Is this man a terrorist or a criminal?

What is your view, and why? :m:

Is this man a terrorist or a criminal?

What is your view, and why? :m:

We have to choose one or the other? Why can't he be both?

And why do you keep using the pot-leaf smiley in incongrous places? I don't get it.

or....

please revise the op for lucidity
thanks straw

ie: all terrorists are.....all criminals are NOT......all murderers are.......etc

We have to choose one or the other? Why can't he be both?

And why do you keep using the pot-leaf smiley in incongrous places? I don't get it.
Stay out of my stash. :m:

By definition, if you're a terrorist, you ARE a criminal...

or....

please revise the op for lucidity
thanks straw

ie: all terrorists are.....all criminals are NOT......all murderers are.......etc
OK - in a nutshell - should Breitvik be assassinated a la Bin Laden? Or should Bin Laden have been tried as a criminal?

If not, why not, what is the difference? m:

um
anders is already in custody

um
anders is already in custody
He could have been shot, he was arrested.

What is terrorism? Using fear to control. What if I scared the world into following my lead? The world would be a much better place... Would i be a terrorist?

He could have been shot, he was arrested.

He gave himself up immediately when confronted with the armed police officers.

He is a terrorist and that also makes him a criminal..

What is terrorism? Using fear to control.

Which is exactly what he did.

OK - in a nutshell - should Breitvik be assassinated a la Bin Laden? Or should Bin Laden have been tried as a criminal?

If not, why not, what is the difference? m:

The difference is that one of these guys surrendered himself to law enforcement willingly, and the other utilized an extensive paramilitary and intelligence apparatus to hide out on the opposite end of the world and evade capture, continue operations, etc. Surely this is somewhat obvious?

He gave himself up immediately when confronted with the armed police officers.

He is a terrorist and that also makes him a criminal..
Agreed. He alleges he is "at war", should he face a military or criminal court?

The difference is that one of these guys surrendered himself to law enforcement willingly, and the other utilized an extensive paramilitary and intelligence apparatus to hide out on the opposite end of the world and evade capture, continue operations, etc. Surely this is somewhat obvious?
Correction, what is also obvious, is that in one instance an armed terrorist was arrested, and in the other instance an unarmed terrorist was shot dead.

The categories "criminal" and "terrorist" are distinct.

In addition, "criminal" has a specific legal meaning, as well as a vague colloquial connotation. According to the latter, Breivik could be said to be a "criminal".

His attacks, however, clearly put him in the category of the "terrorist", since apparently he had political, paramilitary motives -- which garden-variety serial killers and spree killers (and criminal thugs) don't have.

Agreed. He alleges he is "at war", should he face a military or criminal court?


i see
a simple affirmation is enough to get a choice of court venues
nice

Agreed. He alleges he is "at war", should he face a military or criminal court?

A personal war. One that he hasn't really told anyone else about until after he was caught. He did not engage the armed forces. He engaged unarmed and defenseless children and teenagers and then proceeded to hunt them down for a couple of hours while yelling that they were all going to die.

I would go with whichever one would keep him locked up until he died. But that is just me.

Correction, what is also obvious, is that in one instance an armed terrorist was arrested, and in the other instance an unarmed terrorist was shot dead.

And the former did not resist arrest, while the latter spent considerable time and resources doing his very best to thwart such.

You can also presumably see where one of these people is a dude with a gun, and the other is the leader of an international paramilitary organization, and the way in which that difference would figure into such considerations. If you want a good analogy, you'll need Breitvik to be hiding out on the other end of the world and directing attacks via a network of paramilitary organizations. You'll notice, for example, that the actual Al Qaeda foot-soldiers who actually show up an attempt attacks in the USA (or wherever) are treated to arrest, and not assassination, just like Breitvik was.

But anyway: you've been told pretty clearly why your audience finds the insisted-upon parallels to be rather stilted. Responding to that by picking and choosing whatever superficial aspects, while refusing to address major differences, isn't going to fix that. It's just going to convince your audience that you're looking for a petty fight, and that your views don't merit attention.

