Why can't I be a terrorists?

Why?

Adam Lanza, 20, fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School - The guy was crazy, not a terrorist.
James Holmes, the former PhD-student accused of killing 12 people in Colorado when he opened fire in a cinema - The guy was crazy, not a terrorist.
Anders Behring Breivik, the man who killed 77 people in a bomb attack and gun rampage - The guy was crazy, not a terrorist.

If any one of these was a Muslim they would be a terrorist. Surely it's all terrorism?

I could kill 10 people and I would be crazy. If I shouted Allahu Akbar while I did it I'd be a terrorist.

Terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Breivik was a terrorist (convicted of Terrorism, amongst other things, last August) because he did have political aims. I don't know where you got the idea that he wasn't a terrorist from.

The other two were just crazy loners, they didn't do it because of some political agenda.

brevik was a terrorist, a right winger.

the others were mental cases, one i beleive was a previously diagnosed manic depressive, essentially they were serial killers.

terrorists have an agenda ( in their own minds) which they think they will achieve by killing civilians

because 'terrorists' is a plural and you are one person

because 'terrorists' is a plural and you are one person

There's a difference between a psychopath and a terrorist a psychopath has a mental disorder due to genes, environmental factors, neurotransmitters and hormone balances whereas a terrorist is someone whose attacks were aggravated by political ideologies, racial, ethical or a religious agenda hence its classed as terrorism.

So those two guys in Woolwich are perfectly sane people?

I'm sorry but I'm not sure they were.

He wasn't blasted all over the news as a terrorist. Are you saying he was a perfectly sane person then? Because I'd say they're all just ****ing mental.

So how are is our government not a terrorist if that's the definition?

Terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Breivik was a terrorist (convicted of Terrorism, amongst other things, last August) because he did have political aims. I don't know where you got the idea that he wasn't a terrorist from.

The other two were just crazy loners, they didn't do it because of some political agenda.

He wasn't blasted all over the news as a terrorist. Are you saying he was a perfectly sane person then? Because I'd say they're all just ****ing mental.

So how are is our government not a terrorist if that's the definition?

Terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Suppose you need some aim... The IRA wanted to see an end to partition (unify Ireland( and end persecution of Catholics under unionist rule. So they did that with bombs, guns and even going on hunger strike.

The Taliban want to see the end of christian civilization full stop, and impose sharia law. And just as a above they do this with bombs and guns and I think there has been hungers strikes. also

And the list goes on... The ANC, ETA, UVF, UDA ect. The above people you you mention don't have a political agenda (or have not stated it) And also worth noting is the old age saying 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'

Hope that helped.