che_don_john
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2011
- Messages
- 729
Well, there are many examples of how similar murders are not treated as terrorist acts. Take Peter Sutcliffe, for example. He claimed God had told him to murder those women - but was he defined as a Christian terrorist? Or those two Russian Jehovah's Witnesses who went on a killing spree ten years ago on their mission from God - they were reported as deranged nutters, rather than as terrorists.This is not correct. Rigby's killing was most assuredly terrorism and it was not classified as such merely because his attackers were Muslims. His murder told people at the scene he was killed. They even had a 2 page explanation to give to authorities.
Terrorism is violence used to achieve a political, religious, or idealogical goal. To say it was only terrorism because Muslims were involved is either ignorant (not necessarily you just the statement) or intellectually dishonest.
It would have been classed as terrorism if it were the IRA killing him in the name of revenge against the British Army or for that matter, a Catholic priest killing him because the Church of England is the state church and he wanted revenge against the government for making it so.
Those last examples you gave are more easily defined as terrorism because the perpetrators would identify with a defined cause and/or movement; whereas that guy who killed Lee Rigby expressed a more personal vendetta against the British establishment (yes, influenced by AQ and IS propaganda, but not acting on their behalf; they probably claimed responsibility, but then they always do, even when it's news to them!).
I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you; just pointing out the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the definition of terrorism.