The only reason people hesitate to call things like this 'terrorism' is because of the uncertainty about the motivation of the person who committed the act, and his associations or affiliation with any sort of group. What it seems like is some stupid mean drunk with a gun in the pickup who didn't like foreigners. Calling it terrorism seems like, I don't know, giving it an importance that this guy doesn't deserve. I don't think he planned anything nor was a member of any group, nor had any particular political philosophy other than a redneck dislike of anyone not like him.
Is membership in some kind of group a requirement? I thought that "lone wolf terrorism" was now a thing. People were ok with calling Omar Mateen a terrorist, because even though he had no connection with any formal terror group, he was apparently inspired by ISIS or something.
If there were an effort to publish this message-- "foreigners get out of America!" -- to a broader audience in connection with the attack, would that make it a terror attack?
Anyone who bombs an abortion clinic or shoots an abortion worker, on the other hand, is a terrorist. Why? Because those are planned and deliberate and such people are invariably imbued with the ranting and ravings of a variety of anti-abortion groups.
And yet you never hear any government official or security official describe those things as terrorism. If attacks on abortion clinics were considered terrorism they'd be the runaway leader in terror attacks on US soil, by a wide margin. Even when that guy went on a shooting rampage in Colorado Springs he was a "pro-life extremist", not a terrorist.
-k
Home
Contact
Login
Register