Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I subscribe to the interpretation of threats in this case and not motives. You need to cancel the threat first in this case.
While I agree that nations are going to have to deal with root causes that create what seems to be a fairly fertile recruiting base. Once their radicalized and preparing for an action, whether they're mentally ill or a loner or whatever to me isn't relevant in the face of public safety.
Also sometimes its too easy to label people with the "Mental Illness" label when they do something that we don't see as rational in our mind set to justify and feel better about humanity as a whole. The whole "a sane person" wouldn't do that.
I don't know if I'm answering your question, however to end that string Osama Bin Laden was a very rational human being in his personal world view, and his sense of right and wrong was defined by his interpretation of his religion and a twisted world view, he wasn't by most definitions insane, however his actions by some could be interpreted as Insane.
But to me, in both cases they're terrorists because they committed an act of terror and they could justify it as the right thing to do.
The proper question of number two though to be honest and it defines state of mind, does he has an understanding of the consequences of his actions?
|
I think your answer addresses the question well: you're looking at the consequences for a definition, which is a practical approach since the ultimate effect is what's important from a public safety perspective.
I just question whether we should have a different reaction based not on consequences, but on causes. For example, Vincent Li (the bus beheader) isn't someone we think of as a terrorist, but if he was linked to ISIS (perhaps because his diseased mind gravitated to anything that appeared powerful or fearsome, and he adopted their superficialities) we might then label his attack terrorism or an attack on our country.
My question, I suppose, is really about our response to these two different kinds of actor. Because if our plan is to stop lunatics, we would be better off targeting lunacy rather than terrorism.