1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!


Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by zeke12, Apr 17, 2007.

  1. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    The president's lone talking point is saying that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in America since 9/11 so they administration wants to make it clear this isn't a terrorist attack.
  2. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    A good point that brings me to another question.

    What if the purpose of terrorism is defiantly at odds with the reality.

    Because I'm WAY more scared of those who are only interested in killing as many people as possible than those who are interested in scaring me for political gain.
  3. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    Fenian, this terrorized, you bet your ass it did. Whether the shooter is dead or not, that campus is scarred for decades.
  4. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    You don't think the kids that were shot were terrorized? What about the ones just wounded? What about the ones in the next room that just heard the shots and the screaming.
  5. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Who cares. Irrelevent.
  6. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    I don't think Fenian is arguing that there was no affect of terror, but rather that terror wasn't the aim.

    In other words, this guy was batshit crazy and wanted to kill as many people as he could. Any terror he caused was tertiary at best.

    Whereas others -- the Columbine kids, for example -- wrote extensively about wanting to scare the people at their school. Terrorism was their purpose.
  7. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    All due respect, but you're glib and wrong at the same time, and that's not a flattering combination.
  8. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    It really doesn't matter if you want to classify this as terrorism or not. Neither subtracts nor adds to it.
  9. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    So obviouly we should not have an intelligent discussion of whether this constitutes terrorism or not.
  10. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Agree to disagree.
  11. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    I'll also agree to disagree with you, Zeke. Any time you're trying to kill folks, your aim is to terrorize them and others around them. It's like that dude at the Amish schoolhouse, shooting them all execution-style. If he merely wanted to kill 'em, he would've sprayed the place quickly. Sounds like this dude also planned this elaborately.
  12. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    wicked --

    I don't think any of us is really in disagreement yet, as much as we don't have enough evidence to render a decision.

    And I suppose one could make the argument that death is the ultimate form of fear for a lot of people. Then the question at hand becomes what did the attacker intend for the affect to be on the living?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page