(Dept. of Defense/AP Photo) -The face of an actual terrorist in my opinion
Shawn Maxam wonders why are we so obsessed with labeling the Aurora, Colorado shooter.
definition of a terrorist - A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
All over the news, social media and the Internet I see people arguing over whether James Holmes, the Aurora shooter, is a terrorist? How are we defining terrorism in a post 9/11 world? Does Holmes fit into our this new definition of terrorism/terrorist? My answer is a resounding NO!
I think this is a situation where we become trapped in a dance with the English language. Holmes may have terrorized the moviegoers with his actions. He may have brought terror to a city in Colorado but he’s not a terrorist. Just because a verb or adverb is applicable doesn’t mean a noun is.
Also why are we so obessesed with defining James Holmes? On labeling him? I believe it’s because if we give him a label then we can define his motivations. Since it doesn’t seem like he will ever be able to tell us why he did what he did then we have to create a narrative. A story to make sense of the senseless. Sometimes irrational behavior can’t be rationalized. It is better left unexplained. Even if we had an explanation would that make us understand exactly why this tragedy happened?
I don’t think so. I am not sure the answer is as simple as calling Holmes a terrorist. I think the answer is far more complex and it will take more then a mere five days to try to find the reasons.
Please share this with friends, enemies and temporary allies alike.
Thanks for reading, sharing and commenting!
R.I.P. SKH
About S. Maxam
From what I can tell (and to be honest, there’s a lot I don’t know about this incident), Mr. Holmes did not have any political agenda (or at least not an articulated one). That makes him a simple mass murderer, not a terrorist.
On the other hand, even though he only managed to kill 3 people, a person like Jim David Adkisson (http://uubuntu.blogspot.com/2009/02/hopelessness-and-patriotism.html) most certailnly is. The essential difference between mass murder and terrorism has nothing to do with the body count or the public nature of the action and everything to do with a desire to impact societal change through violence and fear.
Unfortunately, no mainstream media sites ever seemed to identify Adkisson as a terrorist. He was just another “crazy man with a gun”.
I agree Tyler. Mass murderer seems to be the more appropriate term in this case since no political agenda seemed to motivate Holmes. As you said we don’t know much but often terrorists take credit and deem themselves a part if a larger movement.
Thanks for providing some interestings facts, context and insight.
I have to disagree with you here. He is definitely a terrorist. Here are a few definitions of terrorist. The first is the closest to the definition you provided, but it still does not require that the action be politically motivated.
The second definition is an exact match for his actions.
ter·ror·ist
- noun 1. person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates violence or threats of violence, esp., in pursuit of politcal goals
2. Person who terrorizes or frightens others with violence
- adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists
I’ll certainly accept that Mr. Holmes’ actions match the second definition, but that definition seems awfully broad. By that second definition, an abusive spouse would be classified as a terrorist. A mafia “debt-collector” would be classified as a terrorist. By that second definition, a grade-school bully could be classified as a terrorist by threatening to hurt another student who doesn’t hand over their lunch money. All of these people frighten others with violence.
Can you give me an example of any person who has killed people he didn’t know who was *not* a terrorist? If a person simply goes out to kill people “for the hell of it”, that person is not a terrorist. That person’s a criminal, and probably a sociopath, but not a terrorist. The difference between an act of terrorism and an act of simple criminality is the guiding ideology and the political motivations of the perpetrator’s actions.
Yes, all terrorists are criminals (and should be treated as such), but not all criminals are terrorists.
I 100% agree with what you have said. Too often today do i read and see the term “terrorism/terrorist” applied to mere criminal acts of violence by the media for the sake of rationalizing and understanding the motivation behind the act. As you so elaborately pointed out, by the first definition of the word, he is not a terrorist and by the second, damn near anybody who have used some form of violence to attain or maintain control would be considered a “terrorist” in the strict sense and that is absurd. Anyway thank you so much for pointing out the difference, people these day are too quick to label what they dont understand
I don’t think of the word “Terrorist” as a dictionary definition, but rather as a label we use to describe the “others” that scare us or that we don’t want to be associated with. The Israeli government, for instance, isn’t classified as a terrorist group, even though their tactics are politically motivated violence campaigns against civilians for the purpose of spreading fear.
How “terrorist” is used today is to separate ourselves and create a common enemy. Almost everyone in the US can agree that suicide bombers in the Middle East are terrorists, but over there they’re seen as heroes fighting oppression and trying to make a better life for their children. So it goes.
An interesting video on this topic was done for TED talks by a fairly well known sociologist titled “A Radical Experiment in Empathy.” It deals specifically with the label “terrorist” and how it is applied. It’s well worth a view and goes to the heart of what it means to be a “Good Man” to me.
So, from this working definition, I personally don’t think he’s a terrorist. He is a human being and should be treated and thought of as such. A sick human being, perhaps, but still one of us.
great points Andrew and Tyler. Thanks for sharing your opinion Jason.
