FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Double standard
Double standard
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . "  | |||
| |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . " Are all the high school shootings (columbine etc) terrorism then? What about Harold Shipman? | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . " doesnt make him a terrorist - you might argue the point that all terrorists are sick if you state that | |||
| |||
| |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . " No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. | |||
| |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is." Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . | |||
"I think that if he were brown skinned there would have been more speculation, the word count would have been much more terrorist related,, sadly that's how the media works " | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . Are all the high school shootings (columbine etc) terrorism then? What about Harold Shipman? " Very good point | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . " By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??  | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . " That doesn't make it terrorism! As above, the example of the high school shootings. Those people would have been terrified too but it doesn't make it a terrorist attack. | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . Are all the high school shootings (columbine etc) terrorism then? What about Harold Shipman? Very good point " And your answer? | |||
| |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . " Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. | |||
"He was severely depressed, didn't they find loads of doctors papers ripped up at his home? Illness or not he was a selfish prick, could have killed himself alone without having to take innocent people's lives with him. " | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . Are all the high school shootings (columbine etc) terrorism then? What about Harold Shipman? Very good point And your answer?" I don't have one.....I'm interested in the opinions of others not actually here to win an argument , as I said I was "wondering" about the mass killing . You just get so used to seeing this term used I wandered why this planned killing was any different and I appreciate the feed back . | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should." You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill.not Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO " | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO " You could indeed. I'm not sure I'd even try to argue that one. Some regimes are established and held through terror. That is actually a better example than the 'plane crash. | |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? " Terrorism is often referred to a crime caused for political orcreligiouse reasons. | |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? " so the man or woman that jumps from a building/bridge/or in front of a train is not mentally ill but a terrorist ? the act defines the way in which it is given a label, not the colour or the religion of the person or their political view's. Yes it was an act of pure selfishness to take so many innocent lives along with his own, and I feel for everyone of those who died along with the pilot. the only label I see that fit's this situation is that of corporate manslaughter seeing how his employers were aware of his mental state before he boarded the plane. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ?? "No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such . You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ?? | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ?? "No. Terror alone is not the basis for something being terrorism. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ?? "Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism. | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO " One mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter..plenty of people around the planet will argue convincingly that our government acts like terrorists..i suppose it depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on. | |||
"One mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter..plenty of people around the planet will argue convincingly that our government acts like terrorists..i suppose it depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on." This is so true. | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO One mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter..plenty of people around the planet will argue convincingly that our government acts like terrorists..i suppose it depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on." Your point is on point | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ?? "I think anyone facing death at the hands someone else will feel pretty terrified at the time they are under threat of death, fear is an emotion displayed when someone is unable to control the events unfolding infront of them that will inevitably lead to their death. Ergo it is not right to label this guy's action as an act of terrorism but only as a case of mass murder or manslaughter | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO One mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter..plenty of people around the planet will argue convincingly that our government acts like terrorists..i suppose it depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on." I don't disagree with that statement - but that still doesn't make this terrorism. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism. "Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative . | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO One mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter..plenty of people around the planet will argue convincingly that our government acts like terrorists..i suppose it depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on. I don't disagree with that statement - but that still doesn't make this terrorism." the point is about governments not what the pilot did.. | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO One mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter..plenty of people around the planet will argue convincingly that our government acts like terrorists..i suppose it depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on. I don't disagree with that statement - but that still doesn't make this terrorism. the point is about governments not what the pilot did.." But this point is about what the pilot did, so I don't see how the comparison is relevant. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative . "Not strictly correct, fundamentalism was defined as a strict adherence to a theological doctrine, and arguably started in a Christian movement in the 18th and 19th century therefore it is arguably specific to a religious cause, rather than applicable to others. I know I'm just being difficult. For something to be classified as terrorism it must be done with a view, to political, theological, idealogical, or religious gain, therefore the pilot was not a terrorist, he committed murder. | |||
| |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
Not strictly correct, fundamentalism was defined as a strict adherence to a theological doctrine, and arguably started in a Christian movement in the 18th and 19th century therefore it is arguably specific to a religious cause, rather than applicable to others.
I know I'm just being difficult.
