The location of the shooting was a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs.
At this point, the Boolean probability of this being another forced-birther terrorist attack is already approaching one, but let’s add…
After arrest, the shooter is reported to have stated “no more body parts”.
So can we drop the hyperscepticism already? And acknowledge that, if this had been a brown shooter at a church, then it would have been labelled a terrorist attack within milliseconds of the first shot fired?
As has been explained to you upthread, the defining factor of a terrorist attack lies in the intent of the perpetrator. If you choose to define the term differently, you’re free to do so, but you may find that the use of your own private language impairs your communication abilities.
Although mind-reading abilities are not available to us, the context, actions and statements of the perpetrator make his intentions blindingly obvious to anyone who isn’t driven by hyperscepticism or disingenuousness.
The racist bias of media representations of terrorist (and “terrorist”) acts is a separate issue from the fact that this particular act of violence was blatantly intended as an act of terrorism.
Yes, we’ve covered that! But why does this distinction matter? We can choose how we feel about it for ourselves, so why should they legally be culpable for that? Nobody seems to be able or willing to say. I am not confused about what it is supposed to mean, I am simply not clear why this is even relevant. They are certainly responsible for the death and injury they caused, but not for our feelings or responses. Saying that their intent was for me or others to feel terrified seems absurd.
Well, it is similar to Manslaughter and Murder. Intent is almost 100% of the label. So disagree, but the distinction exists morally, ethically, and legally.
Because terrorism is an attack, not merely against those physically attacked, but against those they are representative of, the population that the attacker wants to cause to alter their behavior due to the population’s fear of future attacks.
This is both a threat, which can be explicit or implicit, and emotional violence, which is why there can be justification for considering it a crime additional to the physical attacks themselves.
I understand that. But where it loses me is that whether the population then alters their behavior or not is still their choice. The attacker has no direct influence upon this, even if they wish they did.
I don’t get it. The logic sounds similar to mugging you with the intention that your whole family or town pay tribute to me. So I can then be charged with mugging everybody, But that sounds like a dumb fantasy, because I mugged only one person, and nobody else needs to act according to those intentions. It only compounds the crime if people indulge something stupid. Attempts to terrorize people are best defeated by not doing anything differently, that seems like it would be common sense.
wait what??? wtf. is this the religious equivalent of reverse racism? that is totally absurd. is this some sort of joke or sarcasm that I’m not picking up on?
the media is unequivocally biased towards Muslims and pro Chistians, I’m guessing you must be a christian from the false persecution complex? being neither the balance of the scales is much more clear.
I am going to guess that it depends upon where one is geographically and culturally. I am sure there are places which are more hostile to Christianity than Islam. But, in my experience, Colorado is not such a place.
Ok, we seem to agree that “compounding the crime” is happening. But, there seems to be a difference in opinion about who is to blame. Those willing to use the term terrorism would blame the attackers. You seem to be blaming the victims. Or do you deny that people are actually ever terrorized at all?
No, I don’t agree. I recognize that it is the idea, but it doesn’t seem realistic.
How do you figure that?
That is completely up to them. Supporting the victims means recognizing that they each get to decide how they feel about it. People who deal with violent conflicts can tell you that losing one’s cool about the situation drastically lessens ones chances of a favorable outcome. It is better to participate as an espontaneo combatant than to resign to feeling victimized, in any case. The difference in perspective is significant, both pragmatically and psychologically.
The difference between terrorism and not-terrorism is a matter of tactics, not morality. The question of whether an act of violence is worthy of moral condemnation is a separate one to the question of accurately defining what tactics were used.
However, some tactics rightfully tend to attract condemnation, due to the perceived imbalance between the utility and cost of those tactics (i.e. a low-effectiveness tactic that tends to harm innocent third parties draws condemnation more readily than a tactic that is percieved as precise and effective). Terrorist attacks by non-state actors are one such easily-condemned tactic. So is mass aerial bombardment, or chemical warfare.
It’s important to accurately label the act of terrorism in this case, because:
The inconsistency in the labelling of white/Christian vs brown/Muslim terrorism by the media is both a reflection and creator of racism in the industrialised West, and;
Whether this attack is depicted as the act of a lone apolitical lunatic or is instead accurately portrayed as the deliberately created expression of a multi-person political faction is important when assessing responsibility for the attack and how to most effectively respond to it.
I want to be fair. I think @popobawa4u is a clearly a warm hearted human being (or AI simulation of one) with a heart in the right place (the chest!) even if I want to bang my head into a table everytime I have a debate with said creature.
