What Defines A Terrorist?

[the_great_she_elephant]

In Australia:

Two young men; both from non Anglo/Celtic migrant  backgrounds.

Both have mental health issues.

Both believe they have the permission of their God to go out and kill innocent people.

One kills 6 and injures 27.

One kills 1 and injures 3.

One is labeled a terrorist and deemed by many to be representative of an entire cuture/religion.

One is deemed a deranged  mass murder representative of no-one but himself.

So who is which - and why?

[davidc4430]

before 9/11 both would be called mentally disturbed.

no one calls martyn bryant a terrorist to my knowledge.

[not_for_sale2025]

I think it is important to consider that they both claim that they believe they have the permission of their God to go out and kill innocent people.

But if the two were suspected of having mental health issues, they would have been assessed by psychiatrists on behalf of the Court. The findings and recommendations would have been considered to determine fitness for trial. Just because they both had MH issues doesn't mean that the findings and determinations will be the same. In lay language, one may have been found to be bad and the other mad, or both bad or both mad. How they are therefore labelled by the Court is likely to be very different to how they are labelled by the media and possibly the police. I guess it all narrows down to the charges in the end!

[tasfleur]

"no one calls martyn bryant a terrorist to my knowledge"

Perhaps they should.  From where I'm standing, anyone who points and fires a gun at another person, especially at a crowd of people minding their own business (and opens fire) deserves to be labelled as a terrorist.  They are there to terrorise others after all, and certainly do.

When it comes to the so called 'religious' terrorists whose only want/need seems to be that of following their own religious delusions and determinations in a fatal manner, they are no different than serial killers en masse, and quite frankly, even more dangerous because they are totally brainwashed and dumbed down to zero in terms of civilisation and will never see the woods for the trees!

[davidc4430]

so far in australia we havent had many mass killings in the name of (insert cause here).

the worst is Bryant and does anyone actually know why he decided on that day to go on his killing spree?

there was a time when people who were detected as being mentally unstable and possibly a threat to themselves or the community were put into insititutions.

but our smart governments decided 'we can give these people a pill and they will be as right as rain', set them free so they can live peacfully out in the community.

and most of them do, as long as they take their pills.

but time and time again they stop taking their pills and 'lose it' and create havoc in the community and because we closed most of the facilities we used to put people in we now have no where to put them.

i read almost daily of the shortage of beds for mental patients in our system.

so when they get detected we say, look heres your pills, now be a good boy, take your pills and go away.

nearly every case of 'terror' attack we have had it turns out our protectors knew all about them but decided they were 'no threat'

maybe our experts need re educating on whats a threat?

and what do our protectors do when one of these known nutters decides todays the day, they shift blame.

scomo is saying its the communitys fault for not watching these people and reporting in.

good old fair dinkum scomo, its not his fault, its not his people being paid to keep tabs on the butters fault,

its our fault!

[davidc4430]

---

@tasfleur wrote:

"no one calls martyn bryant a terrorist to my knowledge"

Perhaps they should.  From where I'm standing, anyone who points and fires a gun at another person, especially at a crowd of people minding their own business (and opens fire) deserves to be labelled as a terrorist.  They are there to terrorise others after all, and certainly do.

When it comes to the so called 'religious' terrorists whose only want/need seems to be that of following their own religious delusions and determinations in a fatal manner, they are no different than serial killers en masse, and quite frankly, even more dangerous because they are totally brainwashed and dumbed down to zero in terms of civilisation and will never see the woods for the trees!

---

so where do we draw the line between mentally screwed up and terrorist?

the famer in the west who killed his entire family, mentally screwed up or terrorist?

guy who drove his car through a crowded sidewalk, mentally screwed up or terrorist.

like i said, prior to 9/11 they would all be called mentally screwed up but now its flip a coin stuff.

yep, anyone who takes a weapon and attacks people is a terrorist by definition, they terrorise peole and then kill some. or die trying.

but they also most likely fit into the mentally screwed up box too.

then you have the 'why you looking at me? i kill you!' types. most of us at some point have met one of those. are they serious or kidding? you just never know.

[tasfleur]

Hi David ... there is really no way to determine between a genuine mentally ill person and whatever drives someone to terrorise another in my opinion if the effect is the same.

The only way to diagnose the problem is to look at the behaviour and the history driving it where possible and try to treat it.

There are individual 'mental issues' and then there are whole armies of people who could be similarly diagnosed as such all doing the same thing in the name of their 'god' or even whole cultures who identify with terrorising and killing as a matter of course ... or then again, too afraid to do anything else but follow like sheep .. fearing for their families and their own lives, but worse, fear of death via their religious convictions however insane.

It's the difference between psychopathic and sociopathic behaviours on a wide scale if you take North Korea as an example today, they are driven to either escape or follow the leader into oblivion, or just die trying.

[icyfroth]

I guess it depends on whether they act in the name of Islam in the cause of anti - christianity

or in the case of Martin Bryant who is acting in the cause of anti - establishment.

[tasfleur]

In the case of MB, I think he was totally mentally unstable and socially incompetent;  so far lost in his inability to be responsible for his own life let alone considering anyone elses.  I am of the opinion that he was seriously mentally disabled from way back in his childhood and his chronological  development was halted long before he became an adult.

I don't think it was even about 'anti establishment' either.  It was certain influences he wanted that led him to believe he was invincible and could do anything he wished, and did because he could;  the trait of a psychopath without conscience or ability to understand remorse or consideration of life.

As for the religious lot, as far as I understand it, it isn't just people like ISIS who pose a threat to the world at large, there are many other so called "christian" sects, cults and brainwashed religious types who feebly follow and would do anything for their head honcho.  History has always dictated that.  I doubt it will change, even along the 'mainstream' path for what it is worth.

[tasfleur]

I'd better bow out and go get dinner going or I'll be late.

Thanks for the discussion everyone, it's always going to be a complicated subject with the various issues and opinions it raises.