For something to be classified as terrorism it must be done with a view, to political, theological, idealogical, or religious gain, therefore the pilot was not a terrorist, he committed murder."Your not being difficult , you learn something new everyday thanks for sharing | |||
"Nope - regardless of colour/religion/race it would seem to be a person with mental health issues and not terror related " I thought that was pretty obvious. | |||
" For something to be classified as terrorism it must be done with a view, to political, theological, idealogical, or religious gain, therefore the pilot was not a terrorist, he cmurder." This. | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO One mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter..plenty of people around the planet will argue convincingly that our government acts like terrorists..i suppose it depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on. I don't disagree with that statement - but that still doesn't make this terrorism. the point is about governments not what the pilot did.. But this point is about what the pilot did, so I don't see how the comparison is relevant. " Simple...I'm responding to this..(although I agree the pilot is no terrorist) "You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO" | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative . "So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist". Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians. I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated. | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . No, terrorists set out to cause acts of terror for a cause, not because they are mentally ill. Murdering someone is a planned act but it doesn't make it terrorism. Just because something is pre-planned does not make it terrorism. It's the reason it is carried out that decides that. In this case it was mental illness. You don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Oh I'm fully aware of the dictionary definition , I'm just not sure I totally agree with , I can see others points of view but feel it's a tad more subjective and not as straight laced as people would like it to be . Well whether you agree with the meaning or not, it is what the word means. Something doesn't become terrorism despite not fitting the description of terrorism simply because it caused terror, or because you think it should. You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO One mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter..plenty of people around the planet will argue convincingly that our government acts like terrorists..i suppose it depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on. I don't disagree with that statement - but that still doesn't make this terrorism. the point is about governments not what the pilot did.. But this point is about what the pilot did, so I don't see how the comparison is relevant. Simple...I'm responding to this..(although I agree the pilot is no terrorist) "You could argue that a lot of governments are terrorists too then because there mass killing dose fit the description to a tee. IMO" " | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated. "True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist . | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated. "I want my doctor to follow the fundamentals of medicine when treating me .... | |||
| |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
I want my doctor to follow the fundamentals of medicine when treating me ...."Fundamentals yes, but that does not make him a fundamentalist. | |||
"But are not all people who kill others sick , it was stated he said to his GF I will have my name remembered , therefore I'd say it was planned . " He was a wicked man on a mission  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist ."I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists? | |||
"The desire to make people afraid is, to my mind, the definition of terrorist intent. When some shitty person or some equally as shitty organisation expresses the idea people should be afraid of them well, this clearly DOES mean you want those people to be afraid. And making people afraid of you is [TERROR]ism. I mean, it's right there in the word. And it's a horrible word and an equally horrible thought full stop." That's not the definition of terrorism though. Otherwise every sadistic murderer would be a terrorist. But they're not, they're a sadistic murderer. | |||
"The desire to make people afraid is, to my mind, the definition of terrorist intent. When some shitty person or some equally as shitty organisation expresses the idea people should be afraid of them well, this clearly DOES mean you want those people to be afraid. And making people afraid of you is [TERROR]ism. I mean, it's right there in the word. And it's a horrible word and an equally horrible thought full stop." No word is horrible, its the intention with which that word is used, or how others interpret the word. Language is neutral until those that use it give it meaning. Making people afraid of you is not terrorism. The playground bully makes others fear him, that does not make him a terrorist. There must be the other criteria to make it terrorism, otherwise it is just fear. Fear does not mean terrorism, but terrorism can mean fear. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists? "Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions? That's what this is really about after all. We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist. | |||
 | |||
"^ When I want facts Wikipedia is the LAST place I go. "On some subjects it's an awesome resource, on others it's less than stellar. It can be useful, when used in conjunction with other sources of research. No one source of information should be taken as gospel without verification from other sources. | |||
"^ When I want facts Wikipedia is the LAST place I go. "Ok the Oxford dictionary definition then is ==== The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims: the fight against terrorism international terrorism | |||
| |||
| |||
"The desire to make people afraid is, to my mind, the definition of terrorist intent. When some shitty person or some equally as shitty organisation expresses the idea people should be afraid of them well, this clearly DOES mean you want those people to be afraid. And making people afraid of you is [TERROR]ism. I mean, it's right there in the word. And it's a horrible word and an equally horrible thought full stop." | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist."How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .  | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive . " | |||
| |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive . "Whereas your motive is clear. You clearly think that not calling this man, who wasn't a terrorist, a terrorist is double standards because he's white. That's what you've written. You aren't after opinions or willing to learn because you continue to deny the definition of terrorism. It's a clear cut definition. The pilot was not a terrorist. An act causing terror not necessarily terrorism. The actions of the pilot were initially considered as potential terrorism but it was ruled out when the facts were established. Those are the facts. Continuing to argue this was terrorism speaks of a further agenda; that highlighted in your thread title. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though... "That's not what he's saying. His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist. So no, I won't be apologising. You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Whereas your motive is clear.
You clearly think that not calling this man, who wasn't a terrorist, a terrorist is double standards because he's white. That's what you've written.
You aren't after opinions or willing to learn because you continue to deny the definition of terrorism. It's a clear cut definition.
The pilot was not a terrorist. An act causing terror not necessarily terrorism.
The actions of the pilot were initially considered as potential terrorism but it was ruled out when the facts were established.
Those are the facts.
