Apparently serial killing is now terrorism...

[fireheart17]

This is a rant against the media. Yes, ASIO, come and get me! (that has context)

So basically over the last couple of weeks or so, Abbott (Aussie's PM) has upped our terrorist rating from medium (which is what it has been since the ratings were first itnroduced) to high. Why? In a word: ISIS.

Then no less than a few days later, they arrest and charge a number of people with the aim of "committing terrorist acts." Their goal? To behead a random individual and use it as a "warning" to others, Abbott included. There was also another smaller-scale incident involving a man threatening to behead a policeman and wound up being shot, then dying.

Did I mention that all of the people above were Muslim? (apart from the police who conducted said raids)

Yeah, now I believe that terrorism is MEANT to have the goal of harming as many citizens as possible to spread terror among the citizens. Even Wiki doesn't give a full definition of terrorism, but concedes that generally terrorist acts are designed to instill terror in their citizens (serial killers do this too) and are completely random (oh hey look, serial killers do this too!)

If we use the definition that a "small" act can spread terror among citizens, then serial killers, mass murderes etc. could be considered terrorists. Yet, they aren't. The Columbine shooters weren't considered terrorists despite the fact that their acts could be considered terrorism under the very vague definition afforded.

The Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, The BTK strangler, all of these could be considered examples of terrorism, we could even extend it to the Snowtown killers. Yet we label them as serial killers, mass murderers, bombers etc.

Seems these days that if a Muslim commits an act of murder, he's a terrorist. If a Christian does it, it's murder.

(I should add that there has been a TON of anti-Muslim crap floating around the country the last few days. It culminated in one guy walking into an Islamic school and threatening the teachers and another person [WASP] threatening to behead a Muslim who was walking down the street and had nothing to do with the above-mentioned plot)

[TheHuckster]

The Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, The BTK strangler, all of these could be considered examples of terrorism, we could even extend it to the Snowtown killers. Yet we label them as serial killers, mass murderers, bombers etc.

Maybe it's an Aussie media thing, but in the US, McVeigh and the Unabomber, at least, have always been considered terrorists in the eyes of the majority of the public and the media, at least by my observation.

This is a definition from my own experience, and I'm mostly basing this definition based on pre-9/11 events, since I agree that the term "terrorist" has become overused. To me, three things have to be present in order for something to be considered terrorism:

1.) The terrorist must be using their actions (or threat thereof) as a form of coercion toward getting someone else to do an act. This action could be selfish (give us money), political (stop abortions), or religious (stop being infidels) in nature.

2.) The terrorist must be using other innocent people as hostages or pawns, or be threatening something that could affect a third party.

3.) The terrorist's actions are big enough that the public at large is aware of it, with the intention that the terrorist wants to invoke fear in the general public.

A serial killer often instills fear in the public, but it's not always their direct intention. And, even if it is, they aren't instilling that fear in order to get someone to fulfill their wishes, but rather because they find their exposure as an infamous killer to be rewarding in and of itself.

So, the classic Dennis Hopper rigs a bus to explode if he doesn't get millions of dollars scenario fits this description.

A religious zealot who believes anyone who doesn't agree with him/her should die, and hijacks planes to crash them into skyscrapers, resulting in thousands of deaths with the intention of demanding a nation to change its foreign policy also fit this description.

The Unabomber used his killings to demand the media at least publish his twisted manifesto.

Contrast this with:

The Columbine shootings were perpetrated by students who were out for revenge. They didn't want anything else out of their actions.

The BTK killer loved his fame as a serial killer, and taunted the media and police with letters. But he didn't demand anything from them, and there's no concessions anyone could make to end the killings. The BTK killer didn't kill to get someone to do something, he killed simply because he was batshit crazy.

So, if someone beheads another with the goal of "warning" others to do (or not do) an action fits the description of terrorism under these parameters.

Your mileage may vary, of course. The term has loose definitions, which lends itself to being trigger words in the media designed to invoke a reaction from the public.

[BlaqueKatt]

doing something in the name of a terrorist group *is* terrorism.

the PLO hijackings and taking hostages was terrorism 5 planes, not a single death or injury, total number of hostages taken 310-still terrorism.

some IRA bombings have few injuries(this one had none), they're still terrorism.

IT's not about the number injured it's the intent. The ALF is considered to be terrorist organization, as is the ELF(which burns SUVs and spikes trees).

terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. that's it, ted bundy and btk weren't doing anything political, ISIS is.

The FBI definition can be found here:FBI and oklahoma city(McVeigh) and the unabomber ARE listed as terrorist attacks, so no idea why you assumed otherwise.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think it's more simple

A serial killer is someone who kills a number of people. He or she is committed to that activity.

A serial killer can be a terrorist but a terrorist need not be a serial killer. Many terrorists simply utilize serial killers as a tool. There's a guy in The Sorrow And The Pity (French film about the French during WWII) that strikes me as a serial killer who simply is working for the resistance. You get the impression he wants to fuck shit up as a general impulse, he just happened to have a cause.

This is why I find I hate the language of terrorism debates. People would do well to understand that these people (1%-2% of the population they may be) who are disenfranchised and have the impulse. You're not fighting an enemy. You're fighting human nature and they will pick any cause under the sun if it gives them permission to behave the way they want to anyway.

By all means, end ISIS because the world is not better with a Caliphate espousing their ideas in it. They will butcher and kill people to impose their orthodoxy and they're doing it right now. But don't pretend that fixes the problem because it doesn't. And don't pretend that things like civil rights are temporarily suspendeble because people like that exist now. They will always exist. Pick that which you prioritize - the right or the safety and there may be times within the context of a conflict that those may need to be adjusted back and forth. But you are in fact actually prioritizing, not "suspending".

That's just the nature of life.