A Massey University teaching fellow has clarified when we should be using the term "terrorism" in the wake of a deadly attack in New York .
Dr John Battersby, speaking this morning to TVNZ 1's Breakfast programme, said whether or not a group is considered terrorists can depend largely on the views of the state.
The example was given of Nelson Mandela, who consciously carried out attacks against his country's infrastructure, yet would not be considered by many to be a "terrorist".
"There's no universal agreement among states on a definition on terrorism," Dr Battersby said.
However, he said that "people who end up in the terrorism camp are deliberately planning their actions to make a political statement".
"Terrorism usually aims to influence the political environment and the freedom of people to make decisions," he said.
"It is horrendously difficult, it's very subjective ... it very much depends how a state defines a group."
In terms of the recent Las Vegas mass shooting, while shooter Stephen Paddock was certainly "a purveyor of terror", is doesn't necessarily make him a "terrorist".
"We've got absolutely no idea what motivated him to do it - we're not sure whether he did it to make a political point or not," Dr Battersby said.
"The purpose of why hes done it is simply an enigma ... we do need to be careful about judging it too quickly."
SHARE ME