The problem is, it's self perpetuating. The worse the reputation of cops gets, the more that decent, honest people are going to avoid the profession like the plague .. and the more that Nazi types who want to get away with violence and intimidation are going to apply.
I heard a bird cry, sharp and free. My name is Jordan.
Yeah...Police forces have become the holy orders for violent thugs interested in volently physically oppressing those different than themselves. And, the application of 'qualified immunity' to police officers in the US just encourages abuses. Then, pile on top of that, a host of high-end technology passed down to the police forces from military applications, and you get mercenaries intent on a race war.
Fucking terrorists built in to our culture and supported by the taxation of the very people they abuse and oppress. It is sickening and viserally disgusting.
It's rather like the Catholic Church having become something of a refuge for pederasts. They felt safe and accepted. When they erred publicly, the church hushed it up for fear of adverse community reactions. Not knowing quite what to do, they shipped the errant cleric elsewhere, where, of course, they repeated their crimes and the process started all over again, spreading the crime and disgust ever wider.
I find the parallels to be very strong with US police forces. They have become refuges for actual and crypto- racists and fascists. They are welcomed and made to feel comfortable and they then take advantage of the protective comraderie of their brethren in arms. They recruit amongst the marginal already in the force and coordinate with their fellow racists and fascists outside the force to expand their numbers in the ranks of those who are 'licensed to kill'. As the level of protection is revealed over time, they expand their attitudes and selective enforcement and selective brutality. They are part and parcel of what makes racism 'systemic' in our society.
Not sure where I should post this, but I have a complaint about the way the term "terrorism" is applied these days. It seems that every mass killing is called "terrorism", regardless of its target or apparent motive.
For instance, the bombing of the USS Cole is always called terrorism—I can't recall ever seeing an exception—even though its target was obviously military. I'm not saying it was a good thing to do, you understand (I shouldn't have to say that, but maybe it's better to avoid misunderstandings). But it wasn't terrorism.
And these guys who get frustrated with the world and go out to shoot up a mall or a party: I'm not sure I can call that "terrorism", either. Isn't terrorism by definition an act aiming at some political outcome?
Terrorism isn't just any despicable act; we already have plenty of words for that.
Ok, you may fire when ready.
I agree. But I think this is kind of a natural phenomenon in the evolution of language and terminology. You have words slipping slowly from their original context to mean either something more general or more specific, or something else entirely. Take the terms "Africa" and "Libya" for instance. At one point, during antiquity, Libya meant the whole continent that we call today "Africa", and "Africa" was a word applied to the region we call "Tunisia" now. Then slowly, their meanings shifted in opposite directions, until Libya became the modern-day country that we know, and Africa the whole continent.
Well, maurusian, I disagreed. I also noted linguistic drift over time and the topic was discussed in a general way in the scope of the thread.
I lobbed several questions and critiques which I think were never adequately addressed. Subsequent changes in the political climate in the US seems to have silenced some desire to even discuss the topic in more depth.
The US has a very broad definition of terrorism whilst UK law limits terrorism to "the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." So, take your pick.
We don't yet know the motive of the person who committed the act but he was an IT worker and he bombed an IT building. That suggests to me that the bombing was revenge and not terrorism.
Furthermore, although there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, many experts say that, to be considered terrorism, the direct targets of violence would not be the main targets. That would appear to rule out an IT worker bombing an IT building.