If we take the neutral definition of what a terrorist is, we can see that Iceland can be considered as a terrorist country. The deliberate lack of care that Icelandic banks have applied to their international clients has created a fear amongst British people. In a recession, people need to take their savings and pay off debts. But the Icelandic bank, Landsbanki, have taken the savings of their customers and now they cannot afford to give those savings back. This has left many customers in fear of debt, repossession and an inability to support their family.

This can be deemed as a deliberate act and fear has been created. This was done through greed. Surely, all this is enough for the country to be deemed as a terrorist country?

The reckless actions of the Icelandic banks have disabled people’s safety. Just because terrorism is usually seen as violent and seen as involving an actual loss of lives, it does not exclude the possibility of a non-violent country being considered a terrorist. As said in the neutral definition of terrorism, there is no comprehensive internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Given that, I see nothing that automatically precludes Iceland from being considered a terrorist country.

When you put money in a high interest bank, a national bank, you do not expect your money to be wasted away! Given that the bank managers will still be able to have high profile, highly paid jobs and walk away uninjured, who cares whether the country is labeled as terrorists? If the British government can swindle ordinary people’s money back by using a twisted interpretation of a terrorist act, then they should have the backing of the whole British community.