If a 22-year-old Muslim man stabbed his roommates to death in their sleep, embarked on a killing spree, and claimed in written and video manifestos that he acted to teach hated women a lesson, there's little doubt that many would label him a terrorist. That label was scarcely appended to the Santa Barbara killer after his murders.

And if a Muslim couple stormed into a fast-food restaurant armed with a duffel bag full of military gear, shouted, "This is the beginning of the revolution!" and pinned a flag associated with their political movement to the dead bodies of the police officers they executed at point-blank range—then killed another innocent person and carried out a suicide pact rather than being taken alive—there is no doubt that many media outlets would refer to the premeditated attack as an act of terrorism. With a few exceptions, that's not how this week's news from Las Vegas played out...

Are Shootings Terrorism?

Looks like, smells like, tastes like....it must be.

Interesting.



If a practicing Muslim committed any of these recent atrocities, he would be linked to other documented cases of acts of terrorism committed under the banner of Islam. Whether or not anything he wrote or said mentioned Islam, jihad,etc..Also if the acts were done by men resembling Tony Shalhoub.....regardless of what they said or wrote...the perception would be that they were linked to "radical Islam"


The recent cases seem to be lone wolf lunatics, not part of any larger organization....unless I'm mistaken.

Modern day definition of the word points to acts done as part of an identified larger group seeking to prove a point. The instance of the young Nigerian man trying to detonate either a belt or shoe bomb on a plane years ago....in the name of some group which proclaims to be championing certain beliefs of Islam ......was viewed as terrorist act.

Because the face was not one that is normally associated with "radical Islam" brand of terrorism, the public react and media coverage wasn't quite the same as it would have been for a man with swarthy complexion and middle eastern features.

On paper...all of these incidents are terrorism....but post 9/11, acts that are seen as being done as part of a larger campaign of terrorism under the banner of Islam are going to produce stronger public reactions.

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.

True, pizza.

Was just saying that the same way that a member of a criminal organization can get hit with RICO charges in addition to whatever other criminal charges that they get....because they are part of a bigger problem.....an act of terror seen as part of an organized group is seen as a bigger threat than a lone wolf who did the same thing.

The Nigerian guy who tried to set off the show/belt bomb WAS part of an "actual islamic terrorist" group. Black men don't fit the profile for terrorists, so the story didn't get quite the same reaction as if he were brown with middle eastern features.

The foolish lunatic ACTUALLY tried to kill a plane full of people.....under the misguided belief that he was doing something for his cause...but he didn't look like what we think a terrorist looks like so the story didn't go anywhere. Same with those terrorists who are kidnapping girls and killing people today in Nigeria.

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.

You know Kly, before I've discussed with you redefining murder to include a broader range of predicates that would support a terrorism charge. Specifically, I asked why such predicates could not define organized crime activities as terrorism. OC uses terror as a weapon and it does have a political motive. I think it can be done.

We've actually discussed this in the OC section here, Oli. I think the day will come when the government uses the terrorism statutes to go after certain Mafia related crimes. It's just a matter of time.

very much like the "workplace violence" excuse that barack hussein obama's administration seemed to favor when describing the actions of one nidal malik hasan.