This is the national narrative of the event now. Presumably, this is because the perpetrators allegedly voiced some kind of allegiance for ISIS or something. The phrasing is meant to invoke all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of 9/11. It's also intended to capitalize on the scaremongering that flows so easily into a national consciousness reeling at the shock of an event like this. We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions. This is arguably why the VA Tech shooting is not terrorism, but this one—and others, like the Planned Parenthood shooting, the Oklahoma City bombing—qualify as terrorism ... and then get repeatedly thrust into the national conversation with those labels so people don't think of them merely as crimes.
> We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions.
The Virgina Tech shooter sent an 1800 word manifesto and 27 videos to NBC News during his rampage. I'd say that qualifies as making statements.
It's been a few years, and my recollection is hazy. Sorry. Were these statements political statements of a sort that opposes the US government in a clearly defined way? Did they state some kind of ideological agreement and allegiance to ideas considered anti-US or anti-US-govt? It's late, and I guess I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. I was making a pretty obvious and clear distinction on what kind of political statements I meant. I didn't say statements of any sort qualify the terrorism label.
Well I have to admit, my understanding of what constitutes terrorism was not solid, so I googled it. It seems the statements don't necessarily need to be political in nature.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism[1] as:
> "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.
The first point, I imagine mass shootings qualify as acts dangerous to human life that violate law.
For the second point, I would argue that sending a manifesto[2] to media with nuggets like what follows are designed to intimidate/coerce a civilian population
"Thanks to you, I die, like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the Weak and Defenseless people — my Brothers, Sisters, and Chil- dren —that you fuck.
Like Moses, I spread the sea and lead my people —the Weak, the Defenseless, and the Innocent Children of all ages that you fucked and will always try to fuck —to eternal freedom. Thanks to you Sinners, you Spillers of Blood, I set the example of the century for my Children to follow."
Hey, I think there's a chance I misunderstood your original comment to which I replied and started what, to me, has turned into a tangentially related discussion. I wasn't actually trying to provide a legally sound and properly defensible definition of what constitutes calling the San Bernardino event a terrorist attack versus other mass shootings. I was merely offering that it is the narrative chosen for discussing the event, as well as advancing a political agenda, regardless of whether its defining merits actually differentiate it enough from other mass shootings to cross the line into terrorism territory—which I think long ago crossed into the nebulous and ill-defined. Personally, I reject this narrative, and see this event as either YAMS[1], or all mass shootings as YATA[2].
That said, I think there's allegedly more to why the Va Tech shooter wasn't called a terrorist in the national narrative and reporting on the event. That excerpt of his statement sounds like the ravings of a lunatic to me. Of course, I think the same of any type of statements that champion murderous religiously motivated intent. I don't read that and get the sense of any desire to effect political change, influence policy, intimidate, etc. There is a certain practical and theoretical argument that can be made arguing all public actions taken by human agents are inherently political. But some actions are more political than others. I don't think that shooter's statements really had the effect of intimidating or coercing the public. I don't think they even registered in the public consciousness.
Anyway, my original point was that this San Bernardino shooting has been thrust into the national consciousness as part of the terrorism narrative because it's a politically convenient message, and because, as you wondered, the ethnic and religious identity of the perpetrators fits that narrative so perfectly. I mean, it was instantaneous. Had the shooters been radical, white Christians, I don't think that would have happened. There would have been news reporting that asked the question, "Is this a terrorist attack?", and then give a no. Holding the Judeo-Christian god as one's source of obligation doesn't yet fit that category.