Continuing to argue this was terrorism speaks of a further agenda; that highlighted in your thread title."Hold up , I haven't argued anything , I started with an opinion and have taken on board what everyone else has said I called no one racist , and my thread was pointed more towards the media and not general public , sorry to disappoint you but you have no need to personally attack people in an open discussion . | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Whereas your motive is clear.
You clearly think that not calling this man, who wasn't a terrorist, a terrorist is double standards because he's white. That's what you've written.
You aren't after opinions or willing to learn because you continue to deny the definition of terrorism. It's a clear cut definition.
The pilot was not a terrorist. An act causing terror not necessarily terrorism.
The actions of the pilot were initially considered as potential terrorism but it was ruled out when the facts were established.
Those are the facts.
Continuing to argue this was terrorism speaks of a further agenda; that highlighted in your thread title.
Hold up , I haven't argued anything , I started with an opinion and have taken on board what everyone else has said I called no one racist , and my thread was pointed more towards the media and not general public , sorry to disappoint you but you have no need to personally attack people in an open discussion . " | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not."Do you need a hug or something?? | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something?? "I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Whereas your motive is clear.
You clearly think that not calling this man, who wasn't a terrorist, a terrorist is double standards because he's white. That's what you've written.
You aren't after opinions or willing to learn because you continue to deny the definition of terrorism. It's a clear cut definition.
The pilot was not a terrorist. An act causing terror not necessarily terrorism.
The actions of the pilot were initially considered as potential terrorism but it was ruled out when the facts were established.
Those are the facts.
Continuing to argue this was terrorism speaks of a further agenda; that highlighted in your thread title.
Hold up , I haven't argued anything , I started with an opinion and have taken on board what everyone else has said I called no one racist , and my thread was pointed more towards the media and not general public , sorry to disappoint you but you have no need to personally attack people in an open discussion . "Lol... Virago is clearly correct with her accusation..you have a problem with certain religions "Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions? Did you read that as her accusing you of being a bigot and a racist?I hope not...at best its a badly worded statement,at worst she's making a blatant accusation. 
Lets await the witty retort shall we!  | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Whereas your motive is clear.
You clearly think that not calling this man, who wasn't a terrorist, a terrorist is double standards because he's white. That's what you've written.
You aren't after opinions or willing to learn because you continue to deny the definition of terrorism. It's a clear cut definition.
The pilot was not a terrorist. An act causing terror not necessarily terrorism.
The actions of the pilot were initially considered as potential terrorism but it was ruled out when the facts were established.
Those are the facts.
Continuing to argue this was terrorism speaks of a further agenda; that highlighted in your thread title.
Hold up , I haven't argued anything , I started with an opinion and have taken on board what everyone else has said I called no one racist , and my thread was pointed more towards the media and not general public , sorry to disappoint you but you have no need to personally attack people in an open discussion . "Sorry to disappoint you but your post didn't mention the media at all. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something??
I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards."I love it..I'm bored so I'll give you shit...sound justification there.. | |||
"He was severely depressed, didn't they find loads of doctors papers ripped up at his home? Illness or not he was a selfish prick, could have killed himself alone without having to take innocent people's lives with him. " maybe he was a 'selfish prick' and his course of action only happened because he was ill.. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Whereas your motive is clear.
You clearly think that not calling this man, who wasn't a terrorist, a terrorist is double standards because he's white. That's what you've written.
You aren't after opinions or willing to learn because you continue to deny the definition of terrorism. It's a clear cut definition.
The pilot was not a terrorist. An act causing terror not necessarily terrorism.
The actions of the pilot were initially considered as potential terrorism but it was ruled out when the facts were established.
Those are the facts.
Continuing to argue this was terrorism speaks of a further agenda; that highlighted in your thread title.
Hold up , I haven't argued anything , I started with an opinion and have taken on board what everyone else has said I called no one racist , and my thread was pointed more towards the media and not general public , sorry to disappoint you but you have no need to personally attack people in an open discussion .
Lol...
Virago is clearly correct with her accusation..you have a problem with certain religions
"Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
Did you read that as her accusing you of being a bigot and a racist?I hope not...at best its a badly worded statement,at worst she's making a blatant accusation.
Lets await the witty retort shall we! "If he did he read it as incorrectly as you did. He's accusing us of being racists. Nobody has accused him of being racist. Again, it's double standards, apparently that we're not calling this guy a terrorist because he's white. He's accusing us of being racist, not the other way round. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something??
I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards.
I love it..I'm bored so I'll give you shit...sound justification there.."No, it's being suggested I'm racist and discriminate against certain religions which is what I'm arguing with. We're supposed to condemn someone who wasn't a terrorist as being a terrorist to prove we don't have double standards? We're supposed to change the meaning of the word terrorist to what the OP thinks it means? I don't think so. The OPs claims of double standards are out of order and insulting. | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something??
