Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly
I don't know where you got your definition of "terrorist," but you are incorrect. Even if you were correct, I would disagree with you.
The man slaughtered dozens of people for a "political" cause, which will continue to terrorize the citizens of Norway as they come to grips with what happened. He is most certainly a terrorist, as was Timothy McVeigh, the ol' Unabomber should probably be considered a terrorist as well. These men caused continued terror. How is that not a terrorist?
The definition of terrorist: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
I checked multiple dictionaries.
|
There is no consensus on the definition of terrorist, but it usually includes being part of an organization. A mentally ill individual acting alone can traumatize entire populations he still more readily considered a mass murderer.
The often used Hoffman definition.
- ineluctably political in aims and motives
- violent ? or, equally important, threatens violence
- designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
- conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure.
Or from wikipedia :
"Although terrorism originally referred acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people by a non-government group in such a way as to create a media spectacle."
The Hoffman definition was created to distinguish terrorism from other forms of crime.