People need to be more careful while talking about terrorism, feels George Brandis. The Australian attorney-general says not every act of violence falls under terrorism definition.

The Munich attacker may be an eye-opener. When the world came to know about the mass killing at the German mall, it was so easy to term it another act of terrorism.

However, recent updates reveal that the 18-year-old gunman had not terrorist links. The German-Iranian apparently had an obsession for mass killing. Police reveal he was never inspired by any terrorist idealism.

Brandis talked about the wide use of the word “terrorism.” He said it was wrong to spray that word around “too loosely.”

Terrorism Definition

Flickr/CeBIT Australia

The attorney-general informed that the Munich attack harmed no Australians. He warned that people should be more careful about the language used while describing such incidents.

Brandis’ comments were also in reference to George Christensen’s remarks about a recent attack on a western Sydney police station. The Liberal National Party politician was too quick to judge it as an Islamist attack. He said only an idiot would believe otherwise.

However, Christensen apparently withdrew his statement later on. In fact, he was “surprised” to find out that it was not an act of terrorism. Brandis, on the other hand, said there was no reason to believe it was an act of terrorism.

“Terrorism is an act of violence or a threat of violence perpetrated for a political, religious or ideological cause, to coerce government or to intimidate the public,” The ABC quoted Brandis as reiterating the terrorism definition.

“If we’re going to understand this problem we have to anatomize it correctly. We must be very careful in our use of language so that we don’t spray the word terrorism around too loosely.”

These days, people often identify it with the Middle East, its extremist groups and lone-wolf attackers who are inspired by those. Brandis wants people to reconsider the way they think of the terrorism definition.