How it Works1 min ago
At what point does 'mad gunman' become 'terrorist'
I noticed on the Evening Standard front page today that Anders Behring Breivik is still being referred to as a 'gun man', or 'mad gun man'.
I have a question about semantics...
I've read that his actions were prompted by his political leanings, so if that's the case, why isn't he being referring to as a terrorist?
Isn't he closer to David Copeland (Soho nail bomber) who wanted to kill Asians, blacks and gays (Brick Lane, Brixton and then Soho, respectively) than say, the Columbine killers who didn't have any socio-political reason for their killing spree?
I have a question about semantics...
I've read that his actions were prompted by his political leanings, so if that's the case, why isn't he being referring to as a terrorist?
Isn't he closer to David Copeland (Soho nail bomber) who wanted to kill Asians, blacks and gays (Brick Lane, Brixton and then Soho, respectively) than say, the Columbine killers who didn't have any socio-political reason for their killing spree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would consider terrorism to be an ongoing campaign - more than one incident, whether that be violent acts or threatening acts. Terrorism to me has a political or social agenda with a group of supporters, campaigners and activists, although one person can act alone whilst being a representative of that group. Terrorists work for a cause and under a banner.
Terrorists claim group responsibility for their actions, so even if one or more of the group is arrested the terror continues - somebody else takes up the reins.
One person acting alone, even for a political or social cause, is not a terrorist. Once he is caught, he no longer poses a terrorist threat. It is ended.
Terrorists claim group responsibility for their actions, so even if one or more of the group is arrested the terror continues - somebody else takes up the reins.
One person acting alone, even for a political or social cause, is not a terrorist. Once he is caught, he no longer poses a terrorist threat. It is ended.
housemouse
/// Brain-washed Right-wing Nazi lunatic and Attention-seeker
The BNP and EDL must be proud of their training methods ///
Oh so you know of such training camps do you?
Yet another rather silly post that is choosing to somehow blame a couple of British extreme right organisations, for the murderous acts carried out by a foreign madman.
/// Brain-washed Right-wing Nazi lunatic and Attention-seeker
The BNP and EDL must be proud of their training methods ///
Oh so you know of such training camps do you?
Yet another rather silly post that is choosing to somehow blame a couple of British extreme right organisations, for the murderous acts carried out by a foreign madman.
// IMO anyone who can act like that has to be mad by definition. Sane people do not go slaughtering innocent people //
Unfortunately they do though old_geezer. That's the depressing thing. Do you think the Nazis were all insane? I don't. I think they were ordinary people motivated by hatred to commit acts of appalling evil.
This notion that only nutters can commit terrible crimes is really naive.
Unfortunately they do though old_geezer. That's the depressing thing. Do you think the Nazis were all insane? I don't. I think they were ordinary people motivated by hatred to commit acts of appalling evil.
This notion that only nutters can commit terrible crimes is really naive.
-- answer removed --
"IMO anyone who can act like that has to be mad by definition. Sane people do not go slaughtering innocent people. It would take quite some justification for such an act to be understood as rational"
This really depends on your definition of 'sane'. By the legal definition (ergo, that you need to be insane to the degree that you don't understand what you're doing), Breivik is quite sane.
Be careful not to rely on the Linus blanket idea that 'only mad people are killers'. The fact of the matter is that rational, self-aware, otherwise normal human beings sometimes do commit atrocities when they're convinced they're doing the right thing. It's simply unrealistic to hide behind the idea that 'they're just mad'.
This really depends on your definition of 'sane'. By the legal definition (ergo, that you need to be insane to the degree that you don't understand what you're doing), Breivik is quite sane.
Be careful not to rely on the Linus blanket idea that 'only mad people are killers'. The fact of the matter is that rational, self-aware, otherwise normal human beings sometimes do commit atrocities when they're convinced they're doing the right thing. It's simply unrealistic to hide behind the idea that 'they're just mad'.
