Columbine Incident

[Destroit]

Although it isn't a current event anymore, since this is to be a debate I felt it best that it belong in this forum.

I am in an Analysis of Terrorism class at Macomb and we are classifying what is terrorism, what isn't, what is mass murder, etc. My teacher considers actions from groups such as the IRA, ALF, ELF to be terrorism-oriented, but I was surprised to find that he does not consider the Columbine incident to be a terrorist act. I had to disagree with him. He stated that it was because Klebold/Harris were merely manipulating the goth/rivethead subculture to fit their desire to annihilate, and that if they were not goth at all they would have still carried out their actions. Once again, I disagreed stating that they carried out their actions because AS goths they were discriminated against (violently in some instances) by the preppy and religious population of their school. When they went in to commit the massacre they did so with gothic subcultural ideals in mind, no matter how skewed they interpreted those ideals to be. We basically had to agree to disagree on the subject, but driving home from the class I was wondering what other goths would think about the debate, to have another perspective on it. He kept coming the from the idea that there was no ideology behind their motives because "anyone can dress in goth style". I walked away with the impression that he believes goth/rivethead subculture to ONLY be a style or preference, whereas I believe there is a generalized mindset behind the community (although it varies somewhat from individual to individual). Maybe this is where his notion comes from....?

I will come back later after class and shed more light (erm...darkness? ) on what I believe about this, but would like to come back to at least a few posts from others.

So the verdict...terrorists with what they believed to be their cause or loonies who just wanted to carry out a mass murder for no reason? A blend of both perhaps?

Although it isn't a current event anymore, since this is to be a debate I felt it best that it belong in this forum.

I am in an Analysis of Terrorism class at Macomb and we are classifying what is terrorism, what isn't, what is mass murder, etc. My teacher considers actions from groups such as the IRA, ALF, ELF to be terrorism-oriented, but I was surprised to find that he does not consider the Columbine incident to be a terrorist act. I had to disagree with him. He stated that it was because Klebold/Harris were merely manipulating the goth/rivethead subculture to fit their desire to annihilate, and that if they were not goth at all they would have still carried out their actions. Once again, I disagreed stating that they carried out their actions because AS goths they were discriminated against (violently in some instances) by the preppy and religious population of their school. When they went in to commit the massacre they did so with gothic subcultural ideals in mind, no matter how skewed they interpreted those ideals to be. We basically had to agree to disagree on the subject, but driving home from the class I was wondering what other goths would think about the debate, to have another perspective on it. He kept coming the from the idea that there was no ideology behind their motives because "anyone can dress in goth style". I walked away with the impression that he believes goth/rivethead subculture to ONLY be a style or preference, whereas I believe there is a generalized mindset behind the community (although it varies somewhat from individual to individual). Maybe this is where his notion comes from....?

I will come back later after class and shed more light (erm...darkness? ) on what I believe about this, but would like to come back to at least a few posts from others.

So the verdict...terrorists with what they believed to be their cause or loonies who just wanted to carry out a mass murder for no reason? A blend of both perhaps?

[DJ Nocker]

Although it isn't a current event anymore, since this is to be a debate I felt it best that it belong in this forum.

I am in an Analysis of Terrorism class at Macomb and we are classifying what is terrorism, what isn't, what is mass murder, etc. My teacher considers actions from groups such as the IRA, ALF, ELF to be terrorism-oriented, but I was surprised to find that he does not consider the Columbine incident to be a terrorist act. I had to disagree with him. He stated that it was because Klebold/Harris were merely manipulating the goth/rivethead subculture to fit their desire to annihilate, and that if they were not goth at all they would have still carried out their actions. Once again, I disagreed stating that they carried out their actions because AS goths they were discriminated against (violently in some instances) by the preppy and religious population of their school. When they went in to commit the massacre they did so with gothic subcultural ideals in mind, no matter how skewed they interpreted those ideals to be. We basically had to agree to disagree on the subject, but driving home from the class I was wondering what other goths would think about the debate, to have another perspective on it. He kept coming the from the idea that there was no ideology behind their motives because "anyone can dress in goth style". I walked away with the impression that he believes goth/rivethead subculture to ONLY be a style or preference, whereas I believe there is a generalized mindset behind the community (although it varies somewhat from individual to individual). Maybe this is where his notion comes from....?

I will come back later after class and shed more light (erm...darkness? ) on what I believe about this, but would like to come back to at least a few posts from others.

So the verdict...terrorists with what they believed to be their cause or loonies who just wanted to carry out a mass murder for no reason? A blend of both perhaps?

