ZRod
Active member
It tisn't (Monty Python skit)! Teach just gave you part of the definiton of terrorism, it's politically motivated. We both just agreed with you that people use the word far too much, and too soon.It absolutely is beside the point. I'm the one making the point - albeit probably badly, since you think that your argument that he's not a terrorist is on point.
It's not really relevant whether he's a terrorist.
What's relevant is that if he was Arab or Muslim, he would be called a terrorist.
That's my point, and I think it's BS. Call these people who don't belong to an organization terrorists or don't call them terrorists, but don't change the definition because the person is Muslim/Arab/Christian/White/Other.
I'd be fine with them hesitating to or never calling him a terrorist, if they'd do the same thing when a non-White person hurts/kills 2+ people.
Kiyoat mentioned the word stigmatize. That's what happens to Muslims/Arabs when the word terrorist is used every time there's an attack by an Arab person, and never when it's a White person. When it's a bunch of armed White people taking over a federal building or killing others, everyone has to deliberate for days/weeks and then not use that word. When it's only used for Arabs and always used for Arabs, the rest of the population starts to equate all Arabs with terrorism. I've seen it on this forum in previous discussions.
What political motive do when know this guy had as of now?
When has the term terrorism been incorrectly applied before?