Why is the term terrorist only used for Muslim extremism?

This is a serious discussion posted in general discussion so any hateful/racist/closed-minded comments are not appreciated. That being said:

This is an issue that really bothers me as someone who is an American Muslim. The Charleston shooting was horrific, disgusting, and egregious, but why don't any media sources or people call it what it is: an act of terrorism. Legally, this was an act of domestic terrorism, but no single person has referred to it as such.

This article sums up my thoughts pretty well and I recommend the read: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-shooting-what-it-was-a-terrorist-attack.html

But I will summarize the key points:

It is honestly the most annoying and frustrating thing in the world that whenever a white man commits a crime he is not labeled as a terrorist. As a matter of fact, it has happened that before the perpetrators of a certain crime have been discovered, they are labeled as "criminals" or "gunman" and the event is labeled as a "massacre" but as soon as it is discovered that the culprit is a Muslim or Arab, the headlines change to "terrorist". This is what happened during the Boston Bombing before it was discovered that the perpetrators were Muslim.

Let's take a look at what a few people are being labeled as:
-Richard White, a 63-year-old white male carried 6 homemade bombs, a machete, and poison into an airport and attacked 3 TSA agents: mentally deranged.
-Wade Michael Page fatally shot six people and wounded four others in a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin: gunman.
-James Holmes, a white male killed 12 and injured 70 in the Aurora movie theater shooting: insane gunman.
-Adam Lanza, 20-year-old white male killed 20 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN and 6 adults: mass murderer.

Now many of these incidents are later labeled as domestic terrorism, but the media DOES NOT refer to the murderers as terrorists.

You know the funny thing is that the first anti-terrorism law in U.S. history was the Klan Control Act, so really, this is the definition of terrorism!

I am open to some general discussion but if a mod/admin finds this more suitable for SFA they may move it there.

 

Well yeah, there is a certain narritive present. Happens with a lot of things.

 

White and commit a massacre they call you mentally ill but the moment somebody is muslim it's terrorism sad but the truth. Not sure how that could be changed though it's engraved in the minds of so many.

 

Government has just brainwashed their public to hate their enemies

 

Or perhaps the media

 

We can all agree that a large portion of religions and religious affairs in today's society are political. I feel that terrorism is often associated with political turmoil in this way, as well as religious extremism, and consequently the new standard for terrorism is reduced to a religious label or even the color of your skin. Sad but true.

 

Again

Also most of the examples I gave were indeed classified as domestic terrorism but the culprits were still not labeled as terrorists by the media. Also, the word "especially" doesn't mean only, so any type of intimidation is considered terrorism. Let's keep it simple, terrorism is derived from the act of striking terror into your victims.

 

I guess you're too retarded to even read

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Dipshit.

 

I agree with this but also I think the media has as well. Muslims will always be called terrorists for certain acts, but when another race/religion does it, they're not terrorists. Just shows how washed up our society is in these days.

 

Most likely due to the portrayal in the media.

 

That's what bothers me so much. When a white person does such a crime they have to write articles about why it should be classified as terrorism, but when a Muslim does so there is absolutely no question or hesitation to label the crime as a terrorist act.

The media is controlled by a bunch of racists.

 

government controls media :/

 

I'm not going to argue there isn't a double standard, because there definitely is. Terrorism is immediately associated with Muslim individuals.

First you need to define what terrorism is. Someone killing multiple people is in no way inherently a terrorist attack (yes it strikes terror, but an attack can be terrorizing and not a terrorist attack).

Most accepted definitions of terrorism involve the pursuit of a political goal via the use of attacks aimed at civilians by non state actors. If there is no political goal, then it is not terrorism (whether it is reported as such is an entirely different story). Also, many terrorists are not insane, are intelligent, and are well-off.

I don't know enough about White or Page so I cannot really comment on them.

James Holmes is not a terrorist. He is definitely mentally deranged, but whether he is insane is a different story. He thought through and planned his attack so it will be interesting to see how his court case continues.There was no political goal and the analysis of his journal has shown he was obsessed with murder and the "value" of a human life.

Adam Lanza was also not a terrorist. How big of a travesty does not correlate with whether it was a terrorist attack. He also had no political goal and was likely insane. I'm not incredibly knowledgeable about Sandy Hook, but if memory serves right it wasn't something that was incredibly planned out and there was also something going on with his mother, correct? I'd look into it, but I'm about to get off the computer.

As for Roof, a hate-crime inspired attack. More details will come out in the attack, but it sounds like he hated African Americans, supported white supremacy, and hoped to start a "war between races." I'd say that can be portrayed as a political goal so yeah, he could be considered a domestic terrorist (but you could also argue against it on the grounds of it just being a hate crime with no political goal.)

Terrorist organizations also often don't act upon their "political goals" and their political goals are often utter shams, but thats a conversation for a different thread.


Now, for your actual question. It is how the media portrays it and is further associated with 9/11 and the U.S. "War on Terrorism."

 

You hold a good point about Lanza but I hold no doubt in my mind that if the same shooting under the same circumstances were done by a Muslim person with no political intent, just the fact that he was a Muslim he would have been immediately labeled as a terrorist by the media. The word terrorist had become synonymous to Muslim murderer.

Xier0 had posted the most accurate thing I have ever watched about hate crimes on the other Charleston shooting thread. Watch that video. "Hate crimes" are nothing but regular crimes.

 

After starting to read this thread I looked up other attacks in the U.S. and Timothy Mcveigh was labeled as an American terrorist. However, Ted Kaczynski was labeled as a serial murderer and not a terrorist. The anti-abortion groups and environmentalist extremists are labeled as terrorists. In my opinion it is just a charged word to describe groups or individuals that may or may not fall under the definition of terrorist. They use other words to describe incidents based on how they want to portray them. If Timothy McVeigh did the same thing today, would he be labeled a terrorist or a mentally ill person? I think it has to do with the times and post 9/11 and how the media wants to portray groups/ individuals. Without a doubt Muslims are almost automatically labeled terrorists without much debate while other individuals can be described by a multitude of other things previously listed mentally ill, deranged, psychotic or whatnot.

 

to much racism and isnt fair to people of color.

 

Depends on the shooting, if it has political background its labeled terrorist. If a schitzo white guy shoots a bunch of kids its not to enforce sharia laws upon the world and make an islamic caliphate. Its just a crazy white guy. But I agree that it shouldnt be as loose.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=ter...v&sa=X&ei=z5yMVefkIYLaoATSsJ6ACg&ved=0CDsQsAQ

lol

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, the examples you gave were Americans attacking their own country. Boston Bombings, 9/11, etc, were Aliens attacking another country. The Aliens got the "terrorist" title, so perhaps the word has evolved to the point where it connotates with solely outsiders.