The categories "criminal" and "terrorist" are distinct.

But not mutually exclusive.



In addition, "criminal" has a specific legal meaning, as well as a vague colloquial connotation. According to the latter, Breivik could be said to be a "criminal".

And also the former.



His attacks, however, clearly put him in the category of the "terrorist", since apparently he had political, paramilitary motives -- which garden-variety serial killers and spree killers (and criminal thugs) don't have.

Plenty of criminals who are not terrorists have political motives. People who bribe corrupt politicians, or temper with elections, etc. Those are all politically-motivated crimes, but not terrorism, because they do not employ terror.

A personal war. One that he hasn't really told anyone else about until after he was caught. He did not engage the armed forces. He engaged unarmed and defenseless children and teenagers and then proceeded to hunt them down for a couple of hours while yelling that they were all going to die.

What part of that is supposed to be exclusive of "war?"

Maybe the "personal" part - it's not clear to me that an individual can really engage in "war."

Correction, what is also obvious, is that in one instance an armed terrorist was arrested, and in the other instance an unarmed terrorist was shot dead.


thats easy
one is a nordic, the other, an arab

we westerners find it easier to empathize with our own
its a rather peculiar failing but it is what it is
i mean, we did not bomb montana but we sure did afghanistan

What part of that is supposed to be exclusive of "war?"

Maybe the "personal" part - it's not clear to me that an individual can really engage in "war."

Maybe you should tell Breivik that. I don't think he quite understands that part yet.

Maybe you should tell Breivik that. I don't think he quite understands that part yet.

Not interested in what he understands or doesn't - question was whether such actions can be properly construed as "war."

But anyway: you've been told pretty clearly why your audience finds the insisted-upon parallels to be rather stilted. Responding to that by picking and choosing whatever superficial aspects, while refusing to address major differences, isn't going to fix that. It's just going to convince your audience that you're looking for a petty fight, and that your views don't merit attention.


i think it is time to stop caring and instead, just deal with any alleged illogic

i think it is time to stop caring and instead, just deal with any alleged illogic

Yeah, just trying to innoculate such against petty drama. Probably won't work.

i see
a simple affirmation is enough to get a choice of court venues
nice
So are you going to attempt an opinion?

no
i refuse to dumb down by venturing the obvious
nor do i wish to quibble over dictionary definitions or repeat what others have said

what makes you think you still have a viable op?

OK - in a nutshell - should Breitvik be assassinated a la Bin Laden? Or should Bin Laden have been tried as a criminal?

Both should be apprehended and given a fair trial. It seems that was impossible in the case of bin Laden.

What is the justification for vigilante justice?


If not, why not, what is the difference? m:

Are you saying you can't tell the difference between a lone spree-shooter and the leader of a terrorist organisation?


He could have been shot, he was arrested.

That's called "due process".


Agreed. He alleges he is "at war", should he face a military or criminal court?

Fortunately, he doesn't get to make his own laws. He is subject to the laws of the democratic nation of Norway. What he alleges is neither here nor there.

Not interested in what he understands or doesn't - question was whether such actions can be properly construed as "war."

I do not think it could be construed as such.

And the former did not resist arrest, while the latter spent considerable time and resources doing his very best to thwart such.
And yet on the day it mattered, his wives were no real match for the Navy SEALS and he was summarily executed. :m:

You can also presumably see where one of these people is a dude with a gun, and the other is the leader of an international paramilitary organization, and the way in which that difference would figure into such considerations. If you want a good analogy, you'll need Breitvik to be hiding out on the other end of the world and directing attacks via a network of paramilitary organizations. You'll notice, for example, that the actual Al Qaeda foot-soldiers who actually show up an attempt attacks in the USA (or wherever) are treated to arrest, and not assassination, just like Breitvik was.
Breitvik has been planning this for years and arguably hiding and colluding with his cells.

