Lunchtime Poll: 1/10

This one isn’t a softball question, readers, so put on your thinking caps.   Do you believe the actions of Jared Loughner, the shooter who killed 6 and injured 16 in Tucson, AZ on Saturday, were an act of terrorism or not?  Defend.

Published by

[E] Selena MacIntosh*

Selena MacIntosh is the owner and editor of Persephone Magazine. She also fixes it when it breaks. She is fueled by Diet Coke, coffee with a lot of cream in it, and cat hair.

5 thoughts on “Lunchtime Poll: 1/10”

  1. I’d have to say I’m with Luci on this one–despite the fact that the crime may have been politically motivated, I’m not sure if this act was systematic enough, that is, part of a broader network of violent, criminal acts, to qualify as terrorism.

    That said, it’s very frustrating to see how networks and bloggers and who-all-else have tiptoed around the “t” word, when I’m fairly certain, had Loughner been anything but white and religiously ambiguous, he would have been called a terrorist right off the bat.

  2. Turkey Pastrami. Oh, the question wasn’t favorite lunchmeat.

    I tentatively say no….I like J. Huang’s description of it as terrorism with a little t though, so I can get behind that. But in my mind, terrorism is organized by a large group of people and can be executed by either a small or large group. I think when one person acts violently, even if it has to do with their political agenda, it’s just them being violent – same as if it was random.

  3. Yes, an act of terrorism, with a small t. Defining terrorism as an act to instill terror, to terrorize people, to put forth an agenda, most importantly to incite violence. Terrorism can take many forms, such as emotional terrorism, a phrase I use in sessions with my psychotherapist to describe the acts of emotional violence or manipulation. Morally it was a terrorist act.

    Terrorism with a big T is a legal concept, one that isn’t universally defined. I’ll let the attorneys and judges tackle this matter.

Leave a Reply