Z
zeke12
Guest
And, as I've been hinting, part of me thinks these "lone" nutballs see patterns where the rest of us don't.
Zeke12 said:
Sympathizing with a cause and carrying out actions that benefit the cause could be classified as a terrorist action. However, I must add the caveat that such an isolated incident (as it would be with a sympathizer) would need to be linked to the group in some way.
In the terms of the KKK, you can't have some white guy shooting black people and then no mention of the KKK. That, in itself, doesn't instill terror. That would be a lone racist. If the white guy is able to drop enough hints and references to the Klan to bring about the reminder that the Klan can still be the "invisible army" that it once was, then you are acting as a terrorist.
Inky_Wretch said:
Well, I guess I shouldn't state that it needs to be repeated but there needs to be a fear of repetition or a threat of repetition.
The guy that put the bombing plan in place wasn't immediately caught. He could also have had a group that share in his ideology, which he did.
2muchcoffeeman
Well-Known Member
sportschick said:
The guy at Va Tech didn't have any political or ideological motivations, which are the key components in defining terrorism. He was just nutso.
Z
zeke12
Guest
2much --
Do we know that? I've only seen his letter described, but I haven't seen the substance of it...
Do we know that? I've only seen his letter described, but I haven't seen the substance of it...
Z
zeke12
Guest
leo1 said:
leo --
I'm not sure I'm following. What would be your definitions for both?
Z
zeke12
Guest
Now that the killer's press kit has been made public, I think I can safely say that this was a terrorist attack.
he mentions the Columbine killers, and calls them martyrs. In this postmodern world of ours, he was aware of how he would be portrayed, enough to establish a connection with earlier school massacres and enough to provide grossly disturbing images to be displayed after his death.
He did this to scare people. This was a terrorist attack.
he mentions the Columbine killers, and calls them martyrs. In this postmodern world of ours, he was aware of how he would be portrayed, enough to establish a connection with earlier school massacres and enough to provide grossly disturbing images to be displayed after his death.
He did this to scare people. This was a terrorist attack.
JR
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 31,657
I can't see how this can be defined as a terrorist attack.
He acted alone and was not part of a larger group.
There is no political element.
Terrorist attacks are intended to scare people to coerce them and their government into change.
Don't see it. He wanted his 15 minutes of fame and unfortunately, he got it.
He acted alone and was not part of a larger group.
There is no political element.
Terrorist attacks are intended to scare people to coerce them and their government into change.
Don't see it. He wanted his 15 minutes of fame and unfortunately, he got it.
Z
zeke12
Guest
I don't think he saw it that way.
He sees himself as part of a long and illustrious line of school shooters.
We might not understand the political motivation, but I don't know that there has to be one. There were certainly plenty of anti-establishment rantings in his writings.
Any doubt I had that this was done primarily to inflict terror were erased when I saw the pictures of this guy pointing the gun at the camera. However crazy he was, he took time in between killing people to make sure that picture made it on television.
He sees himself as part of a long and illustrious line of school shooters.
We might not understand the political motivation, but I don't know that there has to be one. There were certainly plenty of anti-establishment rantings in his writings.
Any doubt I had that this was done primarily to inflict terror were erased when I saw the pictures of this guy pointing the gun at the camera. However crazy he was, he took time in between killing people to make sure that picture made it on television.
JR
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 31,657
Zeke,
I think I have a narrower definition of terrorism than you do.
I don't think school shooters qualify as terrorist groups. Just ****ed up psychopaths with too easy access to guns.
Normally, a terrorist attack is part of larger strategy--and usually a political one.
Just think of The Troubles.
I think I have a narrower definition of terrorism than you do.
I don't think school shooters qualify as terrorist groups. Just ****ed up psychopaths with too easy access to guns.
Normally, a terrorist attack is part of larger strategy--and usually a political one.
Just think of The Troubles.
Z
zeke12
Guest
JR --
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. It is a reasonable interpretation.
What haunts me about this question is that it is tied up in at least two very important but seldom discussed aspects of contemporary life: The power given to the naming of things and the meta-textual nature discourse and, subsequently, thought.
As I said, it's perfectly reasonable to consider this shooter's motivation to be narcissism and his allusions to other school shootings the result of obsession or shared madness. But if we had to, couldn't we nearly as easily attribute a shared political motivation to them? Call it anarchism. A shared belief that the system, however the individual shooters define it, cannot be allowed to continue.
And in a society where nearly everything is done in a representational manner -- that is, we have ceased to do anything without considering how it would play on television -- isn't shooting up your school a logical step forward from eating worms on Fear Factor? Paris Hilton replacing the connections with ammo? I realize this is a stretch, but then again, this guy obviously carefully considered the press coverage that would follow his actions -- to the point where said coverage might be described as his primary motivation.
Some might feel that parsing things as such is so much academic navel-gazing, but I think it's extremely important. The United States claims to be engaged in a worldwide war on "Terror" and, as such, how the term is defined becomes a tool of great political power.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. It is a reasonable interpretation.
What haunts me about this question is that it is tied up in at least two very important but seldom discussed aspects of contemporary life: The power given to the naming of things and the meta-textual nature discourse and, subsequently, thought.
As I said, it's perfectly reasonable to consider this shooter's motivation to be narcissism and his allusions to other school shootings the result of obsession or shared madness. But if we had to, couldn't we nearly as easily attribute a shared political motivation to them? Call it anarchism. A shared belief that the system, however the individual shooters define it, cannot be allowed to continue.
And in a society where nearly everything is done in a representational manner -- that is, we have ceased to do anything without considering how it would play on television -- isn't shooting up your school a logical step forward from eating worms on Fear Factor? Paris Hilton replacing the connections with ammo? I realize this is a stretch, but then again, this guy obviously carefully considered the press coverage that would follow his actions -- to the point where said coverage might be described as his primary motivation.
Some might feel that parsing things as such is so much academic navel-gazing, but I think it's extremely important. The United States claims to be engaged in a worldwide war on "Terror" and, as such, how the term is defined becomes a tool of great political power.
Similar threads