Here’s the aforementioned TED talk – Sam Richards – A Radical Experiment in Empathy
http://youtu.be/kUEGHdQO7WA
I’m right there with Andrew on this one. The second definition Jason provided is wayyyyy too broad. Is a schoolyard bully a terrorist? Is Stephen King’s IT a terrorist? Can most of the men who have been in fist-fights, defending themselves, say they fought a terrorist? Hardly.
The media coverage on this reminds me so much of Scream, when the nerd is deconstruction scary movies and saying that the scariest murderers are the ones with unknown motivations. That’s the fear factor, and that’s what the media is playing off. The fact of the matter is: Holmes is simply a mass murderer.
The National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals would suggest the term “quasi-terrorism” for an action like this one. A quasi-terrorist may take actions which are similar to those taken by a political or non-political terrorist but for reasons which are no ideological in nature. This guy sounds pretty similar to that definition. The general tactics of a terrorist but an undefined or, at the very least, non ideological agenda for his violence.
Spend some time with a new dictionary. For one, when providing a definition of “terrorist,” you failed to look up a word in that definition. The word’s “political.” One definition of “political” in “Merriam-Webster’s” Eleventh Edition: “the total complex of relations between people living in society.”
The shooting was an act against those relations, against normal relations themselves. It’s very obvious. But that still doesn’t mean it “makes sense” any more than Christian or Islamic terrorism makes sense, and it doesn’t have to make sense. The shooting was a political act whether the killer can voice it as such or not. And so, we can use your own limited definition of “terrorist” above to conclude that yes, the shooter was a terrorist.
Speaking of your limited definition of “terrorist”–a terrorist simply is someone who engages in “terrorism.” It doesn’t have to be anything more. Now you gotta look up “terrorisim” in “Webster’s”: “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” Simple: The use of terror. Now you gotta look that up, too, but I’ll leave it at that.
“The maddening thing about terrorists is that they are indiscriminate in their acts of vengeance, or cries for attention, or whatever it is they think they are accomplishing.” –Molly Ivins.
That’s a definition for “terrorist” if I ever saw one. Can be indiscriminate or “whatever.” Terrorism is now whatever. That’s important.
If he was a muslim, they would call him a terrorist without thinking twice. But since he’s white, there’s a “debate” going on. Double standard.
“They” in the US didn’t automatically call it terrorism when the Muslim doctor Nidal Hasan shot 39 people in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. I think you need to cool out with a refreshing glass of Dos Equis, Jimmy.
Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary, terrorism is “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”. Thus, a “terrorist” can be considered one who performs acts of “terrorism” as defined above.
In the case of James Holmes, the event obviously terrorized many people. However, this event cannot yet be understood by me as the “use of terror”. The Merriam-Webster definition states that terrorism is “the use of terror”, and I cannot understand that James Holmes was making “use of terror” that he created to accomplish anything. In particular, I have not seen anyone provide ample evidence that he was attempting to use the event to coerce any particular sort of behavior. Moreover, I think it’s somewhat difficult to say that James Holmes’ behavior constituted “systematic” use of terror, since there was only a single individual causing a single (albeit well-planned) terror-creating event and thus no “regularity” of terror-inducing events.
“I think it’s somewhat difficult to say that James Holmes’ behavior constituted ‘systematic’ use of terror, since there was only a single individual causing a single (albeit well-planned) terror-creating event and thus no ‘regularity’ of terror-inducing events.”
Back to the ol’ dictionary. Systematic doesn’t have to mean regular. Systematic can simply mean methodical. So yes, the shooting was methodical. The shooting was systematic. The shooting was done to induce terror. That’s it. It’s that simple. There doesn’t have to be anything else behind his actions. It doesn’t have to be political, though I already showed that it was indeed political. He doesn’t have to have a grand scheme, a plan, an intention, or conditions/demands. He doesn’t even have to have a coherent idea. And he doesn’t need a cohort or cohorts. He doesn’t need subscribers to his ideas. He just needs to act. His ideas behind the action can be illogical and inchoate and it can still be terrorism. This is why these acts are so incredible and baffling. It is a new trend and something we’re not used to. It is a new form of terrorism. That’s the whole point.
Let me put it another way — what you and others here and the writer are suggesting is that if a terrorist’s ideas and intentions are underdeveloped and illogical, then their acts of terrorism can’t be considered terrorism. And you’re also saying that if they don’t commit more than one act (your definition of “systematic,” apparently), then it’s not systematic and it’s not terrorism. That is completely ridiculous. In effect you’re saying that terrorism is logical. Interesting.
Just as an example of the previous paragraph — remember that no one was ever charged with committing 9/11. The US assumed bin Laden did it and bin Laden said he did it, apparently, but no one really knows. There is officially no one responsible for it. Officially. Okay, so if it turns out that the person responsible is a one-time offender (no regularity, right?) with undeveloped ideas about what he was trying to accomplish and had no or few political adherents, then under your logic we could say that 9/11 wasn’t terrorism.
It’s the act that matters. That’s all. I can’t believe this is even being discussed.