Seems like pretty much everyone reachable by longboat probably also has some Viking in their heritage, to tell the truth.
When a Muslim officer in the U.S. Army opened fire and killed a bunch of soldiers there were a bunch of people who didn’t think of it as a terrorist action. Just the act of a mentally unstable person. Maybe it’s about religion or race. Maybe it isn’t. I don’t know.
I’m just relieved that nobody has yet come out to defend the propriety of shooting up the camp and members of a Commie youth league.
My apologies for violating the rules of the Pit.
Magellan is using the ‘no true Scotsman’ definition of terrorism I think. The Beltway Sniper was called a terrorist in the mainstream media at the time. The Fort Hood shooter was labelled a terrorist.
Alone or as part of a group, the guy has confessed and confessed his ideological reasoning behind his actions. He’s a fucking terrorist, solo or not.
Since I explained it clearly once, I doubt a lengthier explanation with more words for you to struggle with and confuse you would be helpful. I’ll simply direct you to my post and have a non-frothing non-idiot read and explain it to you.
No, you weaselly slime bag, you used a bunch of weasel words to avoid obvious conclusions relative to someone who doesn’t match your personal prejudices.
Or as JJim said
No small words necessary, your pretensions are both sad and pitiful - nothing more contemptible than the excuse makers for terror, because the fellow doing it doesn’t match their ethnic/political prejudice.
This makes no sense to me. For something to be terrorism, it has to instill fear of another similar action. That’s the “terror” part. The Beltway Sniper was terrorism because people were terrorized, they were in constant fear that he’d shoot someone again. The Fort Hood Shooter qualifies only because he committed those crimes as an instrument of Muslim Extremists writ large. It was part of an ongoing campaign of terror.
By what definition do you think it qualifies as terrorism? As I said in my initial post, it might very well be terror. But I haven’t seen evidence of that yet.
Well, moron, rather than just repeat your frothing, why don’t you EXPLAIN in what way this qualifies as terrorism? I gave you reasoning, which you have not addressed. You came back with a widdle hissy fit. Man up, missy.
There is no universal definition of terrorism. Most definitions I see suggest that terrorism is violence for political gain.
I presume this guy had a political agenda for his actions. But maybe he was just a crazy mass murderer.
In the end the definition depends on why this guy did this. Seems pedantic to make much distinction though. When someone is crazy and goes nuts and kills so many people do you really care if the killer expresses a rationale for doing it?
Do you consider Lee Harvey Oswald to have been a terrorist? I don’t. There was one incident and as soon as he was captured it was over. The aftermath of his action was anger…sadness…not terror.
I think The Hamster King’s point here (and I tend to agree with this) is that these particular victims may have been chosen not in and of themselves, but as a warning/punishment/deterrent to their parents. Alternatively, it could have been to teach other youth a lesson and make them afraid to attend such camps in the future. If that’s the case, then I think it’s pretty clearly an act of terrorism: the motive would be to effect political change through fear, not to cause these particular deaths in and of themselves.
It’s possible this is just a guy who really hated these modern kids with their crazy music and stupid haircuts, which would make it not terrorism, but that does seem unlikely.
A lone assassin. Oswald was not the tip of a movement.
This guy was a right winger who attacked and killed bunch of leftys. Now we have to wait and see if he is the start of a violent movement against the left. So until that is determined, it is a terrorist act. People may be sitting around in fear.
magellan, Oswald was an assassin. He killed one person.
Had Oswald instead planted a bomb in Dealy Plaza and blown up dozens of innocent bystanders to get Kennedy, would you still maintain he was not a terrorist?
Would you consider a Palestinian suicide bomber, with no connection to any organised group, walking into an Israeli marketplace and detonating themselves, a terrorist or not? Was Timothy McVey a terrorist or not?
What is the approved number of accomplices required to allow the definition of ‘terrorist’ in your world?
Or will you just accept that you’re wriggling around the point for no apparent reason and admit that someone who detonates a car bomb outside a government building, then massacres dozens of innocent teenagers, for a political aim, is a fucking terrorist? As in fact everyone except you seems to agree.
By that definition, the Son of Sam was also a terrorist. Do you think that’s an accurate classification of David Berkowitz?
And by that definition, Ander Breivik is clearly a terrorist, as he (apparently) committed his crimes as part of an outgrowth of his far-right, white Christian identity.
Please find me somewhere official or definitive that provides this definition. (“My post is my cite” is not good enough.)
How about Merriam Webster:
Note the two words I bolded. They are necessary ingredients.
I think he comes close, but he lacked the “coercion” element. There was no. “If you don’t stop doing X I’m going to keep killing.” His dog gave him orders, remember?
Well, if that’s the case (on what we have to go by right now) you can consider lots of people terrorists that I don’t think are. Oswald, for instance.
I think this post makes the best case that he is a terrorist. Still, if he is simply a deranged angry animal who hates the other side and decided to cause them death and pain, then I wouldn’t qualify that as terrorism.
But as I’ve said, as more information comes to light, I can be easily swayed to put him into the terrorist camp.
You know, and I mean this seriously, this could explain a lot of confusion. Have a look at how it’s defined this side of the pond:
I guess if you guys define it as only when used systematically, and we define it as a methodology regardless of repetition or the threat thereof, our argument could be moot. Having said that, we do have a lot more experience of terrorism than you guys, and from experience I suspect the M-W definition could do with a bit of elaboration.
I would like it if you could answer my other questions about McVey et al.
Anyway, the important question is, “Are there more like him out there?” I.e., is this a cause for concern? McVeigh undeniably represented a real movement, regardless of the depth of his connections to it. (A movement that he helped to kill, though it never quite died.) Is there any movement, or any significant number, of Norwegians (or anyone else) sitting around their TVs right now cheering this story? Or is dude just a social anomaly like Jared Lee Loughner?