you terrorists? You certainly look terrified so I suppose we must be."

[–] smcbee27 8 years ago

It was meant to cause terror by showing the President filmed during those 7 days and then killed. That would cause the general public to be terrified, thus terrorist. I believe the term in general has broadened past what you feel is terrorism. Media & people in general attach "terrorist" to any Islam/Muslim extremists and as you said sometimes it's murder or a killing spree. However, if the murder or killing spree's INTENT is to illict panic & terror then it is terrorism by this loose definition. Terrorist used a drive-by shooting in Paris on Friday-ANY means to create the thought of "I could be next!" if I'm not in my home hunkering down is terrorism. So we now know ISIS commited various terrorist attacks on Paris Friday but by your strick definition some of them don't fall into that category. The acts ONLY requirements is to cause terror or panic. Releasing tapes of a President over 7 days culminating in his death would've been terrorism.

[–] braddy4 8 years ago

Going to the local shopping center to murder unarmed recruiters is terrorism and was conducted by terrorists, it was not attacking military targets.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Military personnel must, by definition, be a military target.

[–] jamaisj-838-93732 7 years ago

He calls himself a terrorist with the intention of making the president proof that terrorism still exists and that it worse, so there is that...