Is use of the word "terrorism" a way of avoiding the truth about society

[TimeforaNNChange]

Not all incidents of mass murder, and extreme violence, are politically motivated - yet it seems that recently, whenever anything inexplicably horrific occurs, that is the way it is considered.

No attempt is made to determine other possible motivations, no analysis of the circumstances that may have led to an individual carrying out such an atrocity. An investigation takes time and may well, in months to come, reveal no links to political extremism at all - but once labelled as terror, it is always referred to and remembered as such.

Has the word "terrorism" been redefined to include all acts that we, as society, find impossible to explain or understand?

Fucking hell. Reported.

Where do you get this bollocks from anyway? The media are breaking their necks not to refer to this latest murdering looser as 'Muslim; or 'Islamic' let alone a terrorist. WTF are you talking about? Surely Noam Chomsky hasn't already published his 'The evil West had it coming' style article yet – has he?

Its been reported all over as a act of mass murder, driver on the rampage etc.. NY times described it “A truck attack”. A Lexus-Nexus search found 162 articles on the massacre in Nice and in 108 of them, they mentioned he was of Tunisian descent, and that was that. Even though many witnesses heard him shout Allahu Akbar. Just who are they/you trying to not to offend Us or Them?

blindly followed by billions of unthinking, unquestioning close minded automatons

FFS BornIn - how is it remotely helpful to suggest that the billions of Muslims in the world are unthinking automatons? Surely now is not the time for such ludicrous generalisations?

Op - the radio programme I listened to earlier said '84 people were murdered'. The word 'murdered' stood out as I somehow expected it to be 'killed'. It made me realise how (sadly) accepting of these types of incidents I've become. Murder is a much more appropriate verb.

You are charming as always, supersoftcuddlytoys

Brevik was arrested by counter terrorism unit and charged with terrorist offences

I think something can be a hate crime without being terrorism (Orlando) and mass murder is not necessarily a hate crime OR terrorism. We have to try and understand what is going on if we are to have any hope of stopping it.

I still don't really understand what is use of the word terrorism a way of avoiding the truth about society means.

I take that to mean there us something operating in society which enables people to commit atrocities, other than political motives.
For example, many mass murders in US would not have occurred if guns were not so easily available. Ascribing those mass murders to eg terrorism or the killer's mental illness allows the issue of gun control to be avoided.
Another example, most of these acts are committed by men, not women, but labelling them as terrorists avoids a gender analysis.

It's lazy, isn't it helmet? We use the term "terrorism" as an explaination for mass murder and attrocities rather than objectively examine what may motivate people to behave in that way.
"Oh, it's terrorism" avoids the need for the people of Nice or Orlando, or elsewhere, to examine why someone from their community killed many others.

A French official was quoted as saying within hours that the incident in Nice could not have been the action of one man and that they were seeking his accomplices. A Lorry was hired and driven through security cordons. Why is there an immediate avoidance of the possibility that this was an isolated incident, committed by one man, a member of their community, without extremist influence?

YABU

There IS a huge amount of time, energy and expertise poured into analysis of these acts. Why would you think there isn't?

Terrorism does have a specific legal definition

This killer WAS a terrorist, a Daesh operative.

He was also clearly a pathetic loser, that doesn't preclude him being a terrorist.

And I agree, if you have a particular sociopolitical agenda to push yourself, at least wait until after the official mourning

Oh I don't see why labeling something stops any examination of it. Why would that be the case? We can still discuss what kind of terrorism it is, why it is terrorism (or not). I don't see the word as a silencer at all.

I can understand the uneasiness to label things 'islamic terrorism' but I really don't understand the hesitation otherwise.

Why is there an immediate avoidance of the possibility that this was an isolated incident, committed by one man, a member of their community, without extremist influence?

