@Abge - Myabe yo ushould spend more time reading the thread, and less seeking ways to criticize kreelin. I was replying to *this* idioicy:

"Yep, no one really saying Terrorism yet, looking like suicide more likely "

Morons that think "suicide" is the act of driving 150 people into a mountainside. There is *NO* way this act can be described as "suicide" - it was murder, at best. So, my contribution to the discussion was to suggest that people really ought to understand the words they are using, and use them correctly. You, as a learned fellow (I thought...) would also be interested in people sharing a common understanding of the words being used.

IF this was "suicide", there would be one mad dead. But, if this were an intentional act, it is disqualified from being "suicide", becuase the ACT....the ENTIRE ACT that was performed, was murder, not "the taking of ONE's life". The taking of ONE's life is a singular act. THIS was a plural act.

Forgive me for trying to teach the mental midgets around here to be mindful of the actual meaning of words.

Motive *is* the defining factor in whether it's terrorism. The literal definition is violence or intimidation for political aims. Since this guy seems to have had no agenda, it's not terrorism. It's just a kook who killed himself and took 149 other people with him.

>>actions of white German kill 150 people
>>not terrorism, just a "kook"

I need a kermit meme for this.

I won't rule out terrorism, but Ted Bundy was not a terrorist either. Killing =/= terrorism.

@bo_sox terrorism involves a political objective. As far as I'm informed, this is missing here.

That said, this was clearly a Peronist attack, Argentina's revenge for being sued by German creditors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUnXv6R2HI8&spfreload=10 (couldn't find the first part right now, but this is pretty much the attack that happened)

The Wright brothers have a lot to answer for...amazing to think every great step forward for man leads directly to great barbarity towards each other..My greatest fear is that people with mental illnesses are feared enough by general sociaety much like " disabled people were years ago". My thoughts go to his family and freinds and the family and friends of all the dead. My their gods go with them..My love to you all...

This qualifies as terrorism since people will seriously consider alternatives to air travel when they are available. It was bad enough worrying about hijackings and bombers without wondering about the "safe" pilot. With all the medical checks on pilots, he was still able to hide his problems from the airline.

@random where is the political motive of the "terrorist?" "crime" =/= "terrorism," by your logic instead, every crime that influences people to opt for an alternative rather than another would qualify as terrorism. If this is really the way you think, I will stop my conversation with you at this point.

There is a definition for terrorism. And it has only one determining factor: Motive. Specifically, a political motive.

If the man had set out intentionally make "people... seriously consider alternatives to air travel when they are available," and "worry... about hijackings and bombers... wondering about the "safe" pilot," then yes it would be terrorism.

However, there seems to be no such motive to his actions, and I would appear that his crashing of the plane was merely a convenient means of ending his own life. It's a tragedy that he took 149 other people with him, but it is not terrorism.

So a lone wolf suicide bomber is not a terrorist either then, despite the clear use of terror to carry out his attack?

Lone wolf suicide bombers can have political motives too.

Yes, as can a guy bringing a plane down. You don't know, though, because a) I didn't say whether or not this suicide bomber did, and b) he's dead, along with a dozen others, so you can't ask him. So my question stands - is the suicide bomber a terrorist?

There is a definition for terrorism. And it has only one determining factor: Motive. Specifically, a political motive.

If the man had set out intentionally make "people... seriously consider alternatives to air travel when they are available," and "worry... about hijackings and bombers... wondering about the "safe" pilot," then yes it would be terrorism.

However, there seems to be no such motive to his actions, and I would appear that his crashing of the plane was merely a convenient means of ending his own life. It's a tragedy that he took 149 other people with him, but it is not terrorism.

My bad.

Triple post, "lone wolf" suicide bombers almost always have a policies motive to their actions, thus terrorism.

So you're willing to assume that a suicide bomber has a political motive rather than just being pissed off at people in general and deciding to take a few of them with him?

There is nothing to assume here. We know quite a bit about this man already, and there is nothing that points to any political reasoning for this. Instead the only signs point to disturbed individual who wished to kill himself and chose to use the opportunity afforded him by being a pilot.

There is nothing to assume? The guy, like you said, used the fact that he is a pilot to kill himself, taking 149 others alongside him. He could have easily put a 22 in his brain any time he wanted. That ought to make you assume that this guy's hatred for people was so strong that he was willing to take a bunch of them down with him, and if that's not motive enough for you, I don't know what is.

Considering he was a German citizen, acquiring a .22 or any other kind of firearm would be quite difficult, unlike say... simply using the plane he flies almost everyday.

So again, unless we find some kind of evidence that he did thus accomplish or highlight some kind of goal, it's not terrorism.

You can throw around the word as much as you want, but the word has a specific meaning and this is not terrorism.

Considering morals exist even among suicidal people, I might go out of my way to find something that doesn't take out 149 strangers that didn't do anything wrong with me. Otherwise, it should be assumed that I have a desire to diminish humanity and that I hate humanity, and I should properly be branded a terrorist for as long as my name lives on in the news column.

Bo, he didn't have to have a hatred of others. He had only to have an extreme ambivalence. A very big distinction.

Does ambivalence cause you to knowingly kill?

Ambivalence causes you to act not caring about what happens.

And if you are so ambivalent that you are willing to kill 149 people so that you might die instead of taking your own life and only your own life, then your ambivalence is hatred.

I don't recall you taking this line when Leelah terrified the life out of the truck driver she jumped in front of, bo. Did she hate the driver? She clearly didn't give the impact on him a moment's thought. Was she a terrorist is your view? If the truck driver had swerved to avoid her and died in the resulting crash, what would the difference be between the two cases?

No, your ambivalence is by its very nature, ambivalent. You just plain don't care. The lives of those people could mean literally nothing to this person. This type of person, ambivalent that is, not necessarily the pilot, wouldn't give a cup of water to a man, woman, or child who was dying of thirst. Not because he hates them, but because he *does not care.*

The truck driver didn't die, Octavious, nor was he terrorized. He was terrified, rightfully so, and she shouldn't have done it that way. I don't condone that. Had the truck driver died, yeah, she would be responsible. Way to be a smartass and way to needlessly troll me on an issue you know hits me really, really hard because of personal experiences that hopefully you all can't relate to. I thought you were better than to intentionally go for one of my triggers.

KC, it's the language you're using that makes me wonder how you all are so quick to say that this guy isn't a terrorist. You're using words like "could," as in you're not certain. I am fairly certain that this guy, ambivalent by nature or by nurture, or hateful by nature or by nurture, recklessly killed 149 people, and I think we can all agree on that. In doing so, he terrorized every victim and I would not at all be surprised if there are people who refuse to fly because of this. What is most shocking to me is that, despite all of your uncertainties about this guy, you are willing to jump me for branding him a terrorist and then rebutting me based on hypotheticals and semantics. How you can call someone who "wouldn't give a cup of water to a man, woman, or child or was dying of thirst" ambivalent is beyond me, and I know you differentiated between that ambivalence and the pilot's supposed ambivalence, but I just don't understand how you don't see that as hateful toward humanity.

Simply "terrorizing" does not equal "terrorism." Gangs terrorize people. Gangs are not terrorists.

Hate is an emotion. It is passion. By hating humanity, he would feel very powerfully against it. But apathy is not an emotion, but a lack thereof. A completely apathetic person doesn't care if you win the lottery and live happily ever after, or if you die an excruciating death. It. Does. Not. Matter to them.