Why is the term terrorist only used for Muslim extremism?

Not necessarily the case, but I'm referring to the who not the what. I've mentioned multiple people and when he states "he" I do not know who he was referring to.

Well possibly, cannibalism and ritual killings did (and perhaps still do) have a spot in remote cultures.

Anyway, I was stating you need to analyze said cultures and their norms/policies/and such in order to compare them. I can certainly grab two random countries and compare their policies, but it doesn't mean it's going to get me anywhere. There's a reason you cannot just taking a working policy in the U.S. and transplant it to a Middle Eastern country and expect it to work the same way.

And no, the U.S. has the most gun related deaths due to lack of policy initiative, bad gun control, and a broken mental health system (among numerous other reasons).

This is not what I said. I elaborated on the existence of hate crimes with the acknowledgement that they allow for federal charges unlike that of other crimes. You're ignoring the entire part before that where I compared the hatred due to someone's traits (ex: race) and hatred due to something such as adultery.

You should get your stats from somewhere else other than Wikipedia. GunPolicy puts Serbia at #5 for guns per capita at 37.82 guns per 100 people. Respectively, the U.S. at #1 with 101.05 firearms per 100 people (yes there is roughly one gun for every person in the United States).

There guns per capita isn't half of what the U.S. is; furthermore, they also have more restrictive gun laws so individuals cannot walk into a school with an assault rifle and a shotgun.

No advanced democratic country compares to the U.S. in gun ownership, lack of gun control, and gun deaths.

Well, you are surely not referring to any attack on American soil. Can you imagine the uproar that would have taken place if the Boston Bombers were promptly denied their basic rights and tortured?

Do you have anything to back up what you're stating? Where is this extremely delayed trial and the shorter sentences taking place? Roof will definitely get life in prison, if not the death penalty (not sure if Carolina has it).

Now, if you're talking outside of actual domestic terrorist events, then yes CIA black sites have denied muslims their basic rights. They get around this by saying it's not American soil and it's a "time of war." Also outside of domestic terrorist events, white americans are definitely treated different by law enforcement than minority groups. You can look at arrest rates, jail sentences, all that, but that does not pertain to this thread.

Except, when a huge mass shooting occurred in 1996, Australia stepped up and heavily restricted access to guns. What happened? A mass shooting hasn't happened since (shocker).

I should of also mentioned that Australia had a massive gun removal program and that while they be around #40 today, that was not the case in 90's. Also, you had yet to make a comparison to Serbia.

No that isn't my argument at all. You jumped on with a South Park video arguing that hate crimes are just like every other crime (which they are not). I simply pointed out what makes hate crimes different and further elaborated with the federal jurisdiction aspect.

Not the case at all. When I referred to federal charges, I specifically mentioned in the 60's where hate crimes against blacks were rampant. The KKK was a much bigger force then and enforcement of crimes that were white verse black were spotty at best. It certainly makes sense in that time period, now, charges are certainly going to happen. The U.S. may still have its' race issues, but it has come far enough to ensure someone like Roof doesn't get away with such a horrific crime.

I don't really understand your comparison. It's not an additional crime, it is a different crime; there's a reason you're charged with one crime and not two separate ones (one that denotes hates and one the denotes murder).

How is arson and fraud not punishable?.. You will be charged with said crimes.

Why is any law written specifically out, what makes second degree murder "special" from first degree murder when in both circumstances an individual was killed? Because different circumstances warrant different charges.

 

Yes that is the case, all mentally deranged people are mentally ill but not all mentally ill people are mentally deranged. It was in the first sentence of your post I believe.

You can't seriously try to bring that into this argument.

No one is comparing the U.S to the Middle East.

Can you provide any proof of it having anything to do with mental health. I agree with the first two but people seem to always jump on the train that if it's a white guy committing a crime it has to do with mental health, black guy is a thug, Muslim is a terrorist, etc..

