Albertaghost: He certainly killed 77 people, blew up a building and a camp for kids and certainly terrified the people that were there at the camp but to my knowledge he didn't seriously intimidate an entire population as he was apprehended by the time the nation had heard the news and, didn't disrupt a function of vital importance as the trains kept moving following his bombing of the government buildings.
He is a cold blooded murderer but no terrorist according to Norwegian definition of it.
"Breivik himself has insisted he is mentally stable and demanded that the attacks — the most violent in Norway since World War Two — be judged as a political act rather than the work of a deranged mind."
Now I dont know why you are so persistent with this very disturbing thread. It is considered Terrorism, even if someone does not see it that way,,the admitted murderer insists himself that it is Political. I'm done. You can simply google and find it all over the web. Also the group he is including and the other talk of it being against people immigrating into the country it is one more point that puts it in that category. Why? because it is then against again the Country and also those people of said group. you are on your own.
"Breivik himself has insisted he is mentally stable and demanded that the attacks — the most violent in Norway since World War Two — be judged as a political act rather than the work of a deranged mind."
Now I dont know why you are so persistent with this very disturbing thread. It is considered Terrorism, even if someone does not see it that way,,the admitted murderer insists himself that it is Political. I'm done. You can simply google and find it all over the web. Also the group he is including and the other talk of it being against people immigrating into the country it is one more point that puts it in that category. Why? because it is then against again the Country and also those people of said group. you are on your own.
Niko, please read the title of the thread.
Now, want to define terrorism and talk about it fine but it certainly is not about this guy and his murders that so many are intent on making out to be terrorism when it fits no definition of terrorism other than in some people's hopeful minds.
He is a murdering piece of crud pure and simple and one who aspires to be a terrorist but has failed. Even by the standards of his own country who covered their asses by charging him with murder because they know their terrorism charge will not stick for reason I have already explained in my last post.
Their new terrorism laws are flawed. The first three to be charged with terrorism all walked because of that.
Now that we are done with this guy, can you answer the OP question?
Nikogas: Here is what I had looked up a few months back.#1 "Ethnic separatist violence in the 1930s provoked the League of Nations, formed after World War I to encourage world stability and peace, to define terrorism for the first time, as:
All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public."
#2 The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:
"The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
#3 Definition of Terrorism under U.S. Law ""United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
(d) Definitions As used in this section— (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country; (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism; (4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and (5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country— (A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization— (i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or (ii) as a transit point; and (B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under— (i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50; (ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or (iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.""
#4 FBI Definition of Terrorism The FBI defines terrorism as:
"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."I suppose though obvious I will throw in here that these definitions are as labeled and to their respective areas, there are more that pertain to other governments as well...I hope this helps give some clarity. Cheers.
I did way back here. As I also said above that it was one that had come up a few months ago...so....that is more than enough I would think..
Albertaghost: Are you another one who joins the pitchfork mob rather than use the court system?
And what is your widely accepted definition of terrorism as asked in the OP?
there was a young lad in my housing estate, going around terrorising people, breaking windows, causing trouble and terror,...its just a word we use when someone is causing terror
AlbertaghostOPCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
pedro27: there was a young lad in my housing estate, going around terrorising people, breaking windows, causing trouble and terror,...its just a word we use when someone is causing terror
So if you had a definition of terrorism it would be simple vandalism. So the 911 attacks were vandalism.
Interesting. As I asked in the OP, is this a widespread definition or just for those in the housing estate? If the former, what do you use for larger damages such as loss of life on a scale of tens, hundreds, thousands and billions of dollars of property damage?
Albertaghost: So if you had a definition of terrorism it would be simple vandalism. So the 911 attacks were vandalism.
Interesting. As I asked in the OP, is this a widespread definition or just for those in the housing estate? If the former, what do you use for larger damages such as loss of life on a scale of tens, hundreds, thousands and billions of dollars of property damage?
he also shot at houses with a gun, that was not vandalism, to me he caused terror, he might not be a terroist but he did cause terror to people
AlbertaghostOPCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
pedro27: he also shot at houses with a gun, that was not vandalism, to me he caused terror, he might not be a terroist but he did cause terror to people
I am in terror when I get pulled over by the police even though we live in such a small place that they are just saying hi as I know them all through my local charity organization. They could be construed as terrorists for scaring me like that but that would be just as silly as what you just described.
