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
-
Show this thread
-
Terrorism is political. Criminal violence is personal, motivated by profit, revenge, enjoyment, etc. The motives of gangsters, conventional murderers, serial killers. Terrorists, by contrast, believe themselves to be altruists, aiming to improve society or defend their people 2/x
10 replies 32 retweets 83 likesShow this thread -
For example, Charleston church shooting was terrorism. As seen in videos the killer posted online, he believes white people are under siege and targeted a historically black church hoping to get others to "wake up" and join him in a race war. He was trying to send a message. 3/x
2 replies 26 retweets 78 likesShow this thread -
By contrast, the Parkland school shooting wasn't terrorism. The killer's motivation wasn't political. This political/not political distinction matters because it helps us understand what happened and develop strategies to prevent it. 4/x
8 replies 18 retweets 70 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @NGrossman81
Terrorism is terrorizing people. It doesn’t have to be political
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.