what's in a word?

[Mark Kohut]

I always thought the core 'traditional' meaning of the word was to
kill/attack citizens when not at war.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the traditional meaning of the word, I always thought.
>
> Non-terrorist gun killing may be the greater threat in one sense, but a
> lesser one in another.  Fear can change people in bad ways, but THAT ship
> has sailed.
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:44 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, by this logic, the motive of the killer determines whether the
>> violence is an act of terrorism.  Only if the intent is to instill a sense
>> of danger/terror in the surviving populace would the act be properly called
>> terroeism.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "
>>> As one friend pointed out, Paris is not actually any more dangerous than
>>> before Nov. 13. What's changed, dramatically, is our perception of imminent
>>> danger. And that makes all the psychological difference."
>>>
>>> And that's what makes it TERRORISM.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/03/does-motive-matter-in-mass-shootings-like-the-one-in-san-bernadino/even-in-paris-guns-look-like-a-greater-threat-than-terrorism
>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l