Well, I will shed my light on this situation.

The "Goth" subculture USED to be a mindset (a pretentious and depressing mindset lol), but NOW it is just a style. The whole idea is lost in translation. Thats just how the times have changed. AS for the columbine kids, they played "grand theft auto" and listened to "marylin manson" and anyone CAN do those things, they are very mainstream. Saying that they did what they did with gothic subculture in mind sounds silly...they shot some kids, how is that a "goth" thing?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Interesting thoguht problem.

I'm not sure I agree with either of you.

I do beleive that what they did falls the catagory mass murder but not Terror. The reason I say this is because thier intent was to kill everyone they could, not scare everyone they could by killing a few. "Terror" was not the intent.. murder was.

Also, I don't think Goth should be in this debate at all... They were not Goths. That connection was disproven during the investigation.

[DJ Nocker]

Interesting thoguht problem.

I'm not sure I agree with either of you.

I do beleive that what they did falls the catagory mass murder but not Terror. The reason I say this is because thier intent was to kill everyone they could, not scare everyone they could by killing a few. "Terror" was not the intent.. murder was.

Also, I don't think Goth should be in this debate at all... They were not Goths. That connection was disproven during the investigation.

I agree with you 100%

[Slogo]

I am with Gaf on this one......

......sorry, got a little dizzy there (lol)

What the Columbine kids went for was revenge. Revenge for how they were treated, picked on, etc.

[KatRN05]

Hypothetical situation (even though it's happened before): A person walks into a restaurant and shoots/kills 5-6 people. Is it terrorism? Is it mass-murder? Or is it both? To me, it's both and that's how I feel about the Columbine shootings. They did it to get their point across and to seek revenge. Is that not what terrorism is about?

[Raev]

They did it to get their point across and to seek revenge. Is that not what terrorism is about?

I would say no, to this. As far as I understand it, a terrorist group isn't so much trying to get a point across - as much as they are using fear/terror to change something to their liking. Strong-arm negotiating, so to speak.

[~Tszura~]

What the Columbine kids went for was revenge. Revenge for how they were treated, picked on, etc.

I would say no, to this. As far as I understand it, a terrorist group isn't so much trying to get a point across - as much as they are using fear/terror to change something to their liking. Strong-arm negotiating, so to speak.

I don't see it as terrorism either. They both were pushed to their breaking point, and wigged out, trying to take as many people as they could with them. They did not intend to survive the event. The fact that it was a one time event also puts it in the "no" category for me. I see what you are saying about them possibly having a skewed perspective on some sort of Goth ideology, but as they were not part of a group that professed a message, or a cause to change things, I wouldn't put this in the same category as terrorism.

Lets say people left them alone, and they never got picked on. Would they have still arrived at the point of wanting to kill a bunch of people? I personally don't think so. For me, this also supports it being an act of revenge versus terrorism.

Great debate Chernobyl!

[KatRN05]

Ok, perhaps it was not an act of terrorism, just an act of revenge.

[phee]

I agree with Gaf as well.

It is terrifying and terrible but they were not after anything more then mass death, there really was no social or political message behind it, just wanted to kill who they felt did them wrong.

[boshy]

Although it isn't a current event anymore, since this is to be a debate I felt it best that it belong in this forum.

I am in an Analysis of Terrorism class at Macomb and we are classifying what is terrorism, what isn't, what is mass murder, etc. My teacher considers actions from groups such as the IRA, ALF, ELF to be terrorism-oriented, but I was surprised to find that he does not consider the Columbine incident to be a terrorist act. I had to disagree with him. He stated that it was because Klebold/Harris were merely manipulating the goth/rivethead subculture to fit their desire to annihilate, and that if they were not goth at all they would have still carried out their actions. Once again, I disagreed stating that they carried out their actions because AS goths they were discriminated against (violently in some instances) by the preppy and religious population of their school. When they went in to commit the massacre they did so with gothic subcultural ideals in mind, no matter how skewed they interpreted those ideals to be. We basically had to agree to disagree on the subject, but driving home from the class I was wondering what other goths would think about the debate, to have another perspective on it. He kept coming the from the idea that there was no ideology behind their motives because "anyone can dress in goth style". I walked away with the impression that he believes goth/rivethead subculture to ONLY be a style or preference, whereas I believe there is a generalized mindset behind the community (although it varies somewhat from individual to individual). Maybe this is where his notion comes from....?