But anyway: you've been told pretty clearly why your audience finds the insisted-upon parallels to be rather stilted. Responding to that by picking and choosing whatever superficial aspects, while refusing to address major differences, isn't going to fix that. It's just going to convince your audience that you're looking for a petty fight, and that your views don't merit attention.
This discussion has a way to go yet. :m:

What is your view,

Both should be apprehended and given a fair trial. It seems that was impossible in the case of bin Laden.
Yes, it was dead or alive as I recall.

What is the justification for vigilante justice?
There is none, if one prescribes to the rule of law.

Are you saying you can't tell the difference between a lone spree-shooter and the leader of a terrorist organisation?
Are their crimes not the same? I can tell - a) They are both criminal and b) both terrorists. Yet the one gets due process and the other is assassinated. Why the difference?

That's called "due process".
Indeed, a bastion of Western civilization.

We have to choose one or the other? Why can't he be both?

And why do you keep using the pot-leaf smiley in incongrous places? I don't get it.


Just like you said, both possibilities exist.

Are their crimes not the same? I can tell - a) They are both criminal and b) both terrorists. Yet the one gets due process and the other is assassinated. Why the difference?


post #21 does not work for you?

/smirk

----------------

i spy sockpuppets

What is your view,
IMO he is a criminal who employed terrorist methods - which makes him a terrorist. However he should get a fair criminal trail, which it seems he will in that civilized neck of the woods. :m:

thats easy
one is a nordic, the other, an arab

we westerners find it easier to empathize with our own
its a rather peculiar failing but it is what it is
i mean, we did not bomb montana but we sure did afghanistan
Aha. I dig. The mainstream media were a bit shocked (after initial finger pointing at jihadists) when it turned out to be a white boy . :m:

Is this man a terrorist or a criminal?

What is your view, and why? :m:
I'm going both. Not all criminals are terrorists, but all terrorists are criminals.

Aha. I dig. The mainstream media were a bit shocked (after initial finger pointing at jihadists) when it turned out to be a white boy . :m:


do you find that confounding?

in norway..... a mosque and immigrant neighborhood get shot up, i suspect neo nazis.
the recent incidents, i suspect jihadists

i find that a reasonable speculation despite the fact it turned out horribly wrong.
do you?

as for you digging shit
you don't
i am telling you why we find it easier to kill the other than our own
it is a human condition that unfortunately persists.

um
doesn't anders look like mulder?

do you find that confounding?

in norway..... a mosque and immigrant neighborhood get shot up, i suspect neo nazis.
the recent incidents, i suspect jihadists

i find that a reasonable speculation despite the fact it turned out horribly wrong.
do you?

as for you digging shit
you don't
i am telling you why we find it easier to kill the other than our own
it is a human condition that unfortunately persists.

And yet if it had occured in the US folks would assume 'Redneck'.

I guess what I was getting at with my distinction between the two terms is that "terrorist" denotes a person who is trying to effect a political agenda through terror; whereas a "criminal" who kills is simply after money, personal revenge, is a lunatic with delusions, or may have sociopathic pleasure in killing.

In this sense, it may be arguable, for example, to call Charles Manson a terrorist, insofar as he had grand visions of fomenting social anarchy through his killings (even if he was fairly small fry and also a lunatic).

The problem with the term "criminal" is that it tends to denote laws internal to a nation; whereas "terrorist" widens the scope to international law -- which is itself a fairly modern concept in the West. We see the terminological complexities with the necessity to coin "war criminal" in the past century. Etc.

do you find that confounding?

I find it frustratingly predictable.

in norway..... a mosque and immigrant neighborhood get shot up, i suspect neo nazis.
the recent incidents, i suspect jihadists

i find that a reasonable speculation despite the fact it turned out horribly wrong.
do you?
Reasonable or predictable?

as for you digging shit
you don't
i am telling you why we find it easier to kill the other than our own
it is a human condition that unfortunately persists.
Of course it is. However, that condition can be improved. We just need the right kind of revolution. :m:

And yet if it had occured in the US folks would assume 'Redneck'.


we do now have oklahoma as a precedent so yes, why not. yet (http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zokla.htm)........

