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
-
-
DC sniper really was paralyzing. Millions of people changed their habits and schedules. Every time there was a shooting, there’d be traffic jams 10 miles in every direction. I kinda suspect it’d be called terrorism now for no other reason than the guy’s name was Muhammad.
-
It was crazy. The sniper attacks lasted about as long as the Austin bombings (3 weeks) and killed more people (10 compared to 2). You're probably right that the attacks would get called terrorism due to Muhammad's name. But it wasn't. They demanded $10m. Criminal, not political.
-
I had to look it up just now to check that it was really less than a month. It felt much longer.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Agree, but here since bomber is dead we may never know his mind. So far, we are not aware of any demands. If he posted on social media that may give us insight. One thing for sure he had done homework to make bombs that were more than rudimentary.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.