Thank you for the tenor of your post. It’s all to scant around here. That said, even your definition “intimidation” as one of the ingredients. So the threat has to linger. That’s the way I see it, anyway.
I don’t think MacVeigh was a terrorist. A murderous scumbag, yes. But he and his buddy committed that sole act. Alone. As far as your Palestinian suicide bomber, I’d have a hard time being convinced that it was not an act of terrorism, only because Israelis already live in fear of being killed by Palestinians. However, if the person had no connection to the Arab-Israeli fighting, some from China, say, then I’d say it was not an act of terrorism. Not necessarily, anyway. We’d have to know why he did it and if he was connected to a larger group.
The alleged suspect posted video on YouTube (since pulled) several hours before the bomb went off urging other conservatives to follow his example and make martyrs of themselves…
This is sort of a stupid, pedantic argument anyway, but it’s worth pointing out that social scientists do have a fairly straightforward and noncontroversial definition for terrorism. I frankly can’t be arsed to go find a source (and this is a pretty solid definition whether authoritative or not), but as best I recall, it’s this:
-A violent act
-by a non-state actor
-committed for political goals
-against civilians
-in order to coerce the target
-using fear.
I can’t think of a single reason to require that more than one act is committed or that more than one person is involved. Further, you’ll notice that the JFK assassination doesn’t fit very well, since it wasn’t trying to use fear and it was against the commander in chief of the United States (arguably not a civilian).
Actually, sorry if that’s kind of snarky. “Terrorism” and “genocide” are the two main terms that always make me think, “Why is it so important how we want to categorize different types of mass murder?”
Am I the only one who read the news and wondered about the propriety of having 700 kids collected into a camp to be indoctrinated into a particular political philosophy? Are such camps common? I don’t care if it is on the left or the right. Ditto for religious camps.
Damn, I’m glad to have grown up in a small town with parents who were lethargic enough not to get me involved in such shit.
PS. for the dense of mind, I am not endorsing shooting up the camp.
These were no kids, they were teenagers, and generally speaking many European countries have a tradition of engaging the youth in politics. This is not necessarily bad, it makes for a more involved and informed electorate (and younger politicians).
Right, that’s my point exactly. People were scared of him, but there was no coercion, no demands or manifesto. To my understanding, the same applies to the DC snipers - they were just spree killers, not politically or religiously motivated.
I’m just using the criteria you supplied to define the Fort Hood shooter as a terrorist, and pointing out that it applies perfectly to the Oslo shooter, as well. If those criteria are so broad as to necessarily include Lee Harvey Oswald, the problem lies on your end, not mine.
The rest of their lives is for “balance.” This was for getting them motivated, like my trip to DC with the Teen-Aged Republicans. And laid. Unlike some in our group this didn’t happen for me. I assume Norwegian kids are more successful.
They were not made to attend, it is voluntary. I don’t know about Norway in particular, but Scandinavians in general seem to be more informed of their own political process and party politics than the inhabitants of most democracies. Again, these were not kids, at 17 most would be voting within a year. If they were 7 or 8 I would think differently.
There’s a manifesto now, Miller. It was sent to Finnish media and is being published around the web currently. It has 1500 pages. It is disturbing in so many, many ways - mostly because he appears to be cogent. Fucked in the head, but cogent. For instance, he appears to be completely aware that if he “survives a successful operation” that the psychic aftermath, being known as a monster to all whom he loves, will probably cause a mental breakdown.
I’ll quote a portion here from Dagbladet, one of Norway’s largest newspapers. (Translation mine.)
The manifesto has a plain white cover with a Crusaders’ red cross embossed in the middle. The title is “A European Declaration of Independence.” There is a subtitle in, apparently, Latin. “De Laude Novae Militae. Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici.”
I am not a Latin scholar, but I’ve done some googling. “De Laude Novae Militae” appears to refer to Bernard of Clairvaux’ work that praises the founding of the Knights Templar. “Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici” appears to translate to “The Poor-Fellow of Christ and the Temple of Solomon” which was, I think, the formal name of the Knights Templar. As Breivik claims to be a Mason and an aspiring Crusader, it makes sense he’d lay some claim to their legitimacy.
people who are not cogent are less likely to do a “good job” at what they are trying to do.
But frankly, 1500 pages seems overkill. I wonder if he is an agent-provocateur with a mission similar to that of the “shoe bomber”. To implement “papers please” it helps to torch some reichstags first.
I guess I should answer this with more specificity.
As I have said “terrorism” is kind of nebulous in its definition.
That said, Oswald was an assassin. He specifically targeted one man for political reasons.
A terrorist seeks to strike fear into everyone. Joe Blow will not be targeted for political assassination but if Joe Blow thinks he might be killed randomly for someone else’s politics he lives in terror (to some extent).
No on was worried they might be shot when Oswald killed Kennedy. The public might be worried when someone like this kills at random.
This guy, Timothy McVeigh, Al Qaeda, the IRA and others kill random people for their politics. That is an effort to sow terror in the population.
However, for this guy to succeed in his political aims, the population needs to feel he is just one of many who share his politics and there is more to come. If he is a loner then the damage, terrible as it is, is done. He is a lone nutter. His reasons for doing what he did may be political but it doesn’t really matter. His “reasons” are no better or worse than the Son of Sam who took orders from a dog.
Anybody else dismayingly reminded of some plot background (and real-life inspiration) in the “Millennium series” novels of the late Stieg Larsson?
Set in neighboring Sweden rather than Norway, these novels describe horrific crimes influenced by racist radical-right and/or extremist-fundamentalist Christian hate groups. I have to admit that prior to this tragedy, I more or less assumed that such groups were pretty much politically and culturally irrelevant in Scandinavian societies except to furnish conveniently hateable villains for thriller plots.
I mean, come on, violent right-wing extremists in earnest democratic politically-transparent welfare-state Scandinavian countries? Enough of them taking themselves seriously enough to do any significant actual harm? You gotta be kidding me, right?