Do you think the media, and the White House, are wrong to use the word "terrorism" so casually?

No, I think it’s entirely justified, and not “casual” at all.

The reflexive association between the word “terrorism” and Muslims is what’s “casual”, and needs to be weakened. If authorities confine the use of the word “terrorism” to instances that fit the stereotype, that will only reinforce the spurious association.

Yes, in my view it’s wrong. I think the reality is a lot of people instantly think of its Muslim 9/11 association with the word terrorists. I’m one of those narrow minded people who looked with wariness at a person wearing a headress at the metro this morning. Didn’t like feeling that way.

Any event that contains multiple explosions in a public space and injures hundreds is a terroristic act. It does not matter who did it or for what reason.

People should not think Muslim when they hear terrorism. How about Oklahoma City?

Uh, it’s terrorism…so….What’s the problem? What, or who people think of when associating the word is a human problem, not a syntax error.

@marinelife of course people shouldn’t but they do. And yes, I was referring to the OK City bombing, albeit obliquely, when I said ”...even if it turns out to be some White Aryan Asshole from El Paso who did it.”
Yes, terrorism is just that…an act designed to create terror. Of course it’s appropriate. It’s just that the word is SO tied to 9/11 (and in fact, in the Wiki description of terrorism the FIRST thing they show is United Airlines Flight 175 hitting the South Tower on 9/11) that when you hear the word you think of Al Qaeda.

Words have literal meanings, but sometimes they are used in such a way that they lose their literal meaning altogether. Take the phrase, “She’s a bitch.” What’s the first thing you think of? A cuss word that describes a female person who isn’t very nice. You didn’t automatically think of a female dog, especially one getting snarly and protective of a litter of puppies, which is what the word originally (and still does) mean. “Bitch” isn’t a cuss word at all, but it has radically changed meaning.

Seems to me the word “terrorism” is morphing specifically into “An act of terror perpetuated by Middle Eastern extremists.”

^^ Exactly.

Maybe not to you @Blackberry, but that’s the problem. On a side note, it’s almost like Bush knowing for a fact that those were Saudi Arabians who did 9/11 and then “confusing” them with those Iraqis he invaded.

According to the FBI, ‘There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”’.

So as far as I’m concerned, terrorism is violence. And violence is what occurred in Boston. So no, using the word terrorism to describe what was a scene of flying limbs everywhere is not really that casual.

Terrorism happens everywhere and almost everyday, so linking terrorism to one event in the past is not correct or even fair, for that matter. You cannot link a powerful word to a religious belief. Link it to the individual/group who/that actually carried out the horrible act.

Well, linking the word “bitch,” to a human is neither fair nor correct @Luiveton! But that’s the way it is.

What should be is an illusion, sometimes, not a reality.

You don’t really link the word to a human, you just call them that. It’s an insult used by some, sure. But associating this word with a religious belief is a different and more offensive case.

It has noting to do with “offensive.” The meanings we ascribe to words change over the years. It’s neither good nor bad.

The bombings in Boston are terrifying so it doesn’t seem wrong to call these acts terrorist. What I think is wrong is thinking that terrorism is something other people do forgetting that carpet bombing and drone attacks that go on for year after year create terror on an even greater scale.

@Dutchess_III You don’t think people who get blamed and called terrorists feel offended? You really don’t think so?

@Dutchess_III It can be bad. Imagine something like this:

Here in Chicago, we have lots of gun violence. Most of that is gang related, and most of the shooters are black. So what if people just naturally assumed that “murder” means a black guy shooting someone? And what if the media and police start using it that way, too, so that if the shooter is black it’s a murder, but if the shooter is white, it’s a homicide?

That distinction makes it look like there’s a qualitative difference between what the black guy did and what the white guy did, and by extension that there’s a qualitative difference between the black guy and the white guy.

When I hear the word terrorism I associate it with an act of war on civilians. I instantly associated the Boston marathon bombings as a terrorist attack.

Whether this is a foreign or domestic act of terrorism is yet to be known. As of yesterday afternoon, the Feds were labeling this terrorism.

It technically is an act of terrorism, though. So why should we refer to it by any other name? There is nothing in the definition of the word terrorism that says it is associated with any particular type of person. Just because people are too quick to assume that it implies a certain race or ethnicity doesn’t mean we should stop calling it what it is.

@Luiveton Of course they’re offended! Worse than that, they’re put in real danger from illiterate, ignorant red-necks who assume “terrorism” = “All Muslims.” I mean, we hear the word “terrorists” and “terrorism” constantly since 9/11. You didn’t hear it that often before.

@mangeons Yes, it is an act of terrorism. But I think they need to quit bandying it about so quickly because of the reasons I mentioned above. It increases discrimination and acts of revenge against innocent people. If that isn’t reason enough to start using some other terms, I don’t know what is.

Look…the most extreme acts of terrorism every perpetuated on earth were Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Yet the word “terror,” or “terrorist” is not used one single time in the wiki descriptions. Why is that?

ever

@Dutchess_III I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with your point. I think what needs to change is peoples’ understanding of the word terrorism, not the word itself. They are calling it terrorism because it is terrorism. If they come up with a new word for terrorism, what will that accomplish? It will still be terrorism, and there will be a negative stigma surrounding the new word as well. If people were educated on what the word “terrorism” actually means, they wouldn’t be so quick to make assumptions.

There should be a negative stigma surrounding the word. The thing is, that word, to describe acts that are designed to terrorize innocent people, has been around a long time, but only really came into “vogue,” if you will, after 9/11.

But…I could be making a mountain out of a mole hill. We’ll see.

Were you folks half-asleep in the past 10 years? The words terrorism and terrorists in American parlance do not mean anything else but Islamic terrorists. Just try asking Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith. LOL

Yes. We’ve had numerous mass shootings that had nothing to do with terrorism (a military/political tactic) but were simply the acts of deranged people. Even John Hinkley’s shooting of President Reagan was not any sort of terrorism. In his diseased mind, doing something that spectacular was going to win him the love of his idol, Jodie Foster. I hope we apprehend the Boston Marathon bomber real soon and that we can learn what the person’s motive was. But till then, speculation serves no useful purpose.