What is the difference between a "spree killer" and a "terrorist"?
Asked by
rojo (
24179
)
September 16th, 2013
This question comes directly from this article by Tim Kreider and I think it is a worthy topic of discussion; particularly considering what is happening in D.C. at this time.
What are your thoughts?
What makes the difference between the two, is it the presence of a Koran in the hands of one?
Is it where and/or how it is accomplished?
Do you agree with Mr. Kreiders final paragraph: ”.... sometimes it’s hard to resist an even darker suspicion: that the crucial difference between what we call “spree killers” and “terrorists” isn’t race or ideology or armament, or even the power and influence of the pro-shooter lobby, but that our government, photo-op condolence hugs aside, is ultimately indifferent to attacks on its people — even on its children — but reacts with instant Draconian hysteria to any attack on its authority.”?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
20 Answers
Hobby vs. serious intent.
I think a terrorist usually has a political motivation of sorts. Spree Killers listen to Insane Clown Posse and just like murder.
Political party of the speaker.
Hahah…I agree with @talljasperman
Sport killing vs. political beliefs.
According to the right wing, a spree killer is not muslim, while a muslim is always a terrorist.
If the spree killer converts to islam afterwards, he retroactively becomes a terrorist.
Please, all, separate Terrorism from Islam.
There have been terrorists with lost of other organizations other than Islamic ones. To so narrowly define it is to excuse the terror initiated by others.
@ragingloli a spree killer is not muslim, while a muslim is always a terrorist as was stated in the article also. At least based on color aspersions.
Please give the article a read, it is short and definitely worth your time. Warning: the article was printed in Aljazeera
@ragingloli & @rojo How is what you’re doing any better? It’s all inaccurate generalizations that do everyone involved a disservice.
What do you think about the authors statement: “Both terrorism and mass killings have become a kind of evil fad. Disaffected young men now know that one way to express their rage is to kill a lot of strangers in a public place, imagining, perhaps, that this will grant them some sort of posthumous tabloid apotheosis.”
If they are Islamists, no difference in my opinion.
@KNOWITALL my feelings about that particular part of the subject is more accurately expressed by @zenvelo. I do not equate one with the other or vice-a-versa. Please give the article a go, you will see that the author also feels like you do.
@rojo I read it. It still doesn’t make demonizing Republicans okay via misinformation. We’re not all racists and homophobes. If I was immature I’d start generalizing about tree-hugging, baby-killing liberal idealists, but I know it’s not true so I don’t do that. See how that works?
A terrorist has political motivations for his acts. A spree killer is just motivated by personal psychosis.
A terrorist is trying to get a government or other organization to change their policies, a spree killer is just doing it to get their jollies.
A terrorist does what he or she does because they feel like it’s the right thing to do. A spree killer is a brick shy of a load. Both groups have counseling needs…
Terrosits use asymetric warfare to inflict terror in a population in order to get them to fear everyday activities (such as flying, or shopping in the malls, or sending their children to school). The terrorist that drops the bomb or flies the plane or whatever maybe quite crazy, but there is external leadership structure that usually fudned them, trained them, wound ‘em up, and pointed them toward a target that was strategic for the leadership.
Spree killers lack the leadership, etc, and just snap and start killing people. THey don’t do it to necessailry cause fear. Like the kids in columbine, they just didn’t want to be picked on anymore.
The author has made a very astute observation that spree killers and the final perpetrators of terrorism are very similar. But I think the leadership structure behind terrorism gives it the potential to cause a lot more harm then a spree killer direven suddenly over the edge
A spree killer is domestic. A terrorist is foreign.
Neither gives a flying crud about the repercussions.
@drhat77 excellent points, both in the observation that terrorists have leaders and agenda and that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
