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?

[not_for_sale2025]

Australia's laws against terrorism are in Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code).

A terrorist act is an act, or a threat to act, that meets both these criteria:

• it intends to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

• it causes one or more of the following:
• death, serious harm or danger to a person
• serious damage to property
• a serious risk to the health or safety of the public
• serious interference with, disruption to, or destruction of critical infrastructure such as a telecommunications or electricity network.

[icyfroth]

yeah go cook dinner.

[kopenhagen5]

What Defines A Terrorist?

One whom incites terror.

But in reference to the OP, both motives are unclear.

However, factors lead educated assumptions toward pidgeonholing perpetrators based on current media images of a terrorist.

[tasfleur]

"yeah go cook dinner" ....

Thanks Icy, dinner is now started;   if there is time tomorrow I'll come back and rejoin the discussion ... 

[springyzone]

 I think a true terrorist is someone who is motivated on behalf of an outside cause.

This can be hard to determine because I think when caught, some will plead mental health issues.

I don't think we should necessarily look at the outcomes because an attack (for whatever reason-on behalf of a cause or for personal mental health reasons) can have different results, depending on how competent the attack was, how well planned etc

So whether one person was killed or 100 does not necessarily determine if it was a terrorist act (in my opinion).

We need to listen to what the attackers themselves claim. There have been some who do claim to be acting on behalf of a cause, religious or otherwise. This is not to say the person may not also have mental health issues, I think sometimes a cause might appeal to such a person, make them feel accepted, part of a group.

But if they attack on behalf of a cause, then it is terrorist inspired.

If they attack for personal reasons, which i think has happened a few times in US, where disgruntled students with a grudge have stormed in to kill fellow students, then that may be mass murder but it is not terrorism per se. The idividual often ends up committing suicide at the end.

To me, terrorism is an attack performed on the general public for political or religious or idealogical reasons.

The farmers who wipe out their families etc, not terrorism. Mass murder for private reasons.

[tasfleur]

I can agree with that too Springy, it's all encompassed reasoning.

[the_great_she_elephant]

The young man being called a terrorist didn't claim anything. And since he's  dead, he never will. So any motive ascribed to him can only be an assumption.

The young man who has not  been labelled a terrorist did claim a  motive - a religious one. He believed God had given him permission to do it.

[domino-710]

Define terrorist.

Both MURDERED.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Both are murderers, are both terrorists?

[tezza2844]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Both are murderers, are both terrorists?

---

All these are murderers, but how many are deemed terrorists and is religion the defining difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia