When is it terrorism and when is it madman (or madmen)?

@janbb, your question reminds me of Charles Krauthammer’s recent column.

“Terrorism is any attack on civilians for a political purpose. Until you know the purpose, you can’t know if it is terrorism.”

There’s no precise definition of “terrorism”; the word’s too politically and emotionally volatile.

I believe that terrorism is systematic, even if there’s only one perpetrator, and is done to further one or more objectives through fear and coercion.

So, was the Unibomber a terrorist or simply a madman? He certainly had a well-planned system and a passionate mission. But, he was also out of his mind. There’s no legal or academic consensus about the boundaries between terrorism and insanity.

I believe that whatever the color of the perpetrator’s skin, an act such as the Boston Marathon bombing is an act of terrorism. I think the Sandy Hook, Aurora theater, Tucson shootings, Columbine, and every other event orchestrated for the sole purpose of killing and hurting people as an act of terrorism. In order for something to be counted as terrorism, it doesn’t have to come from someone with a specific group or nationality.

I think by definition terrorists have to be madmen to at least some extent. Your average gal or fellow more than likely has passionate feelings about one thing or another, they just don’t take those passionate feelings out on the public at large.

In my opinion, a Madman acts out of passion and the actions of his passion are things that he/she wouldn’t ordinarily do unless they are really jacked. Their methodology may appear to be planned, but at the root it’s still one person and their illness that is lashing out at a target that has meaning to the perpetrator.
A Terrorist, acts out of the desire to manipulate the actions of a population out of fear. Using carefully calculated attacks to instill the maximum visibility and making the population feel vulnerable, they can call attention to a cause and in their minds further their cause. At the root of Terrorism, there is an agenda lashing out at a population.

If the perpetrator was ‘one of us’ they would be considered bad or mad. If their roots and their culture were foreign to us they would be more likely to be considered terrorists.

That is a good question. Having grown up in the 9/11 era, I had always associated terrorists with Middle-Eastern people and dare I say vice versa as well, but looking at the word “terrorist”, it seemed that it was more general than that—a terrorist is one who brings terror. In regards to America, it seems odd that an American could be a terrorist since that would mean bringing terror to their own country. Maybe that is where the media draw the line: American or foreign. I wouldn’t say so. If a person brings terror, then I would consider it terrorism. The person is probably mad, too, therefore also a madman.

It is terrorism if a muslim does it, a madman if a whitey does it and if a black guy does it, he is automatically a gang banger thug.

Not every madman commits an act of terrorism, but every attack that bring terror is terrorism, and the person who commits it is a terrorist.

Politically, it has come to mean a war like act against society.

People don’t need to be insane to commit terrorist acts; they just need to fall prey to unfortunate influence and manipulation. Sadly, young adults can be especially vulnerable. Youth is the time of life for trying on ideologies as if they were hats. It’s deeply tragic when philosophical tourism, a normal phase of intellectual growth, takes a violent turn or becomes twisted by the wrong mentor.

I think a terrorist has to have demands, terrorism is the use of terror to get what you want, so, what do they want? if nothing, then they are just maniacs.

In my book, very few things are terrorism. It is just another word that is used to manipulate us.

I link terrorism to ideology. It’s goal is to bring terror, constant or continual fear, to a populace in order for the ideology to succeed or to prevail in some way.

A madman is someone whose thinking has betrayed them to commit otherwise irrational acts.

A terrorist may be considered a hero, and the terrorist acts considered heroic, by the adherents to the ideology. But that does not qualify it, it is just one of the downstream effects.

@ragingloli I know you are from outside the U.S. , how would you have characterized the IRA?

@SuperMouse “every other event orchestrated for the sole purpose of killing and hurting people as an act of terrorism”

By that definition, every murder is terrorism.

The term terrorism is about the intent of those who commit the act, not about the victims. If the intent of the act was to cause terror as part of some larger agenda (usually political), then it’s terrorism. If they just wanted to kill people, that’s not terrorism.

To limit it to domestic events, I would say that the Aurora shooting was not terrorism, while bombing abortion clinics is terrorism.

It is terrorism if it takes place in a public arena such as a movie theater or the Boston Marathon. The color of the perpetrator has nothing to do with it.

@marinelife But I never heard the Aurora murders referred to as terrorism, unless I’m misremembering?

I find myself agreeing with @glacial , I would define it very much like that, all be it with some minor differences and/or extra parts.

To me, the IRA, and ETA, are terrorists, because they are a group of people, who use terror tactics to achieve a goal.

However, a group of 6 guys who get cornered in a bank with hostages and a list of demands, causing terror by threatening to kill hostages if they don’t get what they want, are not terrorists. Despite causing terror, and using terror to get what they want, their main goal is profit, and the terrorism aspect just a coincidental element. Unless they planned to take hostages as part of the plan from the start, then they would be terrorists.

Alcaida are not exactly terrorists in my definition either, while they are actually a group, who use terror to get what they want, I don’t classify them as terrorists, because their demand is too insane and unreasonable. Their demand namely being “DIE!!!”

If the “terrorist” has a demand that he wants everyone to die, or wants a 20ft hat made of cheese, or wants to talk to god, then they are more of a maniac than a terrorist.

I would also say that there has to be some level of credibility in it. If it is 1 or 2 guys, then they can’t really be terrorists, because their goals are just too unrealistic. While it is unlikely that ETA will ever achieve their goal of independence, they are at least big enough to be a serious threat, that will perhaps in some unlikely future have some success.

If it is 1 or 2 guys, they are loner maniacs, mass killers, and so on, if the group is big enough, they can be terrorists, but if the group gets too big, then its a movement or an army, or an agency.

I don’t really like the liberal use of the word terrorist, for several different reasons. I think it gets people in to the wrong mind set, that leads to extreme actions. I also think it is a form of linguistic trickery, to further the us vs them tool.

White or black, sane or insane, the perpretator is a terrorist if he/she murders, or plots to murder, a group of innocent people, as in Boston, whether politically or religiously motivated or just for some kind of weird kick. Other jellies debate will disagree with my definition, but it’s the one that I believe. Terror is not only what is inflicted on the victims but on all of us.

It is an act perpetrated with the purpose of terrifying, harming/murdering the populace. Any definition relating the term to ethnicity is racist and I don’t see that happening.

@janbb That occurred in 1999. Terrorism on American soil was unheard of.

@marinelife
unheard of, eh
24 pages, 100 incidents per page, starting in 1970

@marinelife Didn’t that happen just this past year?

@dxs

You’re right- the Aurora theater shootings did happen in 2012.

@marinelife might have been thinking of another mass murder that happened in Colorado: Columbine in 1999.

@Brian1946 Perhaps that was it. But it’s hardly true that there was no terrorism in the US prior to 1999 either. This page has a list of terrorist attacks in the US, and I would agree with its definition of that term.

@all I was thinking of Columbine.

@glacial

I was only making a guess at what @marinelife was thinking, and not implying that I also thought there was no terrorism before 1999.

There are several acts of terrorism that I have never forgotten, including those committed by “our” (LA, CA) own “Alphabet Bomber”, Muharem Kurbegovich, and the murder of 168 people in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.

@Brian1946 I realize that – I was just acknowledging that it was a good guess.

Terrorism is violence used against civilians by a non-state actor for political aims.
If it’s a state actor employing the force against civilians, it’s called “pacification” or “collateral damage.”

“The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans,” Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Representative Peter King of New York said in a statement.”

I can’t recall ever agreeing with these three guys on anything, but on this, they have my vote.

@janbb, why do you ask this question? I’m seriously wondering sitting here on a Saturday night after a really nice dinner out with friends and few drinks and looking back over my day and Fluther and wondering why the world is like it is and hoping tomorrow is a better day for everyone. Why would you ask this question? I have no motive or agenda in asking, just pure curiosity in what motivated you to ask this particular question.

I believe it is terrorism. He terrorized a city and more. Some people are now more paranoid about public events, being in crowded places, people with backpacks, and more. It feels like it can happen again anywhere at any time. I think tragic events that are very large and draw so much media attention rise to the level of terrorism no matter who does it, because it is so unnerving. We identify with the victims so much it shakes us.

Even serial murders like Son of Sam terrorized New York in my opinion, but I guess he would not be called a terrorist. Maybe it has to be a big dramatic explosion of some sort to qualify?

I think in the US maybe the word terrorism is evolving to mean acts of violence associated with Muslim extremists, but I think that is too narrow of a definition.