Albertaghost: I am in terror when I get pulled over by the police even though we live in such a small place that they are just saying hi as I know them all through my local charity organization. They could be construed as terrorists for scaring me like that but that would be just as silly as what you just described.
its a figure of speech, we use the word ''terror'' as a word to describe how we feel when we are frightened. does not mean they are terrorists
AlbertaghostOPCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
pedro27: its a figure of speech, we use the word ''terror'' as a word to describe how we feel when we are frightened. does not mean they are terrorists
I know however, I asked in the OP which widely accepted definition you use to ascertain what terrorism means as in the global or regional sort of terrorist connotation.
Albertaghost: I know however, I asked in the OP which widely accepted definition you use to ascertain what terrorism means as in the global or regional sort of terrorist connotation.
the people who are terrorists, don't know there terrorists they think there fighting for a cause. example IRA, taliban, 9-11, bin laden ect..there terrorists but they don't class them selfs as terrorists
AlbertaghostOPCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
pedro27: the people who are terrorists, don't know there terrorists they think there fighting for a cause. example IRA, taliban, 9-11, bin laden ect..there terrorists but they don't class them selfs as terrorists
That is correct. If I were living under the same conditions as they were then possibly I would be so mal adjusted that joining a terrorist organization would be a viable alternative to living under the repressive boot of dictatorship such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria or whatever.
Anyhow, have you a widely accepted definition for terrorism or not? Most don't and prefer to just call anything they don't like a terrorist or terrorism.
Albertaghost: That is correct. If I were living under the same conditions as they were then possibly I would be so mal adjusted that joining a terrorist organization would be a viable alternative to living under the repressive boot of dictatorship such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria or whatever.
Anyhow, have you a widely accepted definition for terrorism or not? Most don't and prefer to just call anything they don't like a terrorist or terrorism.
the law of the land decides weather there terrorists or not, there profile and history would confirm that
AlbertaghostOPCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
pedro27: the law of the land decides weather there terrorists or not, there profile and history would confirm that
And you being a housing project sort of guy would call 911 a major vandalism event rather than a global terrorist act I surmise.
Or, that it occurred in another country yet was international in scope, victims and perpetrators who have vowed to bring down western civilization just use your own definition which is you being scared when local kids break a window nearby?
Albertaghost: And you being a housing project sort of guy would call 911 a major vandalism event rather than a global terrorist act I surmise.
Or, that it occurred in another country yet was international in scope, victims and perpetrators who have vowed to bring down western civilization just use your own definition which is you being scared when local kids break a window nearby?
Seems clear to me 9/11 was a considered response from Bush attacking the place of birth of Mohammad's Daughter, Baghdad, seen by some as an attack on all of the Muslim faith
Albertaghost: And you being a housing project sort of guy would call 911 a major vandalism event rather than a global terrorist act I surmise.
Or, that it occurred in another country yet was international in scope, victims and perpetrators who have vowed to bring down western civilization just use your own definition which is you being scared when local kids break a window nearby?
don't get me wrong, 9-11 was a major global terrorist attack. i did not say the local kids were terrorists i said they are causing terror
bestbeforesomewhere, Dorset, England UK4,701 posts
john34: ---
Treat others the way you would like to be treated – with respect - be polite, considerate, with no personal attacks, name calling, harassment, bad language. This is a place for discussion, debate, even disagreements – but not arguments just for the sake of arguing or aggravation.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
He is a cold blooded murderer but no terrorist according to Norwegian definition of it.
this is from this link.
"Breivik himself has insisted he is mentally stable and demanded that the attacks — the most violent in Norway since World War Two — be judged as a political act rather than the work of a deranged mind."
Now I dont know why you are so persistent with this very disturbing thread. It is considered Terrorism, even if someone does not see it that way,,the admitted murderer insists himself that it is Political.
I'm done. You can simply google and find it all over the web. Also the group he is including and the other talk of it being against people immigrating into the country it is one more point that puts it in that category. Why? because it is then against again the Country and also those people of said group.
you are on your own.