To define sanity as being unaware of what you are doing, sounds a limited definition to me. To be unable to understand right from wrong must indicate the the mental processes are not working properly, which must at least indicate possible insanity. Not that, not being unable to distinguish, can be a complete definition, but to plan & act the way this guy has it seems self evident to have crossed the border into insanity.
I think to decide whether it's terrorism or mad gunman you need to look at the motive. Breivik's motives were political, his attack was against a group as opposed to random individuals, it was intended to be a statement against this group so I can only see it as terrorism.
HC, your reasoning doesn't really stand up as you say if it's a group it's terrorism but if you say that once an individual carrying out the same practices with the same motives is caught the threat is no longer there, then if the whole group is caught, how can what was a terrorist attack then cease to be a terrorist tack simply because the threat is no longer there?
HC, your reasoning doesn't really stand up as you say if it's a group it's terrorism but if you say that once an individual carrying out the same practices with the same motives is caught the threat is no longer there, then if the whole group is caught, how can what was a terrorist attack then cease to be a terrorist tack simply because the threat is no longer there?
"I find the jibe claiming I am naive an inappropriate counter-argument. "
Sorry, that's not what I meant to do at all. I apologise - I really didn't mean to offend you.
"To define sanity as being unaware of what you are doing, sounds a limited definition to me."
It is. But unless I'm mistaken, that's legally what you need to prove to qualify for an insanity defence. It just proves it can be something of a grey area.
"I think those Nazis with the power to command the actions were insane, yes."
Why? Because they were guilty of terrible crimes? I think the idea that by default means they were insane is unrealistic and obfuscates the real lesson that they teach us. The fact that truth might be uncomfortable doesn't mean we should dismiss it.
"To be unable to understand right from wrong must indicate the the mental processes are not working properly, which must at least indicate possible insanity."
These people have an extremely strong sense of right and wrong - they believe that what they're doing is necessary, just and for a good cause. And there's ample evidence to suggest that 'ordinary', 'sane' people can be convinced to do extraordinary, 'insane' things quite easily. They can also, I think be convinced to do extraordinarily good things, too. Drawing a line under it and just saying 'oh it's insanity' just seems a bit incomplete to me.
Sorry, that's not what I meant to do at all. I apologise - I really didn't mean to offend you.
"To define sanity as being unaware of what you are doing, sounds a limited definition to me."
It is. But unless I'm mistaken, that's legally what you need to prove to qualify for an insanity defence. It just proves it can be something of a grey area.
"I think those Nazis with the power to command the actions were insane, yes."
Why? Because they were guilty of terrible crimes? I think the idea that by default means they were insane is unrealistic and obfuscates the real lesson that they teach us. The fact that truth might be uncomfortable doesn't mean we should dismiss it.
"To be unable to understand right from wrong must indicate the the mental processes are not working properly, which must at least indicate possible insanity."
These people have an extremely strong sense of right and wrong - they believe that what they're doing is necessary, just and for a good cause. And there's ample evidence to suggest that 'ordinary', 'sane' people can be convinced to do extraordinary, 'insane' things quite easily. They can also, I think be convinced to do extraordinarily good things, too. Drawing a line under it and just saying 'oh it's insanity' just seems a bit incomplete to me.
I think geezer was reprimanding me kromo not you - I used the word naive.
// Drawing a line under it and just saying 'oh it's insanity' just seems a bit incomplete to me. //
Personally I think it's a defense mechanism - a way of avoiding the awful truth that 'ordinary' people like ourselves can and do commit unspeakable acts given the right circumstances. It makes us feel better about ourselves and humanity in general if we can file all the monsters away under 'insane - defective - not like us'.
// Drawing a line under it and just saying 'oh it's insanity' just seems a bit incomplete to me. //
Personally I think it's a defense mechanism - a way of avoiding the awful truth that 'ordinary' people like ourselves can and do commit unspeakable acts given the right circumstances. It makes us feel better about ourselves and humanity in general if we can file all the monsters away under 'insane - defective - not like us'.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.