The first list of suspects was long, including possibly anybody but surely foreign suspects. An early newsreport announced that "Middle Eastern groups have held meetings in Oklahoma City, and the city has a number of Arab-American residents" but also added that "far larger Arab-American populations exist in other cities like Detroit, Chicago and Los Angeles" (NYT 1995a). Even McCurdy did not rule out domestic terrorists. "It could be a right-wing, anti-government militant group", he said (CT 1995a).

In the absence of a claim of responsibility for the bombing, the first days were full of speculations. The date of the bombing, April 19, was linked to the Branch Davidian tragedy in Waco, Texas, which had taken place two years earlier to the day. The accusation was denied by surviving Davidians. Vague connections to tensions in the Middle East, retribution for American interventions, and lingering Persian Gulf war bitterness were added to the list. The Nation of Islam was quick to deny unverified rumors (CT, April 20, 1995, p. 18). Another report called the connection with the anniversary of the Branch Davidian assault a "more far-reaching" theory than the fact that American planes had "bombed Libya nine years ago this month" (CT 1995a).

During his first public address on the bombing, President Clinton stated that the terrorist act was an "attack on the United States, our way of life and everything we believe in" (Lyfestyles, 1995, p. 15). This expressed and confirmed the anti-American character of the bombing and it at least implicitly insinuated that guilt lay outside America's borders. Clinton added that searching and convicting the perpetrators was "not a question of anybody's country of origin,... not a question of anybody's religion" (Lyfestyles, 1995, p. 15). The disclaimer, of course, only made sense in view of a suspicion towards Middle-Eastern Muslims.

I don't think it matters . I think he should get the death penalty . I am funny that way . I think it should be a bullet to the head fast and easy Blam your dead ! A bullet don't cast that much either . Course he needs a trial right ? Then a bullet to the head . I doubt that will happen , but hey some wishes come true .

StrawDog:



Are you saying you can't tell the difference between a lone spree-shooter and the leader of a terrorist organisation?

Are their crimes not the same? I can tell - a) They are both criminal and b) both terrorists. Yet the one gets due process and the other is assassinated. Why the difference?

bin Laden was shot in fire-fight, apparently. The military could not take him alive. Breivik surrendered to the authorities, apparently.

Why is this so hard for you? The facts are easy enough to check.

I don't think it matters . I think he should get the death penalty .

The death penalty is barbaric.


Course he needs a trial right ?

Yes. A fair trial.

There is no death penalty in Norway, thankfully. It's an enlightened western democracy.

The facts are easy enough to check.


despite that.......

ap·par·ent·ly/əˈparəntlē/Adverb
1. As far as one knows or can see: "the child nodded, apparently content with the promise".
2. Used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying

...a disclaimer of sorts.
whats the matter, james? do you doubt the official explanation of osama's death?

if so, what facts are there to be checked?

The death penalty is barbaric.



Yes. A fair trial.

There is no death penalty in Norway, thankfully. It's an enlightened western democracy.

Not in America . We still kill killers in many states . You can think it Barbaric all you want . I heard that Norway had no death penalty . That is why I said it probably won't Happen . i was thinking something more along the lines of a Jack Ruby event . Barbaric Americans do that kind of stuff too.

whats the matter, james? do you doubt the official explanation of osama's death?

Which part?

I accept that Osama bin Laden was shot by US military personnel in a compound in Pakistan.


Not in America . We still kill killers in many states . You can think it Barbaric all you want .

Yes.


i was thinking something more along the lines of a Jack Ruby event . Barbaric Americans do that kind of stuff too.

You approve of Jack Ruby's killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, do you?

Which part?


heh
never mind then
its not like this hasn't been done to death here


I accept that Osama bin Laden was shot by US military personnel in a compound in Pakistan.

i doubt if that fact could ever be disputed
i accept it too

Terrorist doesnt = criminal, but if this guy hurt people, then yes he's a criminal.

