Did the shooter not terrorised the university, the town and its people? What is the difference of this act versus terrorism going on in Iraq and the rest of the world?
2007-04-16 09:17:34 · 11 answers · asked by furrryyy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Thank you! In light of terrorism against our country, HOW DARE one of our own do this horrible act of violence! If you have a beef with someone, take it up with them personally, don't harm innocent people. Thanks for your analogy.
2007-04-16 09:22:16 · answer #1 · answered by x dee x 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
It was an act of terrorism. Just because it was done by a fellow American does not void the fact that the act committed was an act of terrorism. I watched a show on mass shootings and the psychology behind them and they said that these people are angry at society so they want to hurt as many people as they can. They usually plan suicide. Suicides are generally comitted by people who want others to suffer. These people want a lot of people to be hurt. And although, they are generally people at random, that they target, they usually pick a place that symbolizes some type of root of their frustration. Maybe he didn't like educated people or he went there himself. I don't know but it's absolutely horrific and this evil terrorist was successful in making his footprint on the world as I bet he planned to do.
2007-04-16 09:27:44 · answer #2 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Terrorism has been around a long time. We are still trying to understand differences. A crude example: if you act in a manner that kills someone, it is murder if planned and not murder if not planned. Another argues that dead is dead.
Terrorism is just as easily confusing. That is part of the appeal to a terrorist. A serial killer is not a terrorist because of the motive and target. Terrorist are not trying to kill specific people. They are trying to terrorize a group of people.
It's tough to answer such a question. There are too many similarities and differences which are not common from one case to another.
2007-04-16 09:30:36 · answer #3 · answered by Jack 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Terrorism:
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"
Thus far, it just seems the guy was a psycho who wanted to kill people. When there are demands that the US government start doing something.. then it becomes terrorism.
2007-04-16 09:25:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I truly have not heard one iota about how they might have warned the little ones on campus. maximum scholars stay off campus. until eventually that they had an emergency announcement over all radio stations (like a flash flood style caution) they couldn't have performed some thing. They concept the first 2 capturing were it and that he replaced into performed. How ought to they have understand he ought to proceed later? a important problem replaced into that they knew this 23 year previous newborn had issues. They tried to get him some help and HE refused. What replaced into VT think to do, tie him down and say "you'd be helped?"
2016-12-04 03:34:29 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism is not a generic word to describe any random act of violence.
No matter how heinous.
By that standard any murder could be called terrorism.
2007-04-16 09:25:56 · answer #6 · answered by Eyota Xin 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism.
2007-04-16 09:23:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
In a sense it is terrorism, because of its randomness and how it forces people to abandon everyday normalcy. But the other half of the definition of terrorism is usually about the motive. Terrorists have an explicit agenda or are attempting to achieve an objective. I'm not certain that we know enough to state that this was your 'traditional' terrorist act.
2007-04-16 09:25:14 · answer #8 · answered by cbgaviniii 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why does anything violent anymore have to be called a terrorist attack? We've been brainwashed by all of this middle east stuff. Terrorism is generally defined as a violent attack on a person or group of people for political reasons. This attack was not politically oriented. This attack was nothing more than an unstable person taking rash actions for his thinking. It is terribly sad, but not everything is a terrorist attack.
2007-04-16 09:37:24 · answer #9 · answered by Venice Girl 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The shooting was an act of terrorism, there is no difference.
2007-04-16 09:21:33 · answer #10 · answered by smedrik 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