A lot of heated rhetoric surrounding the Austin bomber--who thankfully won't be hurting anyone anymore--and whether or not he was a terrorist. I teach classes on terrorism, and here's a thread why it's unclear (based on what we know now) and why the classification matters. 1/x
-
-
Based on what we know, the Austin bomber could've been a terrorist like the Unabomber (who wrote a manifesto about societal dependence on technology) or a serial killer like Ted Bundy or the Zodiac killer (who didn't have political motivations) albeit one who preferred bombs. 5/x
Show this thread -
That being said, I share the criticisms many have against Trump and his spokespeople who insist the Austin bombings have no connection to terrorism. We've seen them jump to that conclusion with nonwhite killers (especially Muslims), and they likely would've done so here. 6/x
Show this thread -
The evidence is clear: America has a problem with white nationalist terrorism. As
@peterwsinger has pointed out, more Americans were killed in the last decade by white nationalist terrorism than Islamic terrorism. Past time we took it seriously as a national security problem. 7/xShow this thread -
Trump has directed national counterterrorism resources away from white nationalism and focused them entirely on jihadism. He has downplayed or ignored the former while playing up the latter. But both threaten Americans, and both deserve counterterrorism attention. 8/x
Show this thread -
The Austin bomber was a young white man and the two people he killed were both black, suggesting it may have been racially-motivated terrorism. Perhaps he was part of the white nationalist movement. But we do not have sufficient evidence yet to reach that conclusion. 9/x
Show this thread -
Just because other people misuse the word terrorist to fearmonger with the worst form of identity politics doesn't mean you should too. Even (especially) if the person misusing the word is the president of the United States. (END)
Show this thread -
UPDATE: Police say the Austin bomber left a 25-minute video confession on his cell phone. Describes bombs' construction in detail, but they still don't know his motive. That indicates it's probably not terrorism. If he was trying to make a political point, he'd do it there. u1/x
Show this thread -
Charleston church shooter described hoping to ignite race war in online videos. San Bernardino attackers pledged allegiance to ISIS on Facebook. Bin Laden formally declared war. McVeigh wrote letters. Because their attack is political, terrorists want people to know why. u2/x
Show this thread -
Austin bomber took the time to make a 25-minute video, but didn't include a political statement. When it comes to political views, we know little. Reports say he wrote a blog post in 2012 opposing gay marriage and abortion. That tells us nothing about why he sent the bombs. u3/x
Show this thread -
More could emerge. But based on what we know now, Austin bomber was a serial killer, not a terrorist. The distinction matters because strategies to stop them are different. Politics plays a role in terrorism, which means it is, in part, a political/national security problem. u4/x
Show this thread -
If you're pointing out that many, including Trump, would jump to conclusions and incorrectly label the Austin bomber a terrorist if he were Muslim, you're right. And that's a problem. But the solution isn't incorrectly labeling him a terrorist because he's not Muslim (END UPDATE)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
While I agree with you on academic grounds how do you respond to the shift in rhetoric, specifically from the right, that frames crimes by brown people as “terrorism” and crimes by white people as “mental illness”.
-
Or, how do you recommend reconciling the discourse of academia with that of popular rhetoric?
-
That's a good question. In part, that's why I write what I wrote here (and have done similarly after other attacks called terrorism, some of which were and some of which weren't). My platform isn't very big, but I'm trying.
-
I follow you because you have such keen insights into what is happening which, I think, is probably anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of your platform. I worry that the two discourses have become so disconnected that the academic voice is lost in the noise.
-
Thanks. I worry about that too, which is one reason I'm active in the larger political discourse and encourage other academics (and non-academics) to be as well. As politics gets shoutier and less evidence based, it's more important than ever for reasonable people to speak up.
-
As a grad student I felt a lot of pressure to line up along party lines and join the shouting. I appreciate your approach.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Terrorism is terrorizing people. It doesn’t have to be political
-
That's way too broad. War is terrifying. Gangsters threatening extortion is terrifying. Secret police monitoring people is terrifying. If you blur them together, you don't understand any of them. To be terrorism it must be both political and violent.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Dude with swastikas carved into his ammo magazines shooting up a school with a disproportionately Jewish student body? I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.
-
I like how he conveniently ignored this point
-
Right. post #4: dude with a swastika etched into the assault rifle but that wasn’t “political” kinda sh*ts the bed right away
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.