Colorado shooting is not a terrorist act.

Some of the avatars do really look terrifying, don't you think so, brit?

Oh for goodness sake. STOP!

Now my mind is racing with visions of Xena and Miss Mimi dressed in fatigues and packing M-16s with shoulder holstered Glocks

Careful Xena, you might frighten people with that statement, and they'll accuse you of terrorism.

You don't frighten me, MM. For me you aren't a terrorist. But you might well be for others here.

QatarBlahBlah?

We might get more sense from posters there....

Whatever. What do I know. I'm just a terrorist like everyone else.

But the next question is, what does 'freedom' mean.

His own freedom, MM.

in my dictionary it mean those who REST in TERRITORIES. And when they prefer to do madness then they come out of their territory and kill innocent people.

That's what I'd say, brit. The "definitions" are always serving certain groups, but they are far from being generally true.

So this guy is a freedom fighter Brit? What's he fighting for?

Let us be real. The OP's reason for asking was that the word "Terrorism" is used by governments, agencies as and when it suits them. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter :O)

Well then, everyone and everything is a terrorist. Because we've all scared people at some point.

I gave you the clear meaning of the 'origin', MM. The rest is opinion.

Wikipedia and other encyclopedias don't seem to be an authority for anyone who label terrorism willy nilly without any respect for the actual meaning or origins of the term.

Actually, MM, wikipedia is not an authority for me!

Actually LP I think too many people take your definition, which is why people call racism every single time a white guy goes on a shooting spree and the media refuses to label the random act of violence as terrorism because it would be incorrect to do so!

Because the word terrorism comes from this:

"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,[10] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terreō meaning “I frighten”.[11] The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.[12][13] After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse.[6] Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people[14] by a non-government group in such a way as to create a media spectacle.[15] This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".[16] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869.[citation needed]

In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[1

i second LP

'terrere' in Latin means 'to frighten'. Anyone who frightens anybody is a terrorist. I think my definition will not be accepted by many people as much as I don't accept their definition.

The English language cares ADEY!!!

I never read dictionaries, MM. They aren't accurate at all!

Who gives a toss?!

What a bore!

I tend to go by dictionaries & encyclopedias LP. I find they're pretty good at defining things.

"...the proper definitions of things..." is done by whom? I don't believe that there are definitions that are valid for everybody on the planet. The CIA has defined a terrorist as you mentioned it. Again, who is the CIA? Are they the ones who 'define' things? I don't think so.

missmimi at time of crime all terrorist are alone no one can take his family or group to the crime scene.. so your point that he was lone man and he acted on his is useless..

just tell us that why you want to prove him as "not a terrorist"...?

I want to clarify that he isn't a terrorist because I believe firmly in the proper definitions of things. Using terms willy nilly when you have no idea what they actually refer to makes you look like an idiot.

What would you call someone who constantly referred to a car as a train.

colarado guy is a terrorist bcos he has killed lot of innocent people who were watching movie without any weapons no partiality of any religion

mr qatar dont ask so many questions or she will start abusing u

and what wld u call the ppl who believes today's media - monkey ?

@miss mimi.. in your statement u said that terrorism is also one of many ways to win a war..

so it means that osama or any other who adopt this way is rite? coz osama also want to win war against US..

or bush who lead a group (US army) is a terrorist..? coz acts of both are same.. both are leaders of group and both killed innocent pplz..

what we know is that any1 who kill inncoent pplz is terrorist whether osama or colarado guy or bush..?

I'm sure you can google the proof Monkey.

We are talking about James Holmes, not Osama bin Laden.

Terrorist does have meaning, at least in did in the 18th century when the French coined it during the Reign of Terror. However, the term has been misused by today's media and morons.

The term 'terrorist' is a mere convention. Some accept it, some don't. It actually has zero meaning! Why do you talk about something that has absolutely no meaning?

now also tell us with proof it was him in the 9/11 act

Osama was the leader of a well organized group who carried out attacks and campaigns based on an overall plan to induce terror and thereby achieve a political goal.

So yes, Osama was a terrorist.

As was George W.Bush and many members of the US government and military hierarchy who also planned and orchestrated campaigns aimed at terrorizing local populations in order to achieve political goals, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in the US as well.

