Several posts in different threads prompt this...
Wade Page, the shooter at the Sikh temple in Oak Park, Wisconsin, is being called a terrorist. The same allegation has been made against others, like James Holmes (Batman shooter) and Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood)... But can we call anyone who scares people a terrorist? Do their beliefs make them a terrorist -- or their acts? Must the acts be tied to beliefs? What about someone who donates money to a group that may carry out acts of terrorism? What if that money is going through several cutouts first, aligned with the beliefs of the terrorist group, but not directly aligned with the terrorist acts.
One definition of terrorism is the calculated use of force or threatened use of force, to obtain political, social, or religious goals. I think that's a good starting point, and a good way to start distinguishing believers from actual terrorists. Let's look closer at that definition. Calculated... in other words, planned, conceived and targeted with a greater goal in mind, either through visibility or actual selection. A UBN gang member running down the street, slashing someone's face to give them a buck-fifty, isn't likely to be a calculated act. Do much the same thing, targeting only Sikhs or Muslims or skinheads or red heads... Now we're getting closer. Sometimes, the target is selected for visibility. The Twin Towers were a symbol of American economic power; the Pentagon a symbol of US military might. Other targets, like car bombs near shopping centers get a lot of attention and scare a lot people, demonstrating the power of the group. Force: violence. Pretty simple. The bigger, the nastier, the more killed or more destruction -- or the more vulnerable and helpless the victim -- the better for the end goal. And that's the big thing -- the end goal. Making a change happen, by scaring people into it. The Unabomber was a whack job, not a terrorist -- until he released his manifesto. Timothy McVeigh is a tougher call; nobody ever really tied him more than peripherally to any of the various anti-government groups or militias.
Where does that leave us with regard to Holmes or Page? Well -- Holmes, clearly, wasn't a terrorist, no matter how much terror he inspired in his victims. While he had a plan, it was not connected to any sort of change. Page? He had ties to organizations that certainly want to make change happen -- but nobody's claimed his acts. He made no statements, left no manifesto... it's not even really clear whether he was targeting Sikhs or Muslims or just non-whites. Hard to call him a terrorist by that definition, at least so far. Hasan? He's kind of on the line, I think. His actions were not supported or guided by any of the organizations he had ties to -- but they do seem to be aimed at furthering their goals.
Wade Page, the shooter at the Sikh temple in Oak Park, Wisconsin, is being called a terrorist. The same allegation has been made against others, like James Holmes (Batman shooter) and Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood)... But can we call anyone who scares people a terrorist? Do their beliefs make them a terrorist -- or their acts? Must the acts be tied to beliefs? What about someone who donates money to a group that may carry out acts of terrorism? What if that money is going through several cutouts first, aligned with the beliefs of the terrorist group, but not directly aligned with the terrorist acts.
One definition of terrorism is the calculated use of force or threatened use of force, to obtain political, social, or religious goals. I think that's a good starting point, and a good way to start distinguishing believers from actual terrorists. Let's look closer at that definition. Calculated... in other words, planned, conceived and targeted with a greater goal in mind, either through visibility or actual selection. A UBN gang member running down the street, slashing someone's face to give them a buck-fifty, isn't likely to be a calculated act. Do much the same thing, targeting only Sikhs or Muslims or skinheads or red heads... Now we're getting closer. Sometimes, the target is selected for visibility. The Twin Towers were a symbol of American economic power; the Pentagon a symbol of US military might. Other targets, like car bombs near shopping centers get a lot of attention and scare a lot people, demonstrating the power of the group. Force: violence. Pretty simple. The bigger, the nastier, the more killed or more destruction -- or the more vulnerable and helpless the victim -- the better for the end goal. And that's the big thing -- the end goal. Making a change happen, by scaring people into it. The Unabomber was a whack job, not a terrorist -- until he released his manifesto. Timothy McVeigh is a tougher call; nobody ever really tied him more than peripherally to any of the various anti-government groups or militias.
Where does that leave us with regard to Holmes or Page? Well -- Holmes, clearly, wasn't a terrorist, no matter how much terror he inspired in his victims. While he had a plan, it was not connected to any sort of change. Page? He had ties to organizations that certainly want to make change happen -- but nobody's claimed his acts. He made no statements, left no manifesto... it's not even really clear whether he was targeting Sikhs or Muslims or just non-whites. Hard to call him a terrorist by that definition, at least so far. Hasan? He's kind of on the line, I think. His actions were not supported or guided by any of the organizations he had ties to -- but they do seem to be aimed at furthering their goals.
and but by the above definition "the calculated use of force or threatened use of force, to obtain political, social, or religious goals" you would see one nation invading another as terrorism no? Germany invade Poland to give german people lebensraum (even there were other more valid reasons).. that is not terrorism?? 
