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
-
-
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 -
-
-
A valid call for nuance & patience. With respect, I'd also suggest stepping back to reflect on why this label - "terrorism/t" has become imbued with such significance today, especially in the US.
-
There is a history underlying that term, a pattern that suggests its use was always an act of power. Which is not to quibble over the definition, so much as to understand that omissions are an element of the meaning it conveys.
-
Perhaps we need a new term - one specifically designed to describe & enable analysis, rather than emphasize some instances & dismiss others - to describe such acts of violence & their perpetrators?
-
Agreed that many deploy the words terrorism/ist subjectively to assert power. Could say that about a lot of language That's a part of my motivation in writing about it. Inventing a new term strikes me as more difficult than advancing an objective understanding of the term we have
-
I'm about as skeptical of efforts to "return" to an analytically precise definition / use of this term as I am (or you are) of efforts to make a new, more precise term gain currency.
-
Still: you are that rare commentator who uses the term to convey a precise meaning, while fully acknowledging the baggage / politics baked into it. That's already an example worth emulating. I'm very much with you in spirit, if not in letter!
-
Thank you. And I appreciate your comments. I understand where you're coming from, though I lean the other way. But we agree both would be difficult.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I taught it as a non-state actor committing harm on non-combatants to evoke community fear for religious/political/ideological ends.
-
I teach it similarly. Devote an entire week to the debate over definitions, and parsing the details. I also use non-combatants rather than civilians, to include off duty military. The non-state actor part is more controversial, but I stress it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Excellent thread, cogent as usual.
-
Thanks!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nice analysis Nicholas
-
Thank you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hi, stupid q. Is "politically-motivated terrorism" an oxymoron, then?
-
More a redundancy than oxymoron. There’s some gray area with terrorism-like actions that are not explicitly political—narcoterrorism, for example—but in general, terrorism is politically-motivated by definition.
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.