I will come back later after class and shed more light (erm...darkness? ) on what I believe about this, but would like to come back to at least a few posts from others.

So the verdict...terrorists with what they believed to be their cause or loonies who just wanted to carry out a mass murder for no reason? A blend of both perhaps?

Though I believe that goths do have their own sub culture thing going on. I don't believe that this was an act of terrorism of behalf of the "goth culture". I think that Harris and Klebold were a couple of spoiled (specially Harris) egocentric sociopaths that were trying to grab a moment of the fame that they would never achieve in their life times because they viewed themselves as a couple of loosers because they were being picked on. I think that they were emotionally neglected by their upwardly mobile parents. They just dressed like goths to appear threatening so they could achieve some sort of identity but I think they were a couple of prep wanna bees that didn't have that classic prep look. One was a ginger and one was a whimp you know. So I partly agree with your professor and you know I've looked into this because it's part of my job.

[LoTek]

i believe that columbine was definately mass-murder, and not terrorism. But then i don't consider the ELF or the ALF as terrorist either. i guess the definition of 'terrorism' is different now in a post 9-11 world. the government seems to define anyone who opposes their authority as 'terrorist', and more and more groups that where not designated specifically as terrorist organizations are now lumped into that group for easier scrutiny and surviellance. i know that because of my political leanings, under the patriot act and the previous administration, i belong in the 'terrorist' group.

to be honest, if we are using the wiki entry on 'terrorism' [Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.] then our own goverment and fox news can be called terrorists, as well as the vatican. these organizations use fear and terror as a form of coercion and control on a daily basis.

certainly not my intention to hijack (heh) the thread, just giving my two cents on the subject of 'terrorism'.

[candyman]

Ahh yes revenge...it is a dish best served with alot of ammunition.

If you are going to compare them to a terrorist group then you have to put them side by side with a terrorist group. There are things like funding and such that are different but the whole idea behind the WHY is kinda similar as far as what categories you would check.

I think it was just revenge though. It was only 2 people with a plan that wasn't though out too well...not a terrorist action because those nasty bastards can wait and then formulate a really good plan to use EFP's to destroy a convoy that had not had any troubles on the road for 6 months. These idiots got mad and killed people...end of story.

[Class-Punk]

First off, I believe that most of the world's problems are rooted in poor education and the inability to educate oneself. I don't think Columbine was terrorism and was just a mass murder. I think terrorism requires political or religious goals according to its definition. And the radical nature of terrorism makes it lack the possibility of treaties which were a prior historical norm.

I don't think the massacre was related to the Gothic subculture. But by using the words goth and gothic, speakers in the media made a link between dark aesthetic and school shootings; a connotation which probably continues with other generalizations in educational institutions between the scraps of actual learning. I think an inability to change one's opinion based on evidence and logic, and inability to analyze one's thinking, are both aligned with cultural conservatism (phrase has nothing to do with politics) which serves poor education.

tl:dr: Columbine was not a terrorist act. Cultural acceptance requires learning revolution.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

I dont agree that they were terrorists or goths.

Reasons they were not goths:

1. Absolutely no resemblance to Azreal Abyss.

2. They had no idea who John Koviak is (and definitely never called his house and had his mother wake him up for no good reason).

3. Black Trench Coats do not a goth make.

4. They did not listen to Siouxsie Sioux

5. They were "allegely bowling". Everyone knows that Charlie Don't Surf and Goths Don't Bowl.

6. Plenty of people listen to Marilyn Manson and play "Doom" who are not goth.

Reasons they were not Terrorists

1. Terrorists have a political agenda and their actions seek to further it. (They did not have any such ideas)

2. Terrorist actions seek to cause a reaction which will further their goals (They just wanted revenge)

3. Terrorists are usually part of a larger network trying to further something (not the case here)

4. Terrorists are usually not on whack doses of experimental psychoactive drugs because their parents dont feel like actually raising them.

5. Terrorists dont usually start being terrorists in High school (thats what college is for)

6. Terrorists dont go and get really nerdy looking yearbook photos (try and find a yearbook photo of me...)

Zhuk

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

see the funny thing about terrorism to me.. is it's a ghost word. Just like all those progressive mental "problems" like ADHD, Aspergers, or whatever the hell the new trend disease is... they're blanket diseases to push drugs for profit.

That's what terrorism is to me, any act of violence or hostility can be considered terrorist activity now. It's bullshit, someone robs a bank, they're economic terrorists, zomg!

There's no such thing as terrorists, just pissed off people with misguided vendettas.