Richard: That, to me, sounds like a reason to not use the term at all, or at least not for domestic acts of violence. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree, but that’s how I’m reading your post. Would you agree?
Yeah, I’d mostly agree. I think the whole discourse around terrorism, domestic and international, is not very helpful at this time.
It could be fixed. I don’t think there’s inherently anything wrong with calling some things terrorism and other things not. The problem is all of the connotations and consequences (legal and otherwise) that label has in 2015 USA, which are on balance not helpful.
:rolleyes:
Yeeesh. Note its origins.
To use the words of our next president, what difference does it make? I lean against its use when a lone nut commits mass murder. We all have our own definition for the word, no matter what the dictionary says. To me, a terrorist is someone in a group which kills or frightens people in order to advance a political agenda. One guy goes nuts, not a terrorist. Catch him and you’re done. ISIS does what it does, different story, catching one of its members doesn’t end the threat. You may feel differently, that’s fine whatever floats your boat. I don’t think it matters what we call him, whether we say he’s a terrorist or not the victims are still dead and he will still go on trial. If we use the word to avoid confronting issues like racism and gun control, then we’re misusing it.
Mildly agree, but IMHO that the murders were caused by racism and are related to the gun control issue does not exclude a political factor too.
NB: The history of race-motivated lynchings in America?
Also terrorism.
OK, that makes sense. I agree with the hypothetical, but since we AREN’T going to get rid of the term, I’d rather see it applied more broadly so that we don’t telegraph to folks that terrorism = muslim.
Not a silly point at all, and I think prior references to things like perps being “non-white” or Muslim, or terrorism needing to be non-domestic (i.e.- of foreign origin) are all skirting around that same issue. The issue is, specifically, that actions that have been properly called terrorism in the past have been indiscriminate acts of violence directed against all of society, and represented indiscriminate attacks on a random population to undermine the basic values of an entire nation or its government. That’s why the word “terrorism” carries such serious connotations and true terrorism is treated accordingly. 9/11 and the Oklahoma and Boston bombings meet those criteria. This does not. This was a racist hate crime. It was also, yet again, yet another all-too-common mass shooting by a lunatic. Calling it “terrorism” undermines the meaning of the word and makes it harder to justify exceptional policies to deal with real terrorism.
There is no reason that a racist hate crime can’t be terrorism as well. When you kill a bunch of civilians to try and start a race war, which this guy apparently did, then you’re a terrorist. He may not have been a very good terrorist (he’s not going to start a race war), but he’s still one.
That would make sense if he was fourteen. A 21 year old (alleged) murderer is in no way a “youngster.”
Fwiw, I think I prefer to consider you a pink talking magical unicorn, it feels right to me.
Its quite clearly a terrorist attack IMO. I can’t see how anyone would say its not one, even if it may be classified as other things too.
I have no problem calling this guy a “troubled young man” as well. Again, none of these things is mutually exclusive. There is a definite problem that young males (teenagers and in their early 20s) are more prone to these types of mass killings. They are, for whatever reason, more likely than the rest of us to be pulled into some ideology that convinces them killing a bunch of people is the thing to do. Either for race or religion or fame or to teach those assholes a lesson.
Roof is, from what know now, more an “all of the above” than anything else. He’s a racist, he’s a terrorist, he’s a troubled young man. No need to pick only one.
Not one of Steve Miller’s better songs.
No, it’s not. It means committing violent crimes in an attempt to enact political change through fear. This guy was a very stupid terrorist, acting alone, but he was meeting the requirements of the word, and the word has a specific meaning.
This doesn’t mean that it’s identical to Al Qaeda attacks. Racist terrorism in the US has tended to look different: it’s far less centralized even than al Qaeda is, much more spontaneous, and its perpetrators are rarely organized.
My problem with the “eh, it isn’t terrorism” position is that it begs the question of what terrorism is. If we can’t call something that is clearly terroristic (it’s politically-motivated, the shooter is motivated by a ideology, the shooter’s manifesto encourages others to take up the cause, people are now terrified), then we should just not use the word anymore for anything.
If you’ve got a gun, you don’t need an organization’s endorsement or sponsorship. Anyone with an internet connection can find like-minded individuals who are more than willing to provide emotional support to a lone wolf. Requiring a quorum of co-conspirators before deciding an act is terroristic is crazy.
And now’s he’s sittin’ in a jail!
Helter Skelter, Mansion’s belief that there could be a racial war in America due to the tension. Clearly this is indicative of a mental issue(s), not domestic terrorism.
The FBI calls it…
*Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:*
Roof did none of this.
I’m again reminded of a 17-year-old boy from Florida. If only he had looked like Dylann Roof, either he’d still be alive or the man who murdered him would be in prison.
He did (i). Manson did, too, so call that terrorism if you want. I don’t think we were as concerned with that word in the 1970s.
He has to do all THREE according to the law…