I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards."Please take friendly advice and don't take part it discussions you find boring, My initial opinion may have been some what ignorant but I have enjoyed the discussion and learnt a lot from others on here , I honestly have no agenda just my first reaction was that of a double standard , and you dont have any right to say what someone else is thinking or interpret what they have said . | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something??
I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards.
I love it..I'm bored so I'll give you shit...sound justification there..
No, it's being suggested I'm racist and discriminate against certain religions which is what I'm arguing with.
We're supposed to condemn someone who wasn't a terrorist as being a terrorist to prove we don't have double standards? We're supposed to change the meaning of the word terrorist to what the OP thinks it means? I don't think so.
The OPs claims of double standards are out of order and insulting."In my honest opinion I feel the OP is displaying double standards himself in that HE wants to see this pilot able a terrorist just because HE feels his act fit's his definition and not the accepted definition of the word TERRORIST, the pilot was a very ill person whom carried out an act of selfishness in causing others to suffer the same fate as himself with no reason | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Whereas your motive is clear.
You clearly think that not calling this man, who wasn't a terrorist, a terrorist is double standards because he's white. That's what you've written.
You aren't after opinions or willing to learn because you continue to deny the definition of terrorism. It's a clear cut definition.
The pilot was not a terrorist. An act causing terror not necessarily terrorism.
The actions of the pilot were initially considered as potential terrorism but it was ruled out when the facts were established.
Those are the facts.
Continuing to argue this was terrorism speaks of a further agenda; that highlighted in your thread title.
Hold up , I haven't argued anything , I started with an opinion and have taken on board what everyone else has said I called no one racist , and my thread was pointed more towards the media and not general public , sorry to disappoint you but you have no need to personally attack people in an open discussion .
Sorry to disappoint you but your post didn't mention the media at all."Sorry for that assumed it was obvious as I don't have crystal balls and I'm not aware of other people's opinions . | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something??
I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards.
I love it..I'm bored so I'll give you shit...sound justification there..
No, it's being suggested I'm racist and discriminate against certain religions which is what I'm arguing with.
We're supposed to condemn someone who wasn't a terrorist as being a terrorist to prove we don't have double standards? We're supposed to change the meaning of the word terrorist to what the OP thinks it means? I don't think so.
The OPs claims of double standards are out of order and insulting.
In my honest opinion I feel the OP is displaying double standards himself in that HE wants to see this pilot able a terrorist just because HE feels his act fit's his definition and not the accepted definition of the word TERRORIST, the pilot was a very ill person whom carried out an act of selfishness in causing others to suffer the same fate as himself with no reason
"It's not a double standard if that's how this event has made me feel then yes , to me rightly or wrongly the term was fitting . | |||
| |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something??
I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards.
Please take friendly advice and don't take part it discussions you find boring,
My initial opinion may have been some what ignorant but I have enjoyed the discussion and learnt a lot from others on here , I honestly have no agenda just my first reaction was that of a double standard , and you dont have any right to say what someone else is thinking or interpret what they have said . "The discrimination accusation is what's boring, not the thread. I'm commenting on what you've written, not what you're thinking. I've never claimed to know what you're thinking, only what you've said. In fact, you've suggested we should know what you're thinking because you say you were talking about the media rather than individuals, yet you didn't write that. But we're supposed to know? Are we supposed to take your words as written and not interpret them, or are we supposed to know what you mean when you haven't said it? Make up your mind. The allegation of double standards is insulting. And with that I'm out before I say something I regret. | |||
"There doesn't appear to have been any religious, political or ideological motivation involved. Therefore he's not a terrorist. " Yup...This is how I view this...there is nothing 'terror' related to it at all. The word is overused now and is designed [at least in part] to have us quaking in our boots every time we leave the house. Some mass murderer types like to think they will achieve notoriety and will even invent their own nickname, which of course the press will leap on... There are serious issues these days with how these things are reported that do not help anyone except the press. | |||
| |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something??
I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards.
Please take friendly advice and don't take part it discussions you find boring,
My initial opinion may have been some what ignorant but I have enjoyed the discussion and learnt a lot from others on here , I honestly have no agenda just my first reaction was that of a double standard , and you dont have any right to say what someone else is thinking or interpret what they have said .
The discrimination accusation is what's boring, not the thread.
I'm commenting on what you've written, not what you're thinking. I've never claimed to know what you're thinking, only what you've said.
In fact, you've suggested we should know what you're thinking because you say you were talking about the media rather than individuals, yet you didn't write that. But we're supposed to know?
Are we supposed to take your words as written and not interpret them, or are we supposed to know what you mean when you haven't said it? Make up your mind.
The allegation of double standards is insulting.
