Correct, and I agree completely. I'd like to think that labeling it for what it actually is, however, may give some pause, as in: 'Wait - terrorists? That's not me, that happens in the xxx (wherever they think).'

No idea if it would work, but again, it's something I think about.

Using the broadest definition of terrorism, anyone who is mad at the world and wants to teach it a lesson (a political lesson or religious lesson or social lesson or other ideological lesson) and inflicts harm on the public in this kind of attack, is committing terrorism. To teach a lesson through fear is a very definable thing. And I don’t like it— it doesn’t speak to a person’s logic or compassion. I don’t think it’s good for kids or adults.

We have had a few publicised knife rampages in the last few years. Each time there have been brave bystanders trying to corner the assailant using things like chairs or in this case a bollard at the top of an escalator. Such actions are almost certainly a suicide mission against an assault rifle. The ability to defend yourself or flee diminishes considerably.

It really isn’t a case of ‘we don’t know that for sure’.

I think that concept has merit for some crimes; using the words ‘kiddy scribble’ when reporting on graffiti.

But as Thisisit stated, I’m not sure if it works on people that unhinged that they want to kill others. Though I suppose it’s possible some of these kids don’t want to be thought of as a terrorist for eternity.

A good female police officer, on her own, who was not inside the shopping centre but nearby conducting venue compliance checks, no bullet proof vest etc, ran towards the danger, confronted the perpetrator and shot him dead when he raised the knife at her. She then did CPR on other nearby victims.

No matter how much people can say she did what she was trained to do etc, it must be remembered that in Australia an active offender like this, in this sort of environment, is incredibly rare. She certainly saved many more lives by her actions.

First, I don’t think people considering shooting up a mall or stabbing a bunch of people at a mall are all that concerned with the label applied to their actions.

Second, I’m not sure terrorism vs murder makes a significant difference in severity of label.

Third, these aren’t necessarily terrorist acts. In this case, the police have expressly stated that it isn’t terrorism related.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I was think ing about the fact that police expressly stated that it’s not terrorism, and it made me wonder what the word “terrorism” means. When the police say it’s not terrorism, are they saying the attack is not the coordinated effort of a specific group of people who exchange communications to plan it? Maybe that’s a particular type of terrorism— we can call that 9/11 Terrorism. I think the ultimate message the police were saying is that they are not looking for accomplices or co-conspirators. There’s no easily definable group working with that guy in his attack.

In America, we have enough lone wolf attacks that I think it makes sense to look at the events and take a step back and try to see if there is a pattern—. Is there a group of hard to identify people making efforts that cause these attacks? Why do our shootings keep happening? What is the common facts behind them? Mental illness? Grievance ideology? A fervor and embrace of violence?

As I think about information warfare and disinformation, I think there are other types of terrorism happening (terrorism that isn’t 9/11 Terriris). For the guy who shot up the synagogue near my house, his online activity showed he received/ shared/ posted information that culminated in his attack on a religious service near me. As I consider governments or groups who are malevolent to democracy in America, or Jews or LGBTQ or women’s rights, I think the disinformation is a communication intended to inspire attacks to weaken our communities by terror. I’ve heard the term “stochastic terrorism,” which hard to remember and hard to say.

So that’s where I’m going with the crazy guy who attacked the mall. Maybe I’m wrong and he wasn’t deluded by disinformation about women/ Jews/ LGBTQ/ and suffering from a grievance. Maybe he was purely crazy with a knife. Knives are meant to cut, and he simply did what the knife informed him to do. In that case, it wouldn’t be terrorism at all.

I think from a police response terrorism vs non terrorism may help them formulate an appropriate tactical response. And whether other areas should remain on high alert if they suspect a particular group of people is at risk in multiple locations. Or whether they can confidently drop a DEFCON level so to speak.

Maybe that’s why they specifically said it wasn’t terrorism. To deescalate.

I can’t disagree with that notion. But I did allude to multiple scenarios.

And again, the reality is that knives and guns do exist. We are never going to magically be rid of them. Even in Australia they exist.

I am on the 2A side of the gun debate but only if we can really enact some strict change. And when I imagine these scenarios I will think about if I was the one in the bathroom huddled with others hiding. Of if it was my wife killed when trying to protect our daughter.

…if I’m faced with a scenario where someone has a knife or gun coming after me I want to match or exceed the attackers abilities. I’d want a fighting chance. I’m just not sure where the discussion goes from there and what’s realistic.

Police statements on "terrorism" links are meant to inform and comfort the citizenry that this wasn't part of an organized attack that might be aimed at further violence. As you mentioned, it helps drive decisions on alert status, closures of various public facilities, etc.

