I'm saying that in both cases the people were just mentally ill violent nutters.
But you agree that one is an incidence of terrorism and the other is not?
Beyond that, I have no idea if either can be considered as being mentally ill, and I doubt you have enough insight to make that judgement either.
I find the categorisation of seemingly every violent offender to be mentally ill, to be reductive, disparaging and offensive. It's lazy and it offers nothing.
It seems fairly obvious to me that it is possible to commit violent crimes and acts of terrorism without being considered mentally ill, it just takes a warped version of the world and a seed to be planted and left to grow.
Anders Breivik was judged to be sane, with a personality disorder, and in full control of himself when he planned and carried out his operation. It appears that the two men today have planned (albeit on a much low level) this attack and were in full control of themselves when they carried it out.
This is one of my biggest problems with (an element) of the left. I'm all for reducing social inequality and giving people equal opportunities and treatment for illness, but reducing the perpetrators of violent crime to "well, he's a mentally ill nutter, in a way, it's all our fault" just doesn't make any sense to me. Personal responsibility has to come in somewhere.