James Holmes is a lone man, who acted on his own, for no known political reasons, with no known goals and with no plans to continue harming people (since he gave himself up to police). He is as much a terrorist as a guy who kills his wife for having an affair.

then miss mimi was osama a terrorist as now u have declared

" the guy in Colorado was not a terrorist "

Mr. Qatar I have no doubt that the US army and Nato engage in acts of terrorism, as terrorism is one of many ways to win a war.

However, the guy in Colorado was not a terrorist.

@ missmimi.. here you wrote that if killing is apart of a wider plan then it is a terrorism so i think that US and NAtO army are towo organizations with solid plans of killing innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Pakistan also. do you know how many civilains lost there lifes since 2001 in Pakistan..? the number is 40,000.. if they killed 40,000 in Pakistan without any reason then imagine how many they killed in Afghanistan against which US have reasons also.. They invade on Iraq on the basis of MDW and killed thousands of peoples and still going on but till to date dosent find a single weapon..

the point is that it is US who will decide who is terriorist and who is not. And they already decided that a muslim no matter from where he/she is even if he kill an ant in US will be consider as a terrorist. And a person like Holmes & Anders (killed 85 in Norway) are not terrorits but have mental illness...

www . qatarmajalis . com

Open and Join ... make it Qatar Largest Social site ..

you can find all the things in one website ..

if any suggestions on website plz click contact us link down and select suggestion and send to me ...

Thanks

Read more: http://www.qatarliving.com/node/3500691#ixzz21Oth7u44

Yeah even I have seeing posts of this kind on facebook.Does it really matter what the criminal is called .

With all the background credentials ,he doesn qualify to be called a terrorist ,(* not beacuse he is not a Muslim)

Many defintions available.E.g(terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)

And if you are insinuating if he was a Muslim ,he would be tagged a terrorist. "THATS NOT DEFINITE " ,Please dont use this incident to draw unwanted conclusion and bring back the old story of Muslims been victmized post 9/11.

This is the Month of Ramadan .Dont let your imagination run wild .Stop spreading negativity.

Yeah Maza that's it. How did we all miss that.

America defines who is a terrorist and who isn't. The media play and have played an integral role in defining the 'war on terror' which allows the US to intervene unhindered in other states. This convention was established after the self inflicted 9-11 attacks. The main target of this 'war on terror' is Islam and the muslims. That is why the US is engaged heavily in the muslim world both militarily but also via The Greater Middle East Project which is more dangerous.

The recent rise of so called Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia etc are Islamic in name only and have been supported by The US to distort Islam by mixing it with secularism under the guise Islam to deceive the people.

But as macro said its not relevant to this thread.

:)

Moza, that is interesting & refreshing, specially coming from a Muslim.

Those who think that Islam is like Budhism & was spread non-violently are obviously brainwashed reading indoctrinated history.

All they need to do is just read the Sikh religion history in India. Entire Sikh religion in Punjab region of India came into existence because of oppression by Islamic invaders,Mughal rulers like Aurangzeb.

Wow. I appreciate the efforts and the time you spent to research and write this novel for us:) You have your sources and I have my sources but I won't waste my time on that (at least for the time being, hence I am going to have my iftar soon), and also this forum is not about religion.

In short and as an example, how about the Roman Empire? What have they done to all that regions that they occupied?

If Christians were forced to convert to Islam as per your understanding and per your literature which you are using, then they and their next generations wouldn't have stayed Muslims and would have converted back.

Nobody can force religion and beliefs. If someone force you to consider yourself monkey and act as a monkey, would you and your children jump between trees for ever?:)

We should not always refer to media and literature. Sometimes we better use logic, and our instincts and minds.

Moza: You can start a discussion about that on a separate forum . This thread is here to discuss " The white American terrorist from Colorado ".

Well back from having fun. Insanity, I will answer this one time. Yes I opened you link but it is fairy tales, there to make the believers feel better. Its not actual history with those annoying things called facts, but rather than rip it apart bit by bit I'll leave it.

