Some people are still fretting about whether the Boston bombings were “terrorism,” and if so whether or not noteworthy mass shootings were also terrorism, and if not, why not. Example:
The answer to “terrorism or not” when applied to any intentional massacre would seem to me to be simple. What is the answer to this question:
“Was the act of killing innocent people a means to an end – specifically to influence government/social policy – or was the killing the end unto itself?”
If you kill a bunch of folk because you want to, say, change tax policy, or liberate people you feel are being oppressed, or cause people to convert to or from some particular religion… then, terrorism. If you kill a bunch of folk because you get off on seeing people die, then… well, I’d say that “terrorism” is probably still a fair assessment, but, officially, *not* terrorism. Being a part of a group would not seem to be relevant either way.
So, Boston: Terrorism or no? Hmmm…
Joker Zardoz was, to available evidence, not a “terrorist” in a technical sense, just a weak-willed dumbass doing what his brother told him to do. But his brother Tammy *was* a terrorist. Tammy was the one with a political motive based on whackadoodle religious extremism; he apparently had the desire to affect change in US policy.
Now, a further question arises when someone unaffiliated with the terrorist act uses that terrorist act to further spread terror in order to affect a change in government policy. Is that second party also a terrorist? Consider:
