I don’t think I agree. In my understanding of the word, terrorist or terrorism implies some type of agenda or coercive purpose. If it’s some mentally unstable person just doing it… just because. I don’t think that’s terrorism
Edit: note. Not trying to minimise what this person did, but I think it’s a relevant and important semantic difference
Actually agree with this semantic difference. Terrorism is intended to produce terror - and imo should not apply to random violence with no apparent agenda whatever the triggering factor was.
Terrorism imo also includes gaslighting and domestic violence.
It appears that the culprit was already known to the police for mental health issues. Carefully not specified by the cops. Criminal impulsivity is not the same as terrorism.
I know you’re not trying to minimise what’s happened. When officials come out and say it’s not terrorist related because the perpetrator was not affiliated with a terrorist organisation is wrong. The idea of terrorism is to install fear in the public. That is what he has achieved.
Terrorism is used to scare the general population, it’s to make people lose trust in government ability to protect them, iow, it destabilises the power base of a country , making it vulnerable to other attack by adversaries .
a psycho getting his rocks off by defying authority and scaring people is not terrorism
I have a problem with using the word ‘terrorist’ as a catch all term for ‘nasty person’. See @force majeure122’s comment below, which I agree with. Might as well call someone who cuts you off at the lights a child molester, which is apparently also becoming a catch all phrase for a nasty person too. Inaccurate (maybe), excessive and doesn’t actually describe the nature of the offence all that well. Which I suppose name calling is supposed to do. Let’s keep it accurate folks, or at least as accurate as we can given the limitations of the murdoch media.
Martin Bryant had mental health problems, shot a whole lot of people but because he wasn’t part of a terrorist organisation it wasn’t terrorism. Like fuck it wasn’t. Terrorism.
Whether you belong to an organisation or not if you deliberately mow people down in your car you are a terrorist. Plain and simple.
I don’t think I agree. In my understanding of the word, terrorist or terrorism implies some type of agenda or coercive purpose. If it’s some mentally unstable person just doing it… just because. I don’t think that’s terrorism
Edit: note. Not trying to minimise what this person did, but I think it’s a relevant and important semantic difference
Actually agree with this semantic difference. Terrorism is intended to produce terror - and imo should not apply to random violence with no apparent agenda whatever the triggering factor was.
Terrorism imo also includes gaslighting and domestic violence. It appears that the culprit was already known to the police for mental health issues. Carefully not specified by the cops. Criminal impulsivity is not the same as terrorism.
I know you’re not trying to minimise what’s happened. When officials come out and say it’s not terrorist related because the perpetrator was not affiliated with a terrorist organisation is wrong. The idea of terrorism is to install fear in the public. That is what he has achieved.
Perhaps he achieved that, but his intention is the distinction between terrorism/other in my opinion
Terrorism is used to scare the general population, it’s to make people lose trust in government ability to protect them, iow, it destabilises the power base of a country , making it vulnerable to other attack by adversaries .
a psycho getting his rocks off by defying authority and scaring people is not terrorism
I have a problem with using the word ‘terrorist’ as a catch all term for ‘nasty person’. See @force majeure122’s comment below, which I agree with. Might as well call someone who cuts you off at the lights a child molester, which is apparently also becoming a catch all phrase for a nasty person too. Inaccurate (maybe), excessive and doesn’t actually describe the nature of the offence all that well. Which I suppose name calling is supposed to do. Let’s keep it accurate folks, or at least as accurate as we can given the limitations of the murdoch media.
Martin Bryant had mental health problems, shot a whole lot of people but because he wasn’t part of a terrorist organisation it wasn’t terrorism. Like fuck it wasn’t. Terrorism.
In the past terrorism wasn’t even from stateless organisations, it was a tactic used by foreign governments or rebels.
Good examples are in the Ridley Scott movie, Last Duel. In the modern era Russia is using terror and they aren’t a terrorist organisation.
The whole point is destabilisation of government.
Bush jr changed the definition of terrorism to further his money driven foreign policy.