Insanity, don't get me wrong the Muslims do not have the monopoply of conquering countries and the local population suddenly speak Arabic and become Muslims, the Christians have a good record in this too. Do you think south America suddenly work up and said, Jesus he's the man for me and that Spanish is a cool language lets all start speaking that. No they didn't they were conquered by an invading army, this time the Spanish and the Portuguese.

Let's look at another example. After the Ottomans, (Muslims) defeated the Byzantine empire (Christians) you see a marked increase in Muslims and today modern turkey and Istanbul is a majority Muslim state. The ottomans went further and invaded southern and eastern Europe, (they also had a missionary zeal in bringing Islam to the infidels, something the later European empires copied but just for a different religion) and if you look at the former Yugoslavia you see a classic example when it split up. Those areas in the past that had Christian masters, Serbia, Croatia et al are Christian mainly, funny that, and those areas that had Muslim masters, Bosnia, Kosovo et all.... Guess what.... Are mainly Muslim. Remember the first converts might do it out of convience but when the state is built around either Christian or Islamic principles over the generations the decendents have already been absorbed.

But if you want to believe in the peace argument, that everybody thought Islam was such a great idea lets all convert and speak Arabic then be my guest, but it doesn't change what happened.

TCOM your diverting the subject of colarado shooting is a terrorism act or not

All of us?:) If yes, can you explain to me please what is a keyboard warrior?

I don not understand why you all want to be KEYBOARD WARRIORS?

I don not understand why you all want to be like KEYBOARD WARRIORS?

Moza said: "Anyway this is boring and I have better things to do during ramadan so enjoy your hate filled lives guys!"

I can not see more hatred comment in this forum than yours,

and I won't comment back on the rest of your words because I see them as words of illiterate misguided person who select the media of her choice to misguide her brain

filled with hate but surely they do love Muslims ( they keep a proper update on Muslims without missing a single day ) , even the media :0)

brite poor man asking for proof for those words said by them :0)

"...read how arabic and islam spread through north africa and the levant. The people there didn't wake up one day and start speaking arabic and praying to a different god than the one they had before..."

Hope you have read enough history already...the other day you had mentioned the same example in one of the threads and i had given you a link to read (which probably you didn't and again you are raising the same issue)

No religion can spread through force...people can be forced to worship different god publicly - but can they be forced to do the same in the privacy of their homes ??

Also, would be interested to know from which part of the world you belong because it is strange to know how your great grand parents remained unaffected by the muslim armies which were invading countries and forcing people across the globe to convert to islam. -:)

Are you doubting the words of Fox News, Rush Libbaugh , Donald Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz :O(

Most people who struggle with mental illness do not act out in violence. Some convicted terrorists said to be “obviously” mentally ill do not have a diagnostic condition recognized by the medical community; while juries convict terrorists who display clear signs of mental distress. Kinda Weird, uh /:

It was a plan by Spiderman supporters to spread terror in the hearts of batman supporters to try and ensure that TDKR isn't as big a hit as The Amazing Spiderman hence it is an act of terrorism.

This is getting silly. The bottom line is that newspapers and news channels like to sensationalize news to outdo the competitor. Hence, whenever tragedies such as that in Colorado take place, the first instinct is to go with Terrorism - as in Norway. Sell the dramatic headline and worry about the truth later ..

Such is the way of things ... :O(

miss mimi and moza if u can prove 9/11 was done by Osama with evidence i will accept Muslims r terrorist

The sad fact is that the biggest victims of Islamic terrorism, (and to clarify koykoy, I mean those that kill in the name of Allah) are muslims themselves

those killed in palestine , iraq and afghanistan where killed in whose name moza pls clarify

There is no UN definition of terrorism The UN has no

internationally-agreed definition of terrorism.

he definitional impasse has prevented the adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the UN failed to adopt the Convention, and the deadlock continues to this day.

What does the Western media say chota? That organizations like Al Qaeda use terrorism to try and achieve their goals? They do.

The sad fact is that the biggest victims of Islamic terrorism, (and to clarify koykoy, I mean those that kill in the name of Allah) are muslims themselves. In the last 10 years more muslims have died at the hands of fellow muslims that have the westerners the muslim terrorists say they hate. A very sad irony.

