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)
7 replies 28 retweets 79 likesShow 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
4 replies 12 retweets 38 likesShow 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
3 replies 9 retweets 34 likesShow 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
3 replies 12 retweets 30 likesShow 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
4 replies 14 retweets 45 likesShow 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)
13 replies 20 retweets 90 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @NGrossman81
Serious question: why is a serial killer, or a terrorist allowed to define what he is with a pre-recorded confession? What he said on that cell phone video is irrelevant. Shouldn’t he be classified by the nature of his actions?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DonaldChinpenis
Yes, classified by actions. Sometimes the political nature of an act of violence is obvious by the choice of symbolic target. Many times it's more ambiguous. Choosing to send (or not send) a written/spoken message is an action that can help put the violence in context.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
This is clearly one of your areas of expertise and I appreciate your take on this.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
My pleasure.
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.