And with that I'm out before I say something I regret."Please feel free to say what you want , we are all adults here, the thread had no intention of insulting anyone and I'm sorry if it did , I expressed more anger and emotion to the situation then i had of true understanding , this thread was useful in helping me understand the yet " terrorist " some people have been great others clearly would prefer an argument . | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something??
I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards.
Please take friendly advice and don't take part it discussions you find boring,
My initial opinion may have been some what ignorant but I have enjoyed the discussion and learnt a lot from others on here , I honestly have no agenda just my first reaction was that of a double standard , and you dont have any right to say what someone else is thinking or interpret what they have said .
The discrimination accusation is what's boring, not the thread.
I'm commenting on what you've written, not what you're thinking. I've never claimed to know what you're thinking, only what you've said.
In fact, you've suggested we should know what you're thinking because you say you were talking about the media rather than individuals, yet you didn't write that. But we're supposed to know?
Are we supposed to take your words as written and not interpret them, or are we supposed to know what you mean when you haven't said it? Make up your mind.
The allegation of double standards is insulting.
And with that I'm out before I say something I regret.
Please feel free to say what you want , we are all adults here, the thread had no intention of insulting anyone and I'm sorry if it did , I expressed more anger and emotion to the situation then i had of true understanding , this thread was useful in helping me understand the yet " terrorist " some people have been great others clearly would prefer an argument . "You've handled your point through this thread impeccably | |||
" By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ?? "SO people who are about to be murdered are not terrified then, meaning the murderer isn't terrifying them thus not a terrorist ... jeeeeeeezz  | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Whereas your motive is clear.
You clearly think that not calling this man, who wasn't a terrorist, a terrorist is double standards because he's white. That's what you've written.
You aren't after opinions or willing to learn because you continue to deny the definition of terrorism. It's a clear cut definition.
The pilot was not a terrorist. An act causing terror not necessarily terrorism.
The actions of the pilot were initially considered as potential terrorism but it was ruled out when the facts were established.
Those are the facts.
Continuing to argue this was terrorism speaks of a further agenda; that highlighted in your thread title.
Hold up , I haven't argued anything , I started with an opinion and have taken on board what everyone else has said I called no one racist , and my thread was pointed more towards the media and not general public , sorry to disappoint you but you have no need to personally attack people in an open discussion .
Lol...
Virago is clearly correct with her accusation..you have a problem with certain religions
"Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
Did you read that as her accusing you of being a bigot and a racist?I hope not...at best its a badly worded statement,at worst she's making a blatant accusation.
Lets await the witty retort shall we!
If he did he read it as incorrectly as you did.
He's accusing us of being racists. Nobody has accused him of being racist.
Again, it's double standards, apparently that we're not calling this guy a terrorist because he's white. He's accusing us of being racist, not the other way round."If you are thinking to yourself how wrong can _ath_neil_bifun be as they saying some stupid,and dull stuff I feel obliged to point out,as we are a couple, its me saying it,and being it,and not Cath.. Cath has the brains in this operation | |||
"I'm sure all the people felt pretty terrified before they died , regardless of political or religious agenda . By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
Words don't work that way. That isn't what terrorism means. It is in no way reducing the horror of the act by saying it is what it is, which is not terrorism.
Sure they do , let's look at the word "fundamental " this is a positive word used to describe people for-filling a primary rule I.e doing something the right way , you would want your doctor to be a fundamentalist In his trade , the same with your Plummer , yet the term is given a somewhat different meaning when used to describe a muslim , the term is automatically a negative .
So those people experienced horror, that doesn't make the perpetrator a "horrorist". It was a tragic event, that doesn't mean he was a "tragedist".
Your definition is not what fundamentalist means either. I don't want my doctor to be a fundamentalist, the word has no meaning in the way you have used it there. Also, fundamentalist is not a description used exclusively in relation to Muslims, you will see and hear plenty of criticism of fundamentalist Christians.
I think I get the basic gist of your original point, which is that if he'd been Muslim we would have jumped initially to the conclusion that he was a terrorist. But that still doesn't work as an argument, because when it was subsequently revealed that there was no religious or political motivation then he is not a terrorist, while white terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, ARE terrorists because they WERE politically motivated.
True but due to them being white there was still in my opinion a lack of the label of them being terrorist .
I have just googled both of their names. The first thing that comes up is the description of both of them as terrorists. I thought of them as terrorists when I was thinking of an example. How are they not labelled as terrorists?
Because it doesn't fit the OPs agenda on racism and discrimination against certain religions?
That's what this is really about after all.
We haven't all labelled a white man (who wasn't a terrorist) as a terrorist so we're all racist.
How rude I have no agenda , just opinions and I'm more then willing to learn from others , I totally resent this statement, I'm not labelling anyone and never would , your reply here certainly leaves me to question your motive .