This is not what I said. I elaborated on the existence of hate crimes with the acknowledgement that they allow for federal charges unlike that of other crimes. You're ignoring the entire part before that where I compared the hatred due to someone's traits (ex: race) and hatred due to something such as adultery.

1. There is no such thing as getting a source from "Wikipedia", they cite other sources and compile them into a page.
2. I honestly have no idea why we're debating gun control and such, we have gone way off topic.



This isn't SFA, I don't really have time to make thought out intellectual arguments right now and respond to all of yours, I'll probably get back to it just so you know I'm not ignoring you. You make a lot of good points that I both agree with and disprove some of my arguments, yet I feel like we have gone way off topic from the original argument/posed question.

 

Just providing an example, but such practices aren't as dated as you may think.

I was providing an example for why just transplanting "well this is how they do it here" into a similar situation in a different area can completely fail.

Well, all you would need to do is look at the prison system and realize the amount of mentally ill people are being held there. Look at said population and analyze the amount of gun-related crime has taken place; furthermore, you could root through dozens (if not hundreds) of news articles that point out cases of mental health and gun violence. It is part of the reason, not the sole reason.

Said correlations are there, thug (IMO) is now the politically correct way to say nigger. You do not hear news outlets, or even people refer to a white individual doing something uncivil as a thug. Stereotypes are certainly there, but the bandwagon of calling a muslim terrorist and a black person a thug does not diminish the mental health problem in the U.S.

If you read Wikipedia, get your information from Wikipedia, and proceed to write with said information, you got it from Wikipedia and should source it as such. Wikipedia compiles sources and such sure, but the website isn't just one massive direct quote. They are paraphrasing and compiling their listed sources. What you are reading is Wikipedia, if you want to source something else, refer to that specific source that they reference in their footnotes.

I believe because you tried comparing the gun violence of first Sweden/Switzerland and then Serbia to that of the U.S. and questioned why such a gap exists.

Well SFA and General Discussion certainly overlap and I'm always up for a little bit of banter on a touchy topic, but alright.

 

Correlation does not imply causation. No sorry we can't "just look" at something, you are in no academic or scholarly position to make such conclusions.

But the whole argument is that the media is misrepresenting things with a bias towards white people and their "mental illnesses".

Alright I'll be sure to do that next time.

Yeah but we aren't debating about gun violence, your post went way off topic, I just made a side remark.

And I agree, I'm willing to respond to short concise posts like this and others, but I cba to bring in heaps of sources, make different links in arguments, etc. in a GD thread. If I wanted a more intellectual discussion I would have posted it in SFA. Not saying that I don't appreciate your responses and enthusiasm, I look forward to your replies but try not to make them too long.

 

This thread is real fucking long so I'm not reading it, but in case nobody's mentioned it already the Charleston shooter is being regarded as a domestic terrorist. Also the Boston marathon bombers are regarded as terrorists. The term isn't bias, it's just that radical Muslim attacks are most frequent.

 

Obviously his act is being labeled as domestic terrorism but still no media outlets are calling him a terrorist. Also you're just wrong, radical Muslim attacks are not the most frequent, you said you didn't read the thread but why not just read the first post, the most frequent attacks are done by other groups such as right wing terror.

 

This is a great question and is rightfully but slowly getting the attention it deserves. We as a people have to stop stereotyping each other. It will be our demise. A white man can be just as extreme of a terrorist as a yellow, black, red, yellow or blue man.

 

It's the same all over the world, not just defined to American land, what do you call the acts of Hitler, genocide, or terrorism? Everyone labels it genocide, it can be labelled both though, as well as ethnic cleansing. The white men who went to Australia and raped women to give them white babies and killed the Aborigine men, was that terrorism? No. It was ethnic cleansing, and to the least was barely even noticed. But it was terrorism.

For some reason if the act is committed by your own people on your land, it's not defined as terrorism instantly, if it is by an outsider country/type of people/set of beliefs, in this instance defined to Muslims, they label it as terrorism, because they have done so for many years.


