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?

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

Terrorism is a very well defined criminal act. The reasoning/motive is part of the definition.

Terrorism is one possible motive for mass murder. There are many others. But recently, it appears that the automatic assumption is the any mass murder committed on the global stage has terrorist motivations. I'm trying to understand why it is that other explanations are less palatable.

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

That is DAESH stated goal and strategy. I don't believe it will progress their cause. But many do.

Something to take the sexy/danger element out of it. It's the same reason I think Western Media needs to stop fetishising ISIS; they go in for all that black garb, orange jumpsuit shit for a reason. It fucking shifts newspapers.

This is an interesting point. There is a point of view that sensationalist covering of US-style mass shootings encourages further mass shootings, just as the Samaritans have specific media guidelines for reporting suicides to glamourising the subject and so avoid further suicides.

I would agree that if the perpetrator of a terrorist attack is Muslim, it seems to be "case closed", without much the much needed exploration of any underlying factors.

Also, it was very noticeable how the some people were desperate to avoid calling Jo Cox's murderer a terrorist, apparently he was a "timid gardener".

The timid gardener AND the erasure of his right wing sympathies was ridiculous- I agree.

I am still not sure what you (op) mean by other explanations being less plausible- what other explanations are you thinking?
We have had attack after attack recently- with marked similarities- it's hardly making assumptions to say that they were all terror attacks.

I am still not sure what you (op) mean by other explanations being less plausible

I didn't say plausible - I said palatable.

When a mass murder takes place, it appears that politicians and media fall over themselves trying to link it to terrorism as soon as possible.
The thought that it might me a lone, disaffected member of their community is rarely the first assumption that is publicly explored.

Yes,it might be terrorism. But being blind to the alternatives protects society from exploring the other issues within communities that may also create motivations for attrocities.

I was having this conversation with my dad yesterday.

we decided to call ISIS/DEASH a "recreational homocide club" since the term terrorism affords it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve.

Sorry unpalatable - I still don't get it- you've hinted several times that there are alternative motivations/unpalatable truths/other issues within communities etc.

What are they then?

It's not a 'hint' helmet - I don't know what they are - but I'm alarmed that "terrorism" is siezed on as the default explaination with no real consideration of other possibilities.

As an everyday comparison, there was a story in my local paper last week about "yet another death" at a notorious black spot for speeding motorists. The front page story listed the names of others who had died there, photos of scenes and highlighted the campaigns to change the road layout.

A subsequent story a few weeks later, buried on page 50, revealed that the death was a result of a heart attack at the wheel.

It was shoddy, alarmist journalism which jumped to conclusions and failed to consider the 'facts'.

If all mass murders are attributed to terrorism, the possible real reasons will never be examined. Are 'we' scared of what we might find out if 'we' stop using the convenient explaination of terrorism to justify atrocities?

Well shoddy journalists always will be shoddy journalists looking for a headline. Shrug.

The whole of France- most of the world will be wringing their hands over why he did this. The fact that it was "a terrorist attack" isn't going to stop an investigation. I don't get that.

What are you saying we might find out that is so unpalatable?

Orange jumpsuits = you fucked us with Guantanamo, it's payback time

What are you saying we might find out that is so unpalatable?

Who knows? What is clear is that 'terrorism' is currently the palatable reason for mass murder. It's the default global explaination when an atrocity like Orlando, Nice and even mechanical failures in aeroplanes take place. Politicians and society (not the investigation teams who are trained to be objective despite political pressure) look for evidence to support the belief that the motive was terrorism.

What is clear is that 'terrorism' is currently the palatable reason for mass murder.

Er what?

Terrorism makes what happened in Nice palatable?

What are some of these less palatable reasons for mass murder then?

What I mean, helmet is that people are falling over themselves to explain the atrocity in Nice as terrorism. The French PM is at pains to emphasis that the perpetrator had been radicalised despite others, closer to the investigation, urging caution.

why so quick to label an event terrorism unless that is the only 'palatable' explaination? Why not be honest? We don't know why this man murdered so many people? We don't know why the plane crashed? We don't know?