Ha..that's fab for you.
It's full 'opinions'.
Truth and reality don't mean shit on here..you talk about terrorism as a white man!you must be a racist...even though you are talking about a white pilot and wondering if he could be classed as a terrorist...
Don't expect an apology though...
That's not what he's saying.
His claim is that we all have double standards because we aren't branding the white man a terrorist whereas we (allegedly) would have called a brown man in the same situation a terrorist.
So no, I won't be apologising.
You may be happy with the allegation you have double standards and are racist but I'm not.
Do you need a hug or something??
I'm fine. You're the one with the agenda. I find your suggestion of double standards insulting. And boring. It's been clearly explained, numerous times, why the pilot wasn't a terrorist so no double standards.
Please take friendly advice and don't take part it discussions you find boring,
My initial opinion may have been some what ignorant but I have enjoyed the discussion and learnt a lot from others on here , I honestly have no agenda just my first reaction was that of a double standard , and you dont have any right to say what someone else is thinking or interpret what they have said .
The discrimination accusation is what's boring, not the thread.
I'm commenting on what you've written, not what you're thinking. I've never claimed to know what you're thinking, only what you've said.
In fact, you've suggested we should know what you're thinking because you say you were talking about the media rather than individuals, yet you didn't write that. But we're supposed to know?
Are we supposed to take your words as written and not interpret them, or are we supposed to know what you mean when you haven't said it? Make up your mind.
The allegation of double standards is insulting.
And with that I'm out before I say something I regret.
Please feel free to say what you want , we are all adults here, the thread had no intention of insulting anyone and I'm sorry if it did , I expressed more anger and emotion to the situation then i had of true understanding , this thread was useful in helping me understand the yet " terrorist " some people have been great others clearly would prefer an argument .
You've handled your point through this thread impeccably "That's really kind , I can defiantly see room for improvement but I really appreciate you saying so . X | |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? " I was thinking along similar lines. A white person commits a heinous act and excuses are made. It was depression, they had issues, can't believe it, something must have gone wrong! If your skin tone is darker than "American tan" then words like terrorist, gangster, radicalised, monster etc follow. | |||
"Nope - regardless of colour/religion/race it would seem to be a person with mental health issues and not terror related " See what I mean..."mental health issues". | |||
"I think that if he were brown skinned there would have been more speculation, the word count would have been much more terrorist related,, sadly that's how the media works " Indeed! | |||
| |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? " Due to the current sensitivities I have no doubt that the media reaction would have been a much stronger assumption of terrorism had the pilot been muslim and therefore there would have been more use of the word 'terrorism' by the media prior to finding out that the incident was most likely the act of a man with a severe mental illness. Some media outlets did ask the question but not as many as I believe would have done had a muslim been in the cockpit. Now that we have a better idea of the motive it is unlikely that the 'terrorist' label would have been used whatever the pilots religion much after the initial reaction. The definition of terrorism has little to do with the initial assumption of terrorism. It's only when the facts come out that a decision can be made as to whether it was a terrorist act or not. By then lots of newspapers have already been sold on the assumption. | |||
| |||
" By your definition then all murders are carried out by terrorists ??
No because some are not planned or cause "terror" as such .
You can have revenge or a crime of passion , I just can't help but think about the fear they must have all felt on that decent , for me the only fitting word is terrified thus leaves me to conclude the person terrifying them is a terrorist ??
