| An unsuccessful (victimless) terrorist is still a terrorist (e.g. someone who blows up a building, but nobody dies, or the bomb doesn't go off), not merely a disgruntled crackpot. On the other hand, Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, but very far from being mentally ill. His Letter to America[1] clearly outlines the intent and consequence of his actions. Terrorists are, by definition, a threat -- but mentally ill people are victims (of mental illness, of society, etc); one is fare more likely to feel sympathy for an ill person vs. someone who is deliberately inflicting terror (as a means to an end or otherwise). Terrorists can be affiliated to a group, but 'mentally ill' is not a group. And that's a part of the reason why the labels get attached. 'All ____ are terrorists' is a trope where many will easily fill the blank with <group du jour>. But that won't work with 'All _____ are mentally ill'. A mentally ill person is a one-off, an accident. We don't have to solve that problem because there is no systemic problem. It just happens. The best we could do is think how we could help those people, how we could catch them before they slip. But terrorism, that's warfare, and we respond to warfare with warfare. That's the connotation. If you are not seeing it - well, the articles discuss this. Overall it's a part of a greater pattern of how politics shapes language, and language shapes thinking. Orwell had it down back in the 50's [2], and not much has changed since. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver [2]https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli... |