I think terrorism is a convenient explanation for politicians because they can then be seen to "do something" - increase security, more bombing in Syria etc. Also if it's called terrorism the public has something to blame and focus their anger on.
Politicians can't promise to do anything to protect us againt people-hating crazed loners who kill for no apparent reason.

Not so very long ago, terrorist groups were very secretive organisations with loyalty tests and fairly strict rules on who could be considered a member and any attacks were usually planned well in advance and had to be authorised by the higher echelons.

IS has changed all. It seems to be you can do whatever hideous act you want and as long as you are Muslim, IS will take credit for it.

Back in the old days we had a saying: Going Postal. It wasn't terrorism. There was no real conspiracy or goal. Just a very pissed off, murdery individual, prepared to die and take other people with them.

Well 'going postal' is slang originally describing an aggrieved worker (usually er postal staff!) going back onto the workplace to murder/revenge.

I still don't understand the antipathy to the word terrorism- it isn't 'palatable'/ it doesn't close down investigation/debate/ it's an umbrella term that efficiently describes what is happening right now.

^ helmet because, in the name of combatting terrorism governments intern, imprison, censor the press and start wars. etc. Individuals and whole groups in society get stigmatised and even murdered. That's why it can't be the default explanation. The cause of each incident has to^ be definitely ascertained.

The point is this: terrorism has been decentralised. Gone are the days of organised networks of sleeper cells; now the damaged, obsessional individual radicalised online and the professional, affiliated terrorist exist on a very diffuse spectrum.

This makes terrorism so much more terrifying and resilient. In the past, if one node of a network was undermined then the whole system collapsed. Now that is no longer the case. This is postmodern, social media terrorism. Terrorism for the selfie generation. In a funny way, the media structures of liberal capitalism are being appropriated by those who wage war on it.

Other than doing everything appropriate to improve security, I have no idea how you combat this.

What do others think?

^^I'd not define that as terrorism. more that the disaffected and mad have a hook to hang their anger on. And a justification and fuel.
To combat it we need to not marginalise anyone and ensure that MH services are adequately funded. It won't be watertight though.

just because 'in the name of combatting terrorism' govts may do things, doesn't mean terrorism as a word is not appropriate.

I am finding this v weird.

What do you want to call the attacks in nice, Brussels, turkey etc? - 'mass murder/suicides by mentally ill individuals attracted by the killing ideology of isis'?

Respectfully, I think we're getting in tied in semantics here. I personally would define terrorism as an act of public violence that is motivated by some sort of political, religious or ideological credo. It can be with a clear political aim in mind or just with the objective of striking against a cultural or political foe so as to create terror for its own sake. While, we cannot be sure I think we can surmise that an act of mass murder in France on Bastille day was PROBABLY motivated by some contact with extremist Islamist ideology. Breivik was an isolated, possibly mentally disturbed individual; but I would still define him as a terrorist.

As for Columbine etc, that's a bit different as the motivation was more nihilistic. It was less ideologically and purely driven by some kind of personal resentment. But you could still call it terrorism.

It does appear that the word "terrorism" has evolved to include atrocities that "we" cannot define in another way. The definition has not evolved to keep up with usage, yet.

Like apocalypseslough - I wouldn't describe the uncoordinated, independent action of lone individuals, "terrorism", no matter what they claim their motivation to be (posthumously, or not).

Blaming "terrorism" in those cases seems to be an acceptance that society could not have prevented it - and fails to acknowledge that there may be far more complex motivations (homophobia, or race-hatred for example, in the recent cases in The US) that should be addressed.
The French PM is asserting that the suspect was "radicalised quickly" - but what does that mean? Even if his motive was ideologically driven, there were many acts of mass murder that he could have carried out. What drove him to target that particular event, at that particular time, against his local community? What was it about that location, that time, and those victims, that the suspect believed would further his particular cause?

This is an interesting article about the links between the recent crimes and DV.

nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/mass-killers-terrorism-domestic-violence.html

But why on earth do you think calling it an act of terrorism will close down those questions? of course it doesn't. His whole life, friendships, job, relationships will be examined.
I don't get this idea that it's 'case-closed'