SO people who are about to be murdered are not terrified then, meaning the murderer isn't terrifying them thus not a terrorist ... jeeeeeeezz "The word terrorist does not mean to terrify someone. | |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? I was thinking along similar lines. A white person commits a heinous act and excuses are made. It was depression, they had issues, can't believe it, something must have gone wrong! If your skin tone is darker than "American tan" then words like terrorist, gangster, radicalised, monster etc follow. " I am not saying it is right, but is that because of the world we live in at the moment? The first thing people think of when a tragedy occurs is I wonder if it is connected with ISIS etc, Now of course the man could have been a terrorist whatever the colour of his skin, but up to now it sounds like he wasn't. | |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? I was thinking along similar lines. A white person commits a heinous act and excuses are made. It was depression, they had issues, can't believe it, something must have gone wrong! If your skin tone is darker than "American tan" then words like terrorist, gangster, radicalised, monster etc follow. I am not saying it is right, but is that because of the world we live in at the moment? The first thing people think of when a tragedy occurs is I wonder if it is connected with ISIS etc, Now of course the man could have been a terrorist whatever the colour of his skin, but up to now it sounds like he wasn't." This is true , but there are plenty of terrorist attcks going on all round the world by loads of diffrent groups but the media chooses not to prit story's on them , for some reason they seem compelled to keep islamaphobia in the hearts of the masses . | |||
" I am not saying it is right, but is that because of the world we live in at the moment? The first thing people think of when a tragedy occurs is I wonder if it is connected with ISIS etc, Now of course the man could have been a terrorist whatever the colour of his skin, but up to now it sounds like he wasn't." This! I will admit that my first thought was along those lines (ISIS) and I agree it is likely to be a reflection of our experience over the past... decade or so. Perhaps really ever since 9/11? | |||
" This is true , but there are plenty of terrorist attcks going on all round the world by loads of diffrent groups but the media chooses not to prit story's on them , for some reason they seem compelled to keep islamaphobia in the hearts of the masses . " Could you give us some recent examples? | |||
" This is true , but there are plenty of terrorist attcks going on all round the world by loads of diffrent groups but the media chooses not to prit story's on them , for some reason they seem compelled to keep islamaphobia in the hearts of the masses . " Have you got some examples? | |||
" I am not saying it is right, but is that because of the world we live in at the moment? The first thing people think of when a tragedy occurs is I wonder if it is connected with ISIS etc, Now of course the man could have been a terrorist whatever the colour of his skin, but up to now it sounds like he wasn't. This! I will admit that my first thought was along those lines (ISIS) and I agree it is likely to be a reflection of our experience over the past... decade or so. Perhaps really ever since 9/11? " Yes | |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? I was thinking along similar lines. A white person commits a heinous act and excuses are made. It was depression, they had issues, can't believe it, something must have gone wrong! If your skin tone is darker than "American tan" then words like terrorist, gangster, radicalised, monster etc follow. I am not saying it is right, but is that because of the world we live in at the moment? The first thing people think of when a tragedy occurs is I wonder if it is connected with ISIS etc, Now of course the man could have been a terrorist whatever the colour of his skin, but up to now it sounds like he wasn't." There is no denying the world has changed since 9/11. Any disaster nowadays you do think terrorist attack. My point was there appears to me, people bending over backwards to excuse this man, it was depression etc, thereby damming those that suffer depression as potential mass murderers. A black person would have been labeled monster, savage, evil etc. | |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? I was thinking along similar lines. A white person commits a heinous act and excuses are made. It was depression, they had issues, can't believe it, something must have gone wrong! If your skin tone is darker than "American tan" then words like terrorist, gangster, radicalised, monster etc follow. I am not saying it is right, but is that because of the world we live in at the moment? The first thing people think of when a tragedy occurs is I wonder if it is connected with ISIS etc, Now of course the man could have been a terrorist whatever the colour of his skin, but up to now it sounds like he wasn't. There is no denying the world has changed since 9/11. Any disaster nowadays you do think terrorist attack. My point was there appears to me, people bending over backwards to excuse this man, it was depression etc, thereby damming those that suffer depression as potential mass murderers. A black person would have been labeled monster, savage, evil etc." | |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? I was thinking along similar lines. A white person commits a heinous act and excuses are made. It was depression, they had issues, can't believe it, something must have gone wrong! If your skin tone is darker than "American tan" then words like terrorist, gangster, radicalised, monster etc follow. I am not saying it is right, but is that because of the world we live in at the moment? The first thing people think of when a tragedy occurs is I wonder if it is connected with ISIS etc, Now of course the man could have been a terrorist whatever the colour of his skin, but up to now it sounds like he wasn't. There is no denying the world has changed since 9/11. Any disaster nowadays you do think terrorist attack. My point was there appears to me, people bending over backwards to excuse this man, it was depression etc, thereby damming those that suffer depression as potential mass murderers. A black person would have been labeled monster, savage, evil etc." Really can't agree with either of those points. I've seen plenty of reporting condemning his actions and rightly so - looking into his mental health is not seeking to excuse it, but to understand why and how such a thing could be prevented from happening again. And the other stuff I've seen has also pointed out how unbelievably rare murder-suicides are, while depression is quite common. We must read different papers or watch different news channels. | |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? I was thinking along similar lines. A white person commits a heinous act and excuses are made. It was depression, they had issues, can't believe it, something must have gone wrong! If your skin tone is darker than "American tan" then words like terrorist, gangster, radicalised, monster etc follow. I am not saying it is right, but is that because of the world we live in at the moment? The first thing people think of when a tragedy occurs is I wonder if it is connected with ISIS etc, Now of course the man could have been a terrorist whatever the colour of his skin, but up to now it sounds like he wasn't. There is no denying the world has changed since 9/11. Any disaster nowadays you do think terrorist attack. My point was there appears to me, people bending over backwards to excuse this man, it was depression etc, thereby damming those that suffer depression as potential mass murderers. A black person would have been labeled monster, savage, evil etc." I am noy sure I agree with your last sentance but I do agree with your one above that. I think sometimes there are too many justifications for people doing horrific things at times. If the man hadn't had depression I am sure there would be something else made as a reason. | |||