"Terrorism" is typically the use or threat of violence to achieve a political or ideological policy agenda. Killing people because you hate Jews or hate Blacks or hate Christians or hate Republicans or whatever isn't necessarily terrorism just because it inspires terror. Killing people because you were bullied and suffer from mental health issues isn't necessarily terrorism. Many of these people don't have any particular policy agenda they're trying to force onto the government through their acts of violence. They're expressing pent up violence or pain or mental illness. That distinguishing aspect is why it's useful for law enforcement to characterize these events as related or not to terrorism. If it's simply a hateful or mentally ill person, then chances are that the violence is over. If it's part of a political agenda to get the government to change policy, then you might have to expect more violence until the terrorists are rooted out.

Middle Eastern terrorism isn't just about hating Israel or the West. It's about getting the West out of their countries, or about reducing Western influence on their culture and religion, or about shaping action about a Palestinian homeland, etc.

Terrorism in Ireland wasn't just about being angry or hating the English. It was specifically about ending British rule in Northern Ireland.

Conversely, most of the types of school shootings we've seen, for example, are more about expressing the pain of the shooter, or earning some sort of twisted sense of fame for the shooter. Those aren't really terrorism.

If we slap the terrorism label on every event that inspires fear, or is motivated by hate, or involves multiple victims, pretty soon it doesn't have any particular meaning.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Agree. Especially WRT your last paragraph and distinguishing it from other modern and intentional mass casualty incidents.

So terrorism isn’t the right word to describe this incident.

When I saw the still image of the guy carrying a knife through the mall, he looked like a well-nourished, properly dressed and groomed person who isn’t suffering from a debilitating mental illness, although his behavior shows something very wrong.

What is the name for a lone wolf attack on the general public that we see so often in America? We call them school shootings, usually, but they happen other places too (movie theaters, stores, streets, churches, etc). What is their name?

What's wrong with calling them a murderer or mass-murderer? What are you trying to solve by trying to come up with another word than the ones that we already use and are sufficient.

Mass-murderer works as a descriptor pretty damn well to me.

.

Mass murder might be the term I want.

I thought the school shooting phenomenon/ mass casualty event was a relatively new invention that presented new challenges to us. I was looking for a term for it. But the term mass murder might be the right word for the situation. It seems like a slightly more generic term, but it might be good.

The mass murder event at the Bondi mall was not an act of terrorism. I hope we find out what motivated the killer so we can see if it matches what has happened at other mass murder events. Perhaps patterns will emerge to help us prevent future mass murder events.

Active shooter? Active killer? Spree killer?

There are a bunch of different colloquial terms for it. Active shooter/killer is the most common term amongst American LE.

---

*****
"In case of flood climb to safety"

Active shooter is applicable while the shooter is active. It's more a term used to frame response in the moment (i.e. what actions should civilians and/or law enforcement take to stop the shooter) than it is about categorizing the crimes after the fact for prosecution or discussion.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

---

Based on some of his online postings (hobby based) it sounded like he was pretty lonely. Reaching out to try and tag along for a surf, to take photos of the stars etc. he was allegedly living in a car and/or storage facility (plus some time in a hostel). Not the greatest environments for someone with mental health issues.

Media also speculated whether women were his target but then he lunged at several men too. Some women have come forward from dating sites saying that had met up for dates and that he seemed sweet. Haven’t seen anything yet where women claimed he was a creep etc.

There are a lot of lonely people out there. Throw in current day cost of living issues and people snapping will become more likely.

Got less than half way through that stupid shit and gave up.

The reasons he managed to kill as many as he did is very simple.
He targeted women, many of whom were stabbed in the back and because any attack is simply so rare in Australia, no one expects anything like this to happen so people were slow to react.
As soon as a couple of guys confronted him and had him trapped on the escalator, it was pretty much over


Im sure that your YT video would have concluded something along the lines of "if there was a good guy with a gun, this wouldn't happen", but America has shown time and again that there are far more bad guys with guns than good guys wth guns, so fuck that.
Again, I didnt watch the whole vid, so maybe the guy was heading for a different conclusion, but as soon as he mentioned 2A, I had a fair idea where it was headed

There it is. Dumb fuckery comment I fully expected. If this was in the US, 30 people would be dead.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

If everyone was allowed to carry, very few people would be killed.

Keep telling yourself that bullshit.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

But aren’t most people in the US allowed to carry? If we wanted to carry, we could. Most people don’t want to carry. Most people prefer a peaceful society where being armed isn’t necessary for survival

He's delusional

Is this a fucking bit? Because I don't think the victims of gun violence think it is super funny.