'Shots fired' in Munich shopping centre

[RobertE]

I can't take it away, and I wouldn't if I could, because you're usually on your game. This time not so much, but we all have bad days.

You can treat me with common courtesy or not; that's your choice, not mine.

Anyway, let's not derail this any more.

I do so with common courtesy and I wasn't aware that I was "quote mining", let alone aware of it.
Off-topic, I received reputation from you I believe for a nothing post, therefore it devalues the reputation system.

[Alex K]

This one simply doesn't look like a radicalized islamist., Iranian family nonwithstanding.

[account_inactive]

Just a lunatic by the looks of things. Still terrorism though.

[abaris]

Just a lunatic by the looks of things. Still terrorism though.

Only if you call every violent nutter going postal a terrorist. It's a simple crime. Sadly all too common, though usually not in Europe.

[The Viking]

Just a lunatic by the looks of things. Still terrorism though.

Playing 'devil's advocate' could it be argued that Columbine and Sandy Hook, etc. should/would have been labelled as 'terrorism' under this scrutiny?

You had mentally disturbed, disenfranchised, alienated, gun-obsessed, attention-seeking youths looking to punish a people for supposed wrongdoings within their local communities and gaining the infamous notoriety that they so obviously yearned for in the process.

Not necessarily politically motivated; just an angry, vitriolic and violent outburst that was intended to hurt as many other people as possible.



I don't know.

I thought this was open/shut last night. Now, I don't know.

[abaris]

Playing 'devil's advocate' could it be argued that Columbine and Sandy Hook, etc. should/would have been labelled as 'terrorism' under this scrutiny?

It blurs the line if you call of these acts terrorism. I would call attacks terrorism when some political, religious or ideological motif is behind it. Brejvik, definitely an act of terror. Sandy Hook, Columbine or Dunblane, a crime, not a terrorist act.

[The Viking]

Playing 'devil's advocate' could it be argued that Columbine and Sandy Hook, etc. should/would have been labelled as 'terrorism' under this scrutiny?

It blurs the line if you call of these acts terrorism. I would call attacks terrorism when some political, religious or ideological motif is behind it. Brejvik, definitely an act of terror. Sandy Hook, Columbine or Dunblane, a crime, not a terrorist act.

Yes, but I'm being purposely provocative here - given that this latest individual was in all senses comparable to those ghastly events at Columbine and Sandy Hook.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that they are terrorism; what I am saying is that -  should we level 'terrorism' at what happened in Munich yesterday, given that it shared a lot of similarities in motive (seemingly) with Columbine and Sandy Hook, then we need to be careful there.

[abaris]

I'm not suggesting for one minute that they are terrorism; what I am saying is that -  should we level 'terrorism' at what happened in Munich yesterday, given that it shared a lot of similarities in motive (seemingly) with Columbine and Sandy Hook, then we need to be careful there.

No, we shouldn't, since, as I said, it blurs the lines. Call a spade a spade and call a criminal act a criminal act.

[RobertE]

Just a lunatic by the looks of things. Still terrorism though.

Playing 'devil's advocate' could it be argued that Columbine and Sandy Hook, etc. should/would have been labelled as 'terrorism' under this scrutiny?

You had mentally disturbed, disenfranchised, alienated, gun-obsessed, attention-seeking youths looking to punish a people for supposed wrongdoings within their local communities and gaining the infamous notoriety that they so obviously yearned for in the process.

Not necessarily politically motivated; just an angry, vitriolic and violent outburst that was intended to hurt as many other people as possible.



I don't know.

I thought this was open/shut last night. Now, I don't know.

It is so, so easy to blame the "mentally disturbed". According to WHO, there are 450 million people who are classed as "Mentally disturbed", so does this mean that all these people will eventually go out and terrorise the world? People go out with their own agendas I'm afraid.

[The Viking]

Playing 'devil's advocate' could it be argued that Columbine and Sandy Hook, etc. should/would have been labelled as 'terrorism' under this scrutiny?

You had mentally disturbed, disenfranchised, alienated, gun-obsessed, attention-seeking youths looking to punish a people for supposed wrongdoings within their local communities and gaining the infamous notoriety that they so obviously yearned for in the process.

Not necessarily politically motivated; just an angry, vitriolic and violent outburst that was intended to hurt as many other people as possible.



I don't know.

I thought this was open/shut last night. Now, I don't know.

It is so, so easy to blame the "mentally disturbed". According to WHO, there are 450 million people who are classed as "Mentally disturbed", so does this mean that all these people will eventually go out and terrorise the world? People go out with their own agendas I'm afraid.

Don't put words into my mouth - especially as regards an issue such as this. I have a lot of personal experience in that area.

But there are compulsions acted upon and exacerbated inexorably by mental conditions that remove inhibitions from such acts. In SOME cases.