I think the thing I'm most queasy about

is the determination of people to establish a particular narrative here and therefore, in some way, to reduce the *importance* of what has happened.

I don't think anyone would suggest that this anything other than a truly awful and repugnant act - however it seems that many people (with wrath representation led fearlessly by fond) want to mark this down a rung or two.

Terrorism has a broad social meaning beyond legal technicalities and arguing whether this act fits a specific set of criteria to satisfy a particular checklist is surely not the point.

Also, and critically for those of us who are pre-disposed to see issues of hate and extremism as largely irrelevant to religion, defining this as terrorism makes the point that there are losers and arseholes everywhere, on both sides.

It's as if some people only want to define terrorism as something that happens to 'people like then', perpetrated by people 'not like them'.

Posted By: norway, Jun 19, 13:23:24