Terrorism is just a label. Everyone mentioned in the prior posts is a scumbag murderer and should be treated as such.
We know that middle-aged White loners can be every bit as dangerous as Black Muslims who the media identify as Radicals and Terrorists. But that doesn't mean those Radical Muslims shouldn't be prosecuted. Same goes for these crazy kids who shoot up college campuses, and they always seem to be White.
Absolutely. And the oversaturation of the terms 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' has rendered them virtually meaningless in that they are most commonly employed not to convey a precise thought, but to enflame passions. The inefficacy of labels results from the diverse perspectives from which we view reality. Basically a terrorist is defined by on what side of the bullet you're standing.
During the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings the act was initially called terrorism as it was widely thought that Muslim extremists were to blame as it fit the M.O. Clinton was even criticized by some for reserving judgment. When it was learned that the killers were right wing, government-hating white Christian-raised men, they became mass murderers. All of the rage was still there, but the terminology shifted. Some refer to it as 'domestic terrorism', which makes it sound like buying a Ford over a Toyota, but phraseology doesn't matter to the parents of the babies and toddlers killed in the mess.
Terrorism can be generally defined as violence and intimidation against people with some political purpose. But it's not usually used cover those acting in such a way when under the orders of a sovereign state. Moreover, we tend to use the label when the violence is directed at civilian targets.
Yes, those Nevada killers fit the strictest definition of terrorists, but there is a reluctance for one to throw the term at them when they're white, English-speaking people whose political beliefs coincide with his own.