@bkcunningham I certainly didn’t mean to affect your mood or your nice dinner out. I just like to dig deeper into ideas and I am wondering about the distinctions, as I said in the question, between what we call terrorist acts and what we call mass murders. No hidden leftwing agenda here; they are all heinous acts but I’d like a sharper definitions of some of the terms we throw around.

It’s an interesting question @janbb.

For me, the difference between a mass murderer and terrorism is the motivation. While both can have the effect of causing terror and fear, the motivation of the terrorist is driven by some belief they are serving some political or ideological goal. They are trying to make a point or to achieve some form of change.

A mass murderer is more likely to be trying to meet some internal desire to cause harm. Their goal is to fulfil their personal desire to kill with no ideological or political motivation.

I tend to agree with @bookish1 and @glacial. You may be surprised to know (I know I was) that there is no officially, universally accepted definition of terrorism. It is so inherently subjective that it is difficult to define. That said, my international relations professor offered us this definition that I think sums it up pretty well: “The use of violence by a group or individual for political ends in which the targets are innocents, and the action is staged to create the emotion of fear on the part of the audience.”
This is a quote from an author, though I cannot remember by whom, so I apologize that I am not able to accurately attribute it to the proper source.

I do have to disagree with @bookish1 on one point, though- that terrorism cannot be committed by a government. In my opinion, this is a bit of a gray area; state-sponsored terrorism, or terrorists/terrorist groups acting on behalf of the state, is not unheard of.

Terrorism happens in the name of something.

Madmen killings happen because of something, like having been the victim of bullying at school.

The Boston terror act happened in the name of Islam.

The Newtown shooting spree happened probably as an act of revenge due to years of bullying.

@mattbrowne I don’t think we know yet what the Boston bombing happened in the name of. From what I’ve heard they were not Muslims. You are always very quick to equate terrorism with Islam. That is part of what I am getting at. With all the information flying around, I’m not sure we know their motive yet.

@Fly: Maybe I worded my response badly, but I did not mean to categorically state that it cannot be committed by a government. I meant that we call it something else in that case because it’s committed by a state. For instance, the U.S. intentionally killed over 300,000 German civilians during World War II in “daylight strategic bombing” for the political aim of destroying civilian morale and securing an unconditional surrender.

@janbb, I just wondered what the reference to skin color was about in your question. I didn’t want to read anything into it that you didn’t mean, so I thought I ask. My asking seemed to have hit a nerve with you. Reading your response to @mattbrowne‘s reply makes it clearer to me though.

@bkcunningham Cool.

It is being reported here that the older brother is definitely muslim and more info coming to light about his association with jihadists. It is crazy to be so politically correct that we can’t call a muslim a muslim. If the Rotary suddenly decided to have a jihad on non Rotarians, would we be so reluctant to say that the perpetrator of a crime is a Rotarian? What makes muslims more sacred than any other group of people? There is no reluctance to criticising the extremists notions of the bible belt christian maniacs, I feel the same way about these maniacs.

It is terrorism if a killer is not targeting the person who did him/her wrong but innocent person/ people like in a theatre or a school etc.
It is terrorism whether religion part of the equation or not.
It is terrorism whether it is done in the name of Islam or Christianity or any other religion.

It is terrorism if it is done to use fear to further any agenda. Say North Korea for example. The Israel Olympic games as another example.

We have the same reports here in the states. I wish someone would explain the answer to the pc-ness of jihad and Islam to me too. It makes no sense. What prompts someone to tiptoe around the evil and be defensive about calling out Muslims?

Where is the political correctness coming in here? Can you explain what you mean please.

There is a very vocal minority within the Islamic faith that has beliefs that diverge from some of the basic tenets of the Islamic faith. At it’s core, the Islamic faith is very tolerant of other faiths and beliefs and is charged to honor and defend them. There are some, who are very intolerant of Jews and Christians that believe differently than they do, calling them ‘infidels’ and wanting to eradicate them from their world. There really isn’t room here to explain it all, but if you want a real insight into the Muslim mindset, seek out a book called “The Haj” it is a story about life in a village in Israel. It was required reading for me before I was deployed to the sand box. The borders of the countries in the middle east were kind of arbitrarily drawn up and caused a lot of problems that now, 60 years later, is coming back to bite the world in the ass. Jihad, or “holy war” was declared by various Mullah’s over the years. There is so much to put in here, that I am afraid it will become (even more) incoherent if I think about it any more. Sorry if this confuses things, but it would take literally weeks to explain it all.

