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]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

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.

---

did he say which god? there are so many these days.

personally i obey the god of sweets and lollys, bad god!

but he tastes so good!

[davidc4430]

Curtis Cheng murder: Accused Milad Atai says he is happy with his actions, not remorseful

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-15/milad-atai-says-he-is-not-sorry-for-curtis-cheng-murder/10500...

how should we deal with this piece of s**t?

[joztamps]

---

@tezza2844 wrote:

---

@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

---

They were all killers, but not all of them were murderers.

In at least some of the cases where the killers survived, they were found not guilty because they were so mentally impaired as to be incapable of forming the required criminal intent.

It seems highly likely that the same would have been true of some of the killers who did not survive, either because they suicided, or were killed by police.

In other words, they were mad, not bad.

[tezza2844]

---

@joztamps wrote:

---

@tezza2844 wrote:

---

@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

---

They were all killers, but not all of them were murderers.

In at least some of the cases where the killers survived, they were found not guilty because they were so mentally impaired as to be incapable of forming the required criminal intent.

It seems highly likely that the same would have been true of some of the killers who did not survive, either because they suicided, or were killed by police.

In other words, they were mad, not bad.

---

Mad or bad they still murdered people using various methods  and most (not all) had a history of drugs and/or mental illness. it appears that if your a caucasian  you have a drug/mental problem, but if you not a caucasian it is put down to fundamental religious terrorism. But in most cases the killer has a problem with schizophrenia, usually brought up by life experiences and/or drug abuse (these days ICE)

[johcaschro]

What defines a terrorist?

Not_for_sale explained it in post #11

An act of terrorism is essentially a political action, using violence to underline the message and make the point.

As for the frequent diagnoses of  'suffering from a mental illness' given to  so many of those who claim religious inspiration for their actions; their actions are political acts foremost, which are claimed to be congruent with their religious beliefs and the religious instruction they have received.

I'm not a bit surprised that many alleged terrorists have been found to be mentally ill. I would have thought it's almost axiomatic that someone who believes in the existence of an invisible but all powerful spirit being whose teaching is to do harm to those who don't suffer the same delusion, is mentally ill.

How does such a one claim to know the will and the intention of their chosen sky fairy in the first place?

Do they hear its voice? Do they feel under an obligation to comply with the instructions they receive from it?

If they do, then yep, they're text-book psychotic mentally ill all right.

[springyzone]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

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.

---

A person who claims 'God gave him permission to do it'.

A terrorist or not?

I think it depends on context. No one lives in a vacuum, we are all influenced by those around us.

So...how did they come to that conclusion? Did they listen to a preacher whose words inspired them to think that way? Were they in touch with others who maybe whipped up hate or gave advice on how to attack etc?

Or is it something internal, a private interpretation or vendetta?

Also, how likely is it that their views are shared by other members of their religion/group/political faction and what is the likelihood of something similar being repeated by others in the group?

With the case of the Bourke Street attack, yes, the man is dead and no, he didn't leave notes to say why he did it.

However, in context, he was already on police suspect lists & he had a brother who, with other like minded people, had actually planned a terrorist attack on the public. Furthermore, Islamic State group has claimed the attacker as one of its fighters.

We can say there is no evidence of this but I think we have to stop thinking of all terrorists as members of organised gangs. The internet has changed things dramatically.

Islamic State in August called on its followers to- 

use bombs, knives or cars to carry out attacks in countries taking part in the US-led coalition.

In other words, they are urging lone wolf or small group, relatively unsophisticated attacks.

I think it is reasonable to say the man was living amongst some others or had at least been around others who held extremist views & he would have heard their opinions. I personally believe it was a terrorist inspired act. We can't be 100% certain but I think the evidence points that way.

That isn't to say the man may not have had other personal issues too, but I think hearing a lot of radical views etc can whip some people up to behaviour that may not have happened otherwise.

I also think the same thing can happen with personal vendettas, mind you. I'd be pretty sure a lot of the school gun attacks over in US are copy cat killings. You get a disgruntled teen with issues who a generation ago may have just got into a few fist fights but these days they have read about how they can make an impact and off they go.

[not_for_sale2025]

Professionally, I knew a guy who was detained under the MHA because he had a serious mental illness and had committed a few nuisance offences. He was a new admission. He held a belief that the FBI were coming to Australia to assassinate his favourite singer who was touring at the time. One day he was being escorted to an appointment and saw two staff members in black suits about 100 metres away. He yelled, "They're here, the FBI". He started running towards them in a frenzy and had to be restrained and returned to his unit. I am very confident that he would at least have injured the staff members had he got to them.

Some people could label this guy many things. But the reality was that he had serious and untreated paranoid schizophrenia. He remained dangerous until the medication we commenced started to take affect. When he settled he was actually a very nice person. I have mentioned this to try and demonstrate that the delusions some mentally ill people have come from within and seem to have no logical link to external factors. There may be a link in their minds, but it only makes sense to them.

[springyzone]

Exactly.

He could well have killed people.

I also know of someone who planned to blow up a bridge because he believed aliens were plotting against him under Port Phillip Bay. The police caught him.Till he was on medication, he suffered delusions.

But for these people, I believe they are private delusions.

Doesn't mean they are not dangerous, doesn't mean those attacked would not suffer terror.

I doubt though that anyone else had put these thoughts in their head & I doubt there was danger to the public from other people with these beliefs and i doubt if they were part of a group or network of similarly disaffected.

To me, those are the pivotal differences between terrorists or terrorist wannabees and 'private' killers.