Syria News Wire

Syria News Wire header image 2


April 16th, 2007 · 9 Comments · Uncategorized

Why is this not called ‘terrorism’?


9 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Anonymous // Apr 17, 2007 at 1.37 am

    err, because there’s no obvious political motive?

  • 2 sasa // Apr 17, 2007 at 2.08 am

    Look at the act, and the meaning of the word. It is the effect, not the intention that is important.

    It targeted civilians. It created fear among the survivors. And it was an act of mass murder. It created terror, it is by definition ‘terrorism’.

  • 3 Anonymous // Apr 17, 2007 at 2.28 am

    That seems a little silly. By that definition, all acts of murder against civilians are terrorism, insofar as they cause fear. Every definition of the word that I know of, and believe me I know that they’re all politicized to some degree or other, includes some political aim behind the terror. There is a difference between shooting up a place out of anger, or personal revenge, or whatever and shooting it up in the name of some cause. Otherwise we lose the ability to distinguish between terrorism and crime.

    Today’s event had no purpose. It was just hideous chaos and tragedy.

    Presumably your point here was that the same act committed by different people gets different labels. That is, if an Arab or Muslim did it, we’d probably be screaming ‘terrorist’. That’s fair enough, aside from the incredibly bad taste of not even waiting until the bodies are cold in order to make a political point. But, you’re probably right: if an Arab or Muslim did it, everyone would be screaming ‘terrorist’ right now. And they would be wrong.

  • 4 norman // Apr 17, 2007 at 4.30 am

    I just hope that he is not a Chinese Moslem.

  • 5 Anonymous // Apr 17, 2007 at 4.48 am

    If you want any association with terrorism sasa, you dont have to look no further than your leader, THE BUTCHER OF DAMASCUS.

  • 6 lkv // Apr 17, 2007 at 9.27 pm

    terrorism is indeed murder with a political/ideological intention.

    if he had been an arab, i dont think all newspapers would have cried out a “terrorist assault”.
    only the yellow press would maybe do it, just to get attention.
    there is something else: simple minded people connect terrorism with arab muslims, because it has occured a lot from this group in the last 10 years. thats natural, unfortunately…

    from germany,

  • 7 dancing solo // Apr 18, 2007 at 2.01 am

    I live in America, Today after the incident. A Fellow Algerian student came close to me, and he whisper in my ears “Thanks god he was not an Arab, or we will be literally fucked”
    I think it does not consider terrorism because it was not done by an Arab, otherwise it is.

  • 8 Anonymous // Apr 19, 2007 at 5.23 am

    OK, it was certainly terroism in the worst form. 33 innocent people butchered by a freak that ran out of drugs. It was terrorism. Why did you ask the question ? If you think terrorism is only possible from somebody with a turbin on his head, take a look at George and his oil hungy fuckerz. Salaam w’alaikum. Anna Saldiaki

  • 9 Dan // Apr 19, 2007 at 9.26 pm

    I think it’s not terrorism cos the perpetrator was (or seemed to be) certifiably insane. Terrorists are many things but they’re not actually crazy.

    That said, if he were an Arab… well, yeah, who knows how Fox News would cover it. There’d certainly be a more, umm, varied response.

Leave a Comment