Originally posted by Elder
Terrorism is the use of violence or force with the intent to intimidate. This guy just wanted to kill people. It's not the same thing.
I personally feel it's terrorism. He apparently had political and/or religious influence/motivation, and if that kind of background of the attack came from a follower of Islam, it would be deemed terrorism. Instead it came from the opposite end of the spectrum yet in the same manner, and it's just ''mass murder''.
I agree with your definition, and so what I'm saying is, if a Muslim did what you said, ''just wanting to kill people'', and actually murdered 90+ people, it would be called a terrorist attack, regardless of motivation, likes most attacks from extremists.
It's as if people don't listen to the documentation left behind by extremists, they go on record to state that attacks are in retaliation to the brutality placed upon their people at the hands of American forces. Most attacks are not to incite fear, but to claim innocence in exchange for innocence. If the US didn't intefere abroad, there'd be no response from extremists because there'd be no devastation to respond to. It's chess, and the USA made the first move. Everything was peaceful until Osama Bin Laden stopped playing ball with the same CIA who funded him in the 80's, and praised him for fighting off the Russian Soviets. As soon as they had no use for him, sh!t sparked off on a world-wide scale.
Summary:
I agree with your definition, but the ''fear'' associated with Muslim attacks come from the convoluted journalism shown in UK/US media. The fear aspect is designed by news stations to whip up headlines and keep everyone on the same page, so there's no difference in terrorism between this Norway attack and other attacks from Muslims.
On-topic though: R.I.P. to all the victims in the attack, surely the guy will be given the death penalty, if it's legal there?