IRA? Irish Republican Army, they committed terrorism, they're known for the acts the committed, but they're still labelled an army.


Klu Klux Klan, christian terrorism, but are they known as terrorists..? no.. they're known as KKK.

It is especially common in USA though, they don't wish to label their own as terrorism, because it will cause an uproar,...I mean their own people? defined as those same people they label the Muslims? You really think the media there want to do that? Ofcourse not, the Government owns everything especially media.

 

Aryan Brotherhood, Aryan Nation, labeled by the FBI as terrorists.

Prerequisite for entry into these groups? Be white.

 

Because terrorism is having the intention to cause terror. Mass murders and shootings have a different intention, they are just to kill people for the sake of killing. You are incorrect for labeling the Charleston shooting as an act of domestic terrorism because it wasn't an act of domestic terrorism. Muslims are always committing terrorism which is why they are labeled as terrorists.

 

its to gain support of the country into all the invasions they are doing, america profits from the war on terror it makes them billions every year

 

Bro you are kidding yourself if you think ANY shooter who kills any people in something that COULD be perceived as terrorist acts (whether or not the media labels it like that) is getting anything less than multiple life sentences in the most secure federal prisons.

There is a 0% chance that charleston guy is getting anything but life because he's white.

 

Intent matters. "Terrorism" is anything designed to cause terror to achieve a goal, therefore a mentally ill man shooting up a theater in Colorado is not terrorism.

FYI, white people do get called terrorists. See here, and here.

 

Terrorism-- a technique open to insurgent groups which entails the deliberate targeting of civilians to create a culture of fear within the target population; garner support in the form of money, people, and materiel; and portray an image of lawlessness through the lens of international media organizations in order to serve the planned ends of an insurgent movement

His goal was to cause terror. He is a domestic terrorist.

 

I do not understand why this is continually thrown around. Causing terror does not make you a terrorist.

If we want to assign the label "terrorist" to anybody that does something terrorizing, practically any violent/criminal act including, but not limited to: rape, murder, and arson would have the perpetrator labeled as a terrorist. Acts are terrorizing, yes, but they are not terrorists.

In order to be a terrorist, you need to be a non-state actor, attacking civilians, with some sort of political motive/goal. No political motive? You're not a terrorist. You're not a non-state actor? Not a terrorist. You attacked an opposing military? Not a terrorist, well, in the actual use of the word.

Now, where things get complicated is identifying said political motive, because quite often said motive isn't incredibly clear and terrorist organizations often go against their own stated political interests/goals.

 

"Violence, or the threat of violence, against non-combatants or civilians, usually motivated by political, religious, or ideological beliefs."

^ Definition attributed to the US

The definition is still too broad. Say I dislike the media, and because of that, I go outside and stab two unarmed men (not to death). That makes me a domestic terrorist. I wouldn't be specified as such because the word is reserved for extreme conditions, but that doesn't remove the technicality of it.

If you remember and followed the story of James Holmes, it details of the premeditated acts of buying excessive force, and planting bombs in his house. No criminal history, and excelling grades.

Now I know being mentally ill does not attribute, or have significant relation to your criminal record, but it sure does twists the way you think of someone being mentally ill.

Now let's look at what makes someone mentally ill

"A mental illness is a disease that causes mild to severe disturbances in thought and/or behavior, resulting in an inability to cope with life’s ordinary demands and routines."

So acting or thinking outside of the boundaries of morality induced by a society within you reside would make you mentally ill? Your ideologies that circumvent US law would determine you as mentally ill. My inability to cope with the understandings of the constitution determines me as mentally ill.

Hmm..

Wouldn't all criminals be labeled as mentally ill no matter the motive? Of course not. The media has to reserve the word for the sake of convenience, e.g., white male terrorists.

What am I getting at here? The word is manipulated to fit certain people. As long as you're determined mentally ill (anyone who acts against the law can be determined as mentally ill), you can offset the notion of being labeled as a terrorist, all motives aside.