There wasn't an avoidance of a possibility at all - it is simply a matter of probability - I am glad they didn't say immediately it was ISIS even though it obviously looked ISIS inspired - his ID card on show - they have called for cars to be used as weapons and it has been done before - he had a gun - he wanted the death of as many innocent people as possible to his own death on Bastille Day.

Now ISIS has claimed responsibility and accomplishes have been arrested - I really don't believe you are surprised, surely.

No, ISIS have claimed the credit but then they would wouldn't they- no evidence has been found to support their claim.

ISIS have claimed the credit but then they would wouldn't they

No actually, they wouldn't. They are quite persnickety like that.

I agree. If the perpetrators are Muslim, then immediately it will equal terrorist. If there are not Muslim, then there might be an investigation into underlying causes.

Hmm but what evidence do you want?

Why wouldn't it be an Isis inspired attack? If it looks like a duck...And this looks like a duck.

What underlying causes are you speculating here?

This killer WAS a terrorist, a Daesh operative

When i posted this thread, there was no suggestion in the public domain that the perpetrator was linked to any extremist political groups.
In fact, since I posted this thread, there has been disagreement between international politicians, and disagreement within the French authorities, as to the possible motives and associations of the killer.

The risk of assuming that everything that quacks is a duck is that it blinds us to other possibilities - if there is an increase in hatred, fear or other emotion within society that is motivating more people to react by committing mass murder, then "we" as a society need to be open to the possibility - not blindly assume that there is no other possible motivation other than the one that we already know and understand.

LongLost, who is pushing an agenda?
If anything 'if it looks like a duck...' is pushing an agenda. Isis would have an interest in claiming the attack because if the general public believe it is down to them, there is more chance of them pushing western governments to accede to ISIS. And they don't even need to fund or organise it. Result!

My only "agenda" is to see society remain open minded. The labeling of this man as a terrorist within seconds of his action was alarming.

I'm familiar with the work of Analysts, and I know that they don't make those assumptions - my observation is about the media, commentators and wider public who appear unwilling to see beyond an acceptance of "terrorism" as an explanation for any atrocity that takes place no matter what the motive.

Curiously, IS terrorism seems to driven by no political objective. The Arab nationalist terrorists of the 70's, 80's and 90's had clear political aims. Even Al-Quaeda made political demands.

But this atrocity seems to be motivated by absolutely nothing than the desire to create terror for its own sake. This is a completely new form of nihilistic terrorism.

It is almost as though terrorists are responding to 'attention economics': trying to gain a terrible form of recognition from mass media culture.

John the goals and methods of DAESH are fairly widely publicised, though?

From what I've read, the goal is (simplified) to convert the world to islam, and the method of doing so is to intimidate civilians and pressurise governments into making unwise decisions through acts of terror.

Well what do you think the 'motive' was?

It feels like you are trying to give the terrorists some gravitas, some reasoning, some logic or excuse that is simply not there.

Most people see yet another loser fuck wit who has been excited by Isis and decides he too wants to murder for glory...this is why Hollanders speech was so downbeat - IS has created and tapped into that sick mentality very well.

TimeforaNNChange: I disagree. Surely nobody believes that running over civilians in a lorry will make any progress towards converting the world to Islam. On the contrary, it will incite division. Traditionally, cultural universalists follow an expansionist and imperialistic model. They invade countries and topple governments. What territory or population is won over to Salafism by blowing yourself up in a Belgian airport?

I disagree. Surely nobody believes that running over civilians in a lorry will make any progress towards converting the world to Islam

Indeed. It strikes me as pure nihilism, carried out by young thugs. The closest this man seems to have come to Islam is having the name Mohammed.

Southern France is a very divided place politically. Locally, the French call it the Maghrebb, and there's not much debate about why the FN poll so high there. As a tourist it's not as visible, but it seethes with resentment. Unemployment is high, and having spent a lot of time there, in a poor, run down working class town rather than a wealthy tourist village or middle class suburb, I can see why the working and lower middle class French people feel under siege. Nice could have happened anywhere in the Midi.