" This is true , but there are plenty of terrorist attcks going on all round the world by loads of diffrent groups but the media chooses not to prit story's on them , for some reason they seem compelled to keep islamaphobia in the hearts of the masses . Have you got some examples?" Ah you are back OP...do you have any examples we could look at? | |||
"He was severely depressed, didn't they find loads of doctors papers ripped up at his home? Illness or not he was a selfish prick, could have killed himself alone without having to take innocent people's lives with him. " How do you know he did not think he was alone? We do not know what mental state he was in at the time. Speculating does not help anyone, especially those who have lost loved ones. | |||
" This is true , but there are plenty of terrorist attcks going on all round the world by loads of diffrent groups but the media chooses not to prit story's on them , for some reason they seem compelled to keep islamaphobia in the hearts of the masses . Have you got some examples? Ah you are back OP...do you have any examples we could look at?" Perhaps Google is down... | |||
" This is true , but there are plenty of terrorist attcks going on all round the world by loads of diffrent groups but the media chooses not to prit story's on them , for some reason they seem compelled to keep islamaphobia in the hearts of the masses . Have you got some examples? Ah you are back OP...do you have any examples we could look at?" Sure the burning of innocent people in Burma by baddest monks , chapel hill case ( not terrorism) but still media silence , prolonged persecution of Palestinians ,the bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kashmir , of innocent civilians , not to mention the huge numbers of cartel operating and killing people daily , bro nazi groups still in operation as well as KKK , the mining for Colton in the Congo over fifty workers sprayed down by Machine guns during a protest .all of the above not covered by media and if it is it's done very gingerly , if you follow news on YouTube it won't stay on there for long but you do get to see whats going on , I've seen sick stuff I don't even understand but never the less was not mentioned in the news or papers , sorry I could not give better examples off the too of my head , my mind went blank , my point is there is lots of evil going on in the world and we only see a fraction of it . | |||
" This is true , but there are plenty of terrorist attcks going on all round the world by loads of diffrent groups but the media chooses not to prit story's on them , for some reason they seem compelled to keep islamaphobia in the hearts of the masses . Have you got some examples? Ah you are back OP...do you have any examples we could look at? Sure the burning of innocent people in Burma by baddest monks , chapel hill case ( not terrorism) but still media silence , prolonged persecution of Palestinians ,the bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kashmir , of innocent civilians , not to mention the huge numbers of cartel operating and killing people daily , bro nazi groups still in operation as well as KKK , the mining for Colton in the Congo over fifty workers sprayed down by Machine guns during a protest .all of the above not covered by media and if it is it's done very gingerly , if you follow news on YouTube it won't stay on there for long but you do get to see whats going on , I've seen sick stuff I don't even understand but never the less was not mentioned in the news or papers , sorry I could not give better examples off the too of my head , my mind went blank , my point is there is lots of evil going on in the world and we only see a fraction of it . " All evil things indeed and some definitely worthy of more coverage. Very few of those would count as terrorist attacks by terrorist groups though. | |||
| |||
"I was just thinking about this mass killing with the plane crash last week , I noticed there is a lack of the word terrorist used in this devastating situation .... It leaves me to ponder would there have been more use of the word "terrorist"if the man had been brown or muslim ? " No. He did not hijack the plane. He was the pilot. He was not affiliated to any known terrorist group. He was not acting politically. He was not a terrorist. He was not acting against a country or a people. There wasn't any reason for anyone to assume that he was a terrorist. | |||
"Without taking anything away from the subject, I'd love to meet the baddest monks and Bro nazis!" . | |||
" This is true , but there are plenty of terrorist attcks going on all round the world by loads of diffrent groups but the media chooses not to prit story's on them , for some reason they seem compelled to keep islamaphobia in the hearts of the masses . Have you got some examples? Ah you are back OP...do you have any examples we could look at? Sure the burning of innocent people in Burma by baddest monks , chapel hill case ( not terrorism) but still media silence , prolonged persecution of Palestinians ,the bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kashmir , of innocent civilians , not to mention the huge numbers of cartel operating and killing people daily , bro nazi groups still in operation as well as KKK , the mining for Colton in the Congo over fifty workers sprayed down by Machine guns during a protest .all of the above not covered by media and if it is it's done very gingerly , if you follow news on YouTube it won't stay on there for long but you do get to see whats going on , I've seen sick stuff I don't even understand but never the less was not mentioned in the news or papers , sorry I could not give better examples off the too of my head , my mind went blank , my point is there is lots of evil going on in the world and we only see a fraction of it . " There is only one of those that I can't find anything on ( but I am probably not searching for the right thing ) all the rest were in the media | |||
"Without taking anything away from the subject, I'd love to meet the baddest monks and Bro nazis!" Lmao  bloody spell check !! | |||
