Terrorism?

I agree that there's certainly room to define the term, which seems very flexible. It could just be that there are different kinds of terrorism. As it stands, the word is buzz, in the same kind of way "quality" gets thrown around by universities and corporations.
But as for the lone wolf idea, if a given organization encouraged lone wolf actions, wouldn't those actions have to further their own cause? In this case, I can't see what organization would sit back and say, "Well, that wasn't planned, but I won't argue."

 

Many, many radical political organizations are in favor of just about anything that upsets the status quo.

 

Good point. So then, given that, is a terrorist anyone who believes in or acts in such a way to cause public disruption and uproar? And not necessarily someone who believes in one pinpoint tenet, and will go to lethal lengths to get that across?

 

So the OKC Murrah bombing wasn't a terrorist act?

There was a conspiracy, but no repetition.

 

And, as I've been hinting, part of me thinks these "lone" nutballs see patterns where the rest of us don't.

 

Sympathizing with a cause and carrying out actions that benefit the cause could be classified as a terrorist action. However, I must add the caveat that such an isolated incident (as it would be with a sympathizer) would need to be linked to the group in some way.

In the terms of the KKK, you can't have some white guy shooting black people and then no mention of the KKK. That, in itself, doesn't instill terror. That would be a lone racist. If the white guy is able to drop enough hints and references to the Klan to bring about the reminder that the Klan can still be the "invisible army" that it once was, then you are acting as a terrorist.

Well, I guess I shouldn't state that it needs to be repeated but there needs to be a fear of repetition or a threat of repetition.

The guy that put the bombing plan in place wasn't immediately caught. He could also have had a group that share in his ideology, which he did.

 

The guy at Va Tech didn't have any political or ideological motivations, which are the key components in defining terrorism. He was just nutso.

 

2much --

Do we know that? I've only seen his letter described, but I haven't seen the substance of it...

 

so call it terrorization, not terrorism.

 

leo --

I'm not sure I'm following. What would be your definitions for both?

 

Now that the killer's press kit has been made public, I think I can safely say that this was a terrorist attack.

he mentions the Columbine killers, and calls them martyrs. In this postmodern world of ours, he was aware of how he would be portrayed, enough to establish a connection with earlier school massacres and enough to provide grossly disturbing images to be displayed after his death.

He did this to scare people. This was a terrorist attack.

 

I can't see how this can be defined as a terrorist attack.

He acted alone and was not part of a larger group.

There is no political element.

Terrorist attacks are intended to scare people to coerce them and their government into change.

Don't see it. He wanted his 15 minutes of fame and unfortunately, he got it.