Anyway this is boring and I have better things to do during ramadan so enjoy your hate filled lives guys!

the western media says so miss mimi i thought u wld be aware of it

Everyone who kills is not a terrorist, and every terrorist doesn't kill people.

if u can kill muslims in millions in other countries and one muslim blowing up ( is called as terrorist ) nasty isn't it

Moza said: "I guess if you get shot, it doesn't matter to you if its a muslim terrorist or a derranged American".

"Muslim terrorist or deranged American", so you mean that a terrorist is only a Muslim, but any other mass killings or crimes by a non-muslim are not terrorism? Right?

If the pissing on bodies was part of a larger plan to instill terror and cause psychological stress on the surrounding populace in order to exact a political outcome, than it was terrorism. If it was just a few guys who did it for sh**ts and giggles, than it isn't terrorism.

Anyway, what's this ur army? Not my army, not my people.

Saladin was a great warrior of that there is no doubt, but from Prophet Mohd to his later followers they were good and successful warriors too. War today and pissing on dead bodies is pretty light compared to warfare in those days. Killing all the men and taking the women and children as slaves, now that is pretty nasty.

and ur army piss on dead bodies ?

This was the same Salahuddin that some would criticise, but on the other hand he was portrayed as a chivalrous and legendary figure in European history also, a figure who respected his friends as well as his foes - when Richard's horse was killed in battle Salahuddin sent him fresh one saying:

“It is not proper that a warrior should have to fight on foot.” In times of war he was extremely generous to enemy civilians, allowing them to go free with their lives and goods, an act of humanity that was rarely shown to the Muslims by their enemies.

Almost TB, a lone person, acting on their own, cannot be a terrorist.Terrorism, by definition, implies that you are part of a larger, organized, group.

Chota read more history, read how arabic and islam spread through north africa and the levant. The people there didn't wake up one day and start speaking arabic and praying to a different god than the one they had before.

I don't know if that particular American soldier killed those 16 people as I was not there and I suspect neither were you, that is why you have a trial first to establish the facts. Then if found guilty he is punished.

u invade and kill million civilians so u shldnt mind if muslim terrorist kill a few in the west

US army itself is terrorism ,

moza after killing 16 civilians u still want to find him guilty

Yes Chota, he should be put on trial for the crime and if found guilty punished.

Chota Don, if he did it as a part of a wider plan by the US government, or an organization to instill a state of fear in the local populace to exact political aims, than it is terrorism. If he didn't do it for those reasons, than it isn't terrorism.

huh!!

moza any comments on this brave stud

BALANDI, Afghanistan (AP) — An American soldier opened fire on villagers near his base in southern Afghanistan Sunday and killed 16 civilians, according to President Hamid Karzai who called it an "assassination" and furiously demanded an explanation from Washington. Nine children and three women were among the dead

Normally the terrorists leave behind a nice video saying when they will kill all those people and why they did it.

I guess if you get shot, it doesn't matter to you if its a muslim terrorist or a derranged American.

:o)

He was a lone looney who was high on Oxycotin and fancied himself the Joker. Unless he was part of a larger evil organization of would-be super villains and this was just the beginning of a systematic attempt to terrorize the populace in the hopes of exacting a political outcome, then it IS NOT and CANNOT be terrorism.

like if he is a muslim or a follower of al qaeda

whom does bush / obama follow ?

until we know more about the person who did this, like if he is a muslim or a follower of al qaeda. we should treat it like any crazed psycho shooting people for some psychotic reason. maybe the aliens implanted a device in his brain and forced him to shoot up the theatre and kill 12 and would 50 people. :P

Brit, #2 is cancelled out by 1 and 3. Lots of things create a state of fear (swine flu, natural disasters, spiders) that are not the result of terrorism.

The "state of fear" created by this act has nothing to do with politics. Therefore it is not terrorism.

Off course ! he was not a Muslim so ok

2.

It has put fear in the hearts of many cinemagoers and the producers of the movie have already cancelled the premier in Paris and cut scenes from the film.

The JOKER......killed and injured innocents.

It has none of the components of terrorism.

ter·ror·ism

   [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.