Why would saying "allahu akhbar" be enough to call something terrorism? For a Muslim, it's a common thing to say and probably comes up a lot in times of especial distress. It is like if some anti-abortion terrorists started saying "God save me!" before blowing up a clinic, and then people coming to think everyone who says it must be doing whatever they were doing at that moment because of an extremist opposition to abortion. I agree. People want to do some shoe-on-the-other-foot kinda routine here, but they're being insensitive to the hurt they cause others with this rhetoric. I think it would be better to remember the reception given to Mark Conditt or Stephen Paddock the next time we have a black or a Muslim shooter and we make the same effort to be nuanced in our understanding for them as we are for our white murderers. Now I know that won't actually happen in society at large even if I'm personally mindful, but I'm not going to abet this retributive attitude because of that.
It gives a strong indication that their motive was religious. We're talking about instances of mass murder or violence, not just like random people saying God is Greatest. If we don't have any evidence to suggest the motive might be something otherwise, absolutely we should treat them the same. But Stephen Paddock and this kid (to our knowledge thus far), did not do these things for political or religious purposes, there was seemingly no end goal, which means it wasn't actually terrorism. If you know up front that a person who just committed an act of public violence is affiliated with a hate group, or shouts "allahu akhbar" prior to detonating an explosive, or screams "fk n****s" before killing a bunch of black people, it's fair to assume the persons ideology is connected with their violence. It's not as clear when these people don't leave any indication of motive. I don't disagree that there are cases in which the media and the public immediately condemns the suspect and assumes his/her guilt and association. In cases where there isn't obvious connections, that's unacceptable. But I can't get on the media for reporting facts, and the fact is, there is nothing to suggest this was terrorism (yet). A 25 min "confessional" that doesn't mention motive, hate, terrorism, or anything of the like (as far we know, doubt itll ever be released), suggests that what Chief Manley said was absolutely accurate. That this kid had internal issues. That is different from political or religious motivation, which would make it terrorism.
The first sentence describes him as a suspected terrorist...are you just upset it wasn't in the title?
Agree with those saying let's fix the coverage of non-white and/or non-Christian bad actors rather than screw up the coverage of white Christian bad actors.
The evidence on this douchebag only points to him being a serial killer. There's been no motive explained for his actions other than wanting to harm people. Hard to call that terrorism without any ideology (political or religious) behind it. I would classify Dylan Roof, the SC church shooter as a terrorist. He targeted blacks under white supremacy.
Not really. A Muslim schizophrenic trying to kill demons in his confusion and paranoia might say Allahu Akbar without it meaning that he is trying to promote and execute violent jihad. A nominal Muslim atheist angry with the world might say it just to scare white people and to get back at Islam both in one fell swoop. Relying on this one utterance as an indication of motive is as bad as reading an innocuous blog from 6 years ago about how you think homosexuality is unnatural. If you want to make "terrorism" revolve around the internal motives of the terrorist, you should make more than a cursory effort to understand those motives. I used to be on this motive bus for you until I saw how people will pigeonhole terrorists. Now I think it's better to use a big tent -- kill people? cause widespread fear? You're a terrorist. A don't care what's going on in your head, since we'll probably never understand it anyway.
Finally glad the nightmare is over. Hopefully my Bartlett pears I ordered online hasn't gone bad yet. Box has been sitting outside on the porch for the last one week.
had it been the son of a mexican migrant worker, oh man, it would have been stormy daniels like masturbation material for the entire administration. As it is, it's just a crazy kid who listened to early Nirvana music, house was haunted by evil spirits after playing ouija with his drunk friends and that led him to this.
They tried to do this to the Parkland shooter because his name was Cruz. HE WAS ADOPTED by a hispanic family LOL.
That's certainly a plausible hypothetical. But how many schizophrenic muslims have been falsely accused of being terrorists? Sounds more like, once again, people are just offended by the labels. So we'll create new terms to dance around calling a spade a spade until that new term is deemed offensive. It's exhausting. If that's how you want to define terrorism, fine, but I don't think you should be offended that other people have a more nuanced and accurate definition of the word. All terrorists are psychos, not all psychos are terrorists. The media, and people, go off the available information. I guarantee you if a white guy at an Antifa rally threw a bomb at police, we would immediately label such a person a terrorist. In fact, there has been no hesitation to label white antifa folks domestic terrorists by people on the right. They just haven't committed enough violence, knock on wood, for it to be as noticed as Islamic terrorists, because it's not a GLOBAL problem.
"Terrorist" nowadays seems to imply a pathology or system of belief. Particularly one that involves religious or political conquest. Killing a bunch of people because your life sucks and you want to show everyone how much of a nihilistic edgelord you are isn't really terrorism under that standard. Sure, people are scared, but that's a byproduct. The end game for these folks is to sow as much chaos and discord into the lives of other people as possible before leaving this mortal coil. There is ultimately no purpose or goal beyond the narcissism of thinking they are the hand of fate and worthy of judging the rest of humanity. Columbine? Not terrorism. Dylan Roof? Terrorism. Nikolas Cruz? Not terrorism. Anders Brevik? Terrorism.
Race certainly plays a factor too. Take the Bundy clan. They literally took over government buildings and pointed guns at federal agents. It was 100% for political reasons. The FBI negotiated with them for a month, even allowing food and other supplies in, etc. If those same people were Muslim or brown and did the same thing, the outcome would have been totally different. They have never been called terrorists or charged with any type of terrorism charges. No one has ever had a fear of trying them in a US court instead of a military tribunal. etc.
But, I don't think the accusation is false. I'd rather just call a schizophrenic muslim a terrorist if he shoots a bunch of people. So much interpretation has been applied to the word that it is now meaningless except in the broadest sense. You haven't pigeonholed any of the Muslim candidates for terrorism yet. Where do our American Muslim self-radicalized lone wolves fall? Are they really fighting for ISIS, or are they just Muslim versions of the nihilistic edgelords you described that have taken up the ISIS banner just because it is a big middle finger to all the people around them that they are enraged at? Brevik is an easier case because he can state explicitly and calmly his motive. Omar Mateen, for example, wasn't as accommodating -- was he genuinely motivated to advance jihad, or did he just hate gays and lash out? I'm uncomfortable with the political expediency of saying X is a terrorist by Y is just a troubled young man. And, in a practical sense, I don't know if the distinction matters.