Which part?

I accept that Osama bin Laden was shot by US military personnel in a compound in Pakistan.



Yes.



You approve of Jack Ruby's killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, do you?

Did I say that ? AOpps my bad . No I think that was a set up . Don't know that for sure . I believe in the death penalty though . Some criminals need to die in my eyes . Was not Osama caught laying on the couch . Did I miss something . Like he looked back and blam eye gone . Was there a fire Fight ? I mean when they got to Osama , did they fire fight it out with Osama ?
I sure didn't interpret it that way . I got the impression he was lazing on the couch and he looked back and blamo eye gone

There is an outside chance if someone kills one of my children I might do the same to them . I have killed a few animals and gutted them . I think I could . You don't know for sure until it is you in that position . Would you kill if your life depended on it or your family ? I think I would . Hope I don't have to find out

Killing in self-defence is not quite the same as killing in cold blood.

StrawDog:



bin Laden was shot in fire-fight, apparently. The military could not take him alive. Breivik surrendered to the authorities, apparently.

Why is this so hard for you? The facts are easy enough to check.
No, sadly the facts are not at all clear. The White House changed its story several times, and it seems there was no firefight involving Bin Laden (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change).

Killing in self-defence is not quite the same as killing in cold blood.

It is still killing . At what point do you let it go when a killer is a threat to society . I know a killer got out after 7 years and killed again , then he served another 7 years got out . Now I wonder if he killed agsin so he could go back to his big house were they take good care of him . Don't know , Lost trace of Him after he got out the 2nd time . Pretty nice guy . I liked Him , except for killing of other humans he would of been a great guy . Now I am not advocating killing him , cause I like him, but there much worse killers out there than him. Some of them need killing in my opinion . I could probably name a few , most of them have been killed already .
Charles Manson escaped the death penalty in the last hour so to speak . Meaning the law was changed to no death penalty at the last moment so he got out of it . That is how I remember it . If I am wrong anyone out there can correct Me ( Fraggle speak up ) . Well it didn't work out so good so California years many years later reinstated the death penalty . I think it was Charles Ing the help motivate the change . Him and His Butt buddy from Vietnam were abducting young women raping and torturing them in there basement dungeon they set up. I forget how many bodies were dug up on there property ? Maybe that was not it ?

A commenter at Lawrence Auster's blog (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020036.html) has this wry contribution toward the Unified Theory of Breivik:

Why the confusion? Breivik was clearly a neo-Nazi, pro-Zionist, Christian-fundamentalist, pro-homosexual, Darwinian-Atheist, pan-European-Nordicist, radical conservative Freemason, and a lone wolf working as part of a shadowy cell of right-wing extremists who have been primed as part of a false-flag operation to discredit the Tea Party movement, the EDL, and the gun lobby. He was Norway’s answer to Baruch Goldstein, Timothy McVeigh, Seung Hui Cho, and the Unabomber. Coming generations will view him as a hero and a traitor whose intelligence is matched only by his stupidity.

See this link for the harsh punishments that await Breivik:

The Punishment that Awaits the Killer of Norway (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020038.html)

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Convict%20resting%20in%20sun.jpg

-- a prison inmate soaks up some Nordic rays at the Bastoey Prison in Norway

umm
is that not at the tail end of their sentences?
to reintegrate into society and whatnot?

umm
is that not at the tail end of their sentences?
to reintegrate into society and whatnot?

If so, I'm sure Breivik, when his liberal 21-year sentence is over, will be a new man, ready to reintegrate into society! :p

I guess what I was getting at with my distinction between the two terms is that "terrorist" denotes a person who is trying to effect a political agenda through terror; whereas a "criminal" who kills is simply after money, personal revenge, is a lunatic with delusions, or may have sociopathic pleasure in killing.Yes. The word "terrorist" is redefined at odd intervals to serve political purposes, but it always carries the sense of extortion writ large. The terrorist(s) want(s) the people in power to adopt a position so unpopular among them that there is no way to persuade them except violence. He is different from the Mafia enforcer only in scope: pay my protection money or your restaurant might burn down one night/let my people have control over this territory or your children might be blown to bits/abolish the DEA and the BATF or your federal building might go up in smoke.