@janbb – If I was misinformed by the various German news media, I would be very sorry about assuming an Islamist background. But if the information is correct, it would be irresponsible to stay away from the subject of killings in the name of Islam, just because some blind multiculturalists might be offended. Why? Because if we don’t deal with the root causes of the problem, we will see more events like 911, Madrid, London, Beslan, Bali, Beirut, Luxor, Mogadishu, Tanzania, Kenya, Moscow, Yemen, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Casablanca, Marrakech, and Boston.

What is unclear at the moment is whether the older brother was self radicalized or radicalized by becoming part of an Islamist terror group.

All of this has nothing to do with skin color or hair color or eye color. It has to do with what people believe. Why is mainstream Islam a huge problem? Because responsible Muslims like Irshad Manji come forward with compelling explanations, as outlined here

http://www.fluther.com/158304/is-anyone-else-watching-the-situation-going-down-in-boston-live/#quip2702407

We non-Muslims need to ask the community of peace-loving Muslims to change their approach. Slogans like “we are against terrorism” are not good enough.

@majorrich – Yes, at its core, the Islamic faith is very tolerant of other faiths and beliefs when it is based on particular interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah. The Islamic faith can be very intolerant of other faiths and beliefs when it is based on a different set of interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah. Within the Muslim world we see a struggle between these two kinds of interpretations. Ignoring the troubling interpretations would be irresponsible. Their existence is a fact.

@mattbrowne I think part of my question was rooted in the fact that there was so much misinformation floating about last week and colleagues of mine were making assumptions based on very little established fact. When we have more information about the two brothers, we will be able to establish more of the motivation for this heinous act.

In the meantime, I have heard that many Muslims in the United States are very fearful of a backlash against them which saddens me.

@janbb – It saddens me too and this is why Muslims need new leaders like Irshad Manji. We need 1000 Irshad Manjis, because the trouble with Islam today won’t go away on its own. To avoid a backlash, Muslims need to acknowledge that mainstream Islam is in urgent need of reform. It is not just a problem of a tiny violent minority. The Quran needs an interpretation that works in the 21st century. Islam has to go through the same painful process as Christianity did, going from burning witches and scientists to supporting the declaration of universal human rights. Christians no longer kill in the name of Christianity (there are very few exceptions like killing abortion doctors).

@mattbrowne There is no way for them to avoid a back lash. The people who do the lashing are paranoid, substandard idiots who don’t respond to reason.

@bkcunningham by that definition “Terrorism is any attack on civilians for a political purpose. Until you know the purpose, you can’t know if it is terrorism.” the Boston bombing wasn’t terrorism. It wasn’t done for political reasons. It was done for religious reasons.

@Dutchess_III, I used the quote as a teaser from/for Krauthammer’s column. Did you read the linked column? What did you think?

I’m also curious how you know the reasons for the bombings and what were the specific “religious reasons?” I know that the news today is reporting that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is answering questions today. Did he give their reasons for the killings?

From what I’ve heard, it was for religious reasons. Should have clarified that.

What religious reasons, @Dutchess_III, were you hearing?

That the older brother was telling people that our government uses the Bible as an excuse to wage war in other countries. He’d become a really radical Muslim. Which..that sounds like “political” reasons + religious reasons, so it would be terrorism. I stand corrected.

@Dutchess_III That the older brother was telling people that our government uses the Bible as an excuse to wage war in other countries. That is very interesting. Many people in America accused Bush of that.

Can you cite a source for that, @Dutchess_III? I hadn’t seen or heard that before.

60 Minutes, last night. Read the text version. Page two, very bottom. ”...He was explaining how the Bible is a cheap copy of the Koran and how it’s used for the American government as an excuse to invade other countries. And I remember he said that America’s a colonial power, trying to colonize the Middle East and Africa. And he also said that the most casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are innocent bystanders gunned down by American soldiers.”

Thank you, @Dutchess_III. I hadn’t seen that interview or particular program.

@all I love the way this question has provoked a civilized, nuanced discussion – which is what I was hoping to do.

I’m religious about watching 60 minutes!

Shoot! I knew my husband missed setting up the new DVR for some shows. I hate missing 60 Minutes.

@Dutchess_III link offers the video, @JLeslie.

It was a cool show. Had the Boston bombing, the 911 museum that’s set to open in about a year, and a piece on the war dogs. Very interesting. all of it.