Amazon.com Widgets

Should Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine be considered 'terrorism?'

  • I think so.

    Yes, I think that Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson, and Columbine should be considered terrorism. These are forms of domestic terrorism, but I still think that they qualify as terrorism. The definition of terrorism is using violence to achieve political goals. I guess you have to look at each of these perpetrators and determine what they were trying to gain from their actions.

  • Three Americans killed, hundreds wounded. Twelve Americans killed, fifty wounded. Thirty three dead, fifteen wounded.

    Two people who grew up in the United States and went to school in America decided to plant explosives and kill three innocent people, and injuring hundreds of more. In Colorado, one person decides to kill twelve people and injuring many more in a MOVIE THEATRE. Two kids decided to kill over ten students in their high school. All of these events have a lot in common, upset one of them is considered an act of terror, the others: a crime. I don't think people should call it an act of terror because these kids (Tsarnaev brothers) aren't born in the U.S. Or that they're Muslims. FBI has identified these people who performed this. One has been killed, and the other is in custody. The movie theatre killer was also held in custody, went to a FEDERAL court and was given his punishment for killing innocent people. Explosives were used in the Columbine incodent as well as the Marathon.

  • No, for Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and Tucson to be considered terrorism ,one would essentially be offering up their civil liberties for the taking.

    This is a slippery slope America is on right now.. The president has signed legislation that gives the US military every right to kill Americans ,on American soil, when that citizen is considered a “enemy-combatant” or carrying out “terrorist” activities.. This, along with indefinite imprisonment without Miranda rights or conviction (the right to a speedy trial) all points towards an eventual police state..

  • No, terrorism is a different deal all together.

    The shooters did not have a political goal they had mental health issues. Why is nobody calling WMD on the pharmaceutical corporations that made the psychiatric drugs that these killers were prescribed ?
    Boston has some details that don't add up so it needs more investigation. Calling terrorism is creating an excuse for a firearm ban.

  • Not all violent acts are terrorism.

    Well, it's a "maybe," but I'll tell you why I said "no." We need to stop calling any act of violence "terrorism." Terrorism means something specific. It is done with a specific type of goal in mind. We can only rightfully call these acts "terrorism" if we know the motives of the suspects/perpetrators and know that they had terrorism in mind.

  • Not all violent acts are terrorism.

    Well, it's a "maybe," but I'll tell you why I said "no." We need to stop calling any act of violence "terrorism." Terrorism means something specific. It is done with a specific type of goal in mind. We can only rightfully call these acts "terrorism" if we know the motives of the suspects/perpetrators and know that they had terrorism in mind.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.