Most definitions of terrorism also insist that the targets must be civilians or civilian infrastructure. An attack against military personnel and/or resources is an act of war, insurrection, guerrilla warfare, or several other things, but since it's reasonably expected that soldiers, their equipment and buildings may some day be attacked, it's hardly fair linguistically to call the attacker a terrorist.

Therefore I personally do not call the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon terrorism. I call it an act of war. Same for the USS Cole and the Marine barracks. I'd even exempt the IRA attacks on British police stations. Those are the headquarters of armed, hostile, unwelcome occupying forces (from the perspective of the Catholic population).

I don't see any reason that terrorism can't also be a crime, so there's no need to draw a fine line between the two. Blowing up a building full of people is, at the very least, one act of vandalism and three thousand acts of murder, and those are all crimes.

It's like these trendy new laws against "hate crimes." The acts are already illegal, why bother giving them a new name?

"It's like these trendy new laws against "hate crimes." The acts are already illegal, why bother giving them a new name?"

Because the motive for the crime affects the punishment.

He is a [deleted by moderator]

He is certainly a criminal.
He's also a fanatic and a Psychopath. Also intelligent, and a diligent planner.
If he was around in Hitler's Germany, he would have gone straight to the top.
He reminds me of Reinhard Heydrich, who orchestrated the efficient murder of Jews in German occupied Europe.

http://www.trailershut.com/actor-images/reinhard-heydrich-10035.jpg
Heydrich, a cold intelligent mass murderer

And yes, he fits the bill for the definition of terrorist.
It could have been written with him in mind.
Is anyone casting doubt on that?


ter·ror·ism   
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

And yes, he fits the bill for the definition of terrorist.
It could have been written with him in mind.
Is anyone casting doubt on that?
No. However, the issue now is whether he is a Christian Terrorist (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0801/Norway-attacks-Was-Breivik-a-Christian-terrorist)?. "Terrorist" currently being a term reserved exclusively for Muslims. Brains trust O`Reilly is somewhat outraged at the allegation. :m:

So this guy would say that the IRA and UDA weren't terrorists either?
And the Basques. They were all Christians.

He wants to rewrite the dictionary so that Muslims can be incarcerated and tortured without trial.

How he is punished is up to the Norwegians, whom by the way are not accustomed to crime never mind violent crime. If this guy was a real terrorist at war then he wouldn't have gone about killing his own christian race which for all those white supremacists out there makes him deplorable and they have all come out condemning his act. He is in no way remotely like Bin Laden simply because Bin Laden was heading an organization designed to strike targets in what they claimed is a war, Bin Laden wasn't crazy and Brevnik obviously is (his action being without meaning politically or philosophically). Brevnik is like the Unabomber who declared a personal war concocted in his own twisted mind.

If this guy was a real terrorist at war then he wouldn't have gone about killing his own christian race which for all those white supremacists out there makes him deplorable and they have all come out condemning his act.


good to know
thanks for representing the white supremacists

"christian race"

??

/loving the lingo

Brevnik obviously is (his action being without meaning politically or philosophically).

You don't think attacking the Labour Government directly with a car bomb and then attacking a Labour Youth camp by shooting young members of the party has "meaning politically or philosophically"?


The man who has confessed to killing 77 people in Norway has made a list of "unrealistic" demands, his lawyer says.

Anders Behring Breivik wanted the government to resign and Japanese specialists to assess his mental health, Geir Lippestad told reporters.

[Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14372038]



Brevnik is like the Unabomber who declared a personal war concocted in his own twisted mind.
No actually, it is not. Visit sites like Gates of Vienna and Jihad Watch and other white supremacist sites. He merely put into action what the people who visit and post on such sites only dream about and speak about. They talk about the coming war. He decided to bring it forward.

