Terrorism or Criminal Acts - 550 Words

The Bomb Attacks in Oslo: Terrorism or Criminal Acts (Essay Sample) Content: IntroductionThe bomb attacks in Oslo and the shooting of teenage camp revelers in UtÃÆ' ¸ya islands on 22 July 2011 was one of the worst hit attacks in Norway after World War II. It led to an accumulative of 77 dead and 242 with injuries. It also affected the Norwegians so badly and negatively that a survey was done and showed that out of four people in Norway one knew causality or a deceased person who were victims of Anders Bering Breivik. The media and majority of the people referred these violent and deadly actions as a terror attack especially he targeted harmless teenagers and youths and also before that the bombing near government buildings where the government offices of the Prime Minister of Norway was situated even though he was not harmed in any way. There were many questions regarding to attacks. Why did he go on to proceed with such a heinous act? What was driving him to do so? Who were his main targets? lot of discussions were held that reach to the l evel of global attention so as to determine as to why this act took place in the first place and what the security details and personnel did amiss so as to fail to prevent the terror act.Verdict given by the Judge.Anders was found criminally guilty for the rampage killing for both the Oslo bombing and UtÃÆ' ¸ya killing. This was after doing psychological tests on Anders to determine if he was of sound mind or was psychotic in any manner possible especially while carrying out the killing of teenagers who were attending the political camp.However, Anders wanted to be referred as being mad and further claimed it was humiliation for not being referred to be an insane individual. He also justified his acts by referring it to be "cruel and necessary so as to protect Norwayà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . He claimed he was doing all this so as to protect the Norway people from the rapid takeover by the Muslim community. He was also a self proclaimed Neo-Nazi member and also was an active member of an anti-Islamic website. Evidence also showed how he had planned for his à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Martyr Operationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ and the leasing of a farm house so as to build he deadly bomb and also gun purchase on false pretence. Being a Norwegian self extremist he continued giving praise to his acts in front of the court that had the family members of the victims of the attacks.However, the judge maintained the act as being criminally instigated by the sound perpetrator and didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬t refer it as terrorist act or being instigated by a terror group. This because the self proclaimed Neo-Nazi member insisted he did it as a measure of controlling the state from becoming a multi cultural state and ensure that he does it even if it is by means of using violence and armed revolt. The court however insisted that his actions were criminally instigated for his own personal reasons and therefore sentenced him to 21 years in prison and not a psychiatric unit in the prison since he was confirmed to be of sound mind. Therefore by considering that it was a criminal act, the option of describing the action as terrorism wasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬t valid since no terrorist group known had any links with the background of Anders and the extremist movement was made up by the perpetrator for personal reasons of trying to prevent the encroachment of the "cultural Marxism "since the Labour party had failed to do so. Clearly, he was seen to be against the Labour Party and that was the reason he had to target the Labour party youth camp to prevent further recruitment and for this case the judge didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬t mention it as terrorism act but instead being a criminal act for self interest purposes.Personal VerdictPersonally I do not see this act as being a terrorist act but rather a criminal act that was instigated for personal political views of the perpetrator hence not regarding it as terrorism. According to Schmid concept about terrorism, which states that terrorism was more calculated direct viol ent actions or moral restraint that is used to instill fear to the targets who are harmless civilians and noncombatant for propaganda that is used to create a psychological effect on conflict parties and various audiences who may be opposing the movement.However there is a similar aspect that is related to my c...