Meanwhile, the right wing party he used to belong to in Norway have had a few comments to make.. Timing, as they say is everything..


Meanwhile, the leader of the right-wing Progress Party has warned that Norway still faces a serious Islamist threat.

"All the debates that we had prior to 22 July will come back. All the challenges that Norway was facing and the challenges that the world was facing are still there. Al-Qaeda is still there," Siv Jensen told the AFP news agency.

Is this man a terrorist or a criminal?

What is your view, and why? :m:

Isn't a terrorist someone who uses violence (terror) in order to force his/her political ideals?
If there are no political ideals involved it's not terrorism.

I've been trying to get my head around the objection to calling Breivik a Terrorist. His actions are clearly those of a terrorist.

That isn't the objection posed by O'Reilly.
He is objecting to Breivik being called a "Christian Terrorist", implying that his actions could be considered as Christian in nature.
(at least I hope so, otherwise I'm as much in the dark as before)

Perhaps if this sort of thing goes on, perhaps we could call it Christianist Terrorism, to pair up with the Islamist version.

Second, there is no way he could be described as criminally insane. (Breivik, not O'Reilly)
His operation was meticulously planned.

It's pretty clear to me that Breivik is both a criminal and a terrorist.

I don't have a lot of problem with calling him a Christian terrorist either. The difficulty with that is that he doesn't seem to be the expression of any widely held Christian terrorist ideology. He's more of a lone individual.

My guess is that he's going to turn out to be suffering from psychiatric problems. So the most accurate phrase might ultimately be 'psychotic terrorist'. In which case, I would expect to see some resistance to that phrase from some 'progressives' (it would stigmatize the mentally ill) just as there is currently some resistance to 'Christian terrorist' from some 'conservatives' (it stigmatizes Christians).

The difficulty with that is that he doesn't seem to be the expression of any widely held Christian terrorist ideology. ? He most certainly does - the Ku Klux Klan, Army of God, et al, in the US being perhaps the most easily found and drawn in parallel.

Isn't a terrorist someone who uses violence (terror) in order to force his/her political ideals?
If there are no political ideals involved it's not terrorism.
In the classic sense, yes. Of course Breitvik has political & ideological ideals, that`s what the attack is about, a platform to express such.

The terrorist(s) want(s) the people in power to adopt a position so unpopular among them that there is no way to persuade them except violence.

That mischaracterizes the situation - frequently the actual "demands" or platform of terrorist organizations aren't all that unpalatable, as such, nor are the terrorists driven to violence to achieve them through some rational process of trying and rejecting the alternatives. Not that such never happens, but it's not characteristic. Just as often, the terrorists are as interested in violent control for its own sake, and the political platform is simply made up after that fact as a justification/motivator (you'll note instances in which terrorists' demands end up getting met - but they don't give up on terrorism, they just invent new demands to justify more terrorism).

It is a dangerous mistake to construe all terrorism as simply frustrated - but basically rational - political activism.



An attack against military personnel and/or resources is an act of war, insurrection, guerrilla warfare, or several other things, but since it's reasonably expected that soldiers, their equipment and buildings may some day be attacked, it's hardly fair linguistically to call the attacker a terrorist.

It's generally true that a simple attack on military targets does not terrorize in the way a similar attack on civilian targets would. But that's not to say that attacks on military targets cannot terrorize - a military is itself a political institution whose decision-makers can be subject to terror, no? It doesn't seem crazy to suggest that things like displays of overwhelming force - even against solely military targets - are using terror to achieve political ends.



Therefore I personally do not call the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon terrorism.

I'd almost agree with that, except for the part where said attack involved highjacking a passenger jet full of civilians and crashing it into the Pentagon. If it had been done by renting a charter plane, packing it with explosives, and crashing that into the Pentagon, it would be a different story, sure.


It's like these trendy new laws against "hate crimes." The acts are already illegal, why bother giving them a new name?

Because the "hate" versions of those acts are qualitatively worse - they are acts of terrorism, in point of fact - and so deserve harsher sentencing.