Yep, 'terrorist' appears to be a simple word but its use is selective. It means a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims and the OED defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Yet there are many examples in the US where the label has not been given to those who clearly seem to have "earned" it. Oddly enough, there don't seem to be too many white terrorists.
Dylan Roof shot a number of black people in a Charleston church. He was a racist who had been inspired by podcasts espousing Christian Identity doctrines urging the start of a race war. Use of violence - check. Against civilians - check. In pursuit of political aims - check. Yet he wasn't called a terrorist, except by left-wingers who pointed out that he would have been labelled that way if he were a Muslim. Instead, he was called deranged or unhinged. The right-wing press did its best to ignore the fact it was a case of racial hatred. Instead, it was portrayed as an attack on Christians!
Robert Dear shot 12 people in a Colorado Planned Parenthood Centre, 3 of whom died. He said he was protecting unborn babies from being ripped apart so their baby parts could be sold. He was clearly inspired by a fraudulent video put out by pro-life activists which purported to show PP staff discussing the sale of 'baby parts'. This was quickly embraced by the GOP and conservatives. The Texas Governor, a Republican, even launched an inquiry into Planned Parenthood on the basis of that tape but it not only cleared PP but led to the makers of the videos being charged, much to the chagrin of the Governor. But was Dear labelled a terrorist? No. He was a deranged killer who was pushed over the edge by the murder of countless unborn babies. Not only did his whiteness earn him immunity but also it helped that he was pushing the hobby horse of the GOP. To call him a terrorist would tar the pro-life movement and that isn't the done thing.
Ammon Bundy led a militia which occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. They defended their occupation by arming themselves and threatening to kill any federal officers or police who might try to eject them. Their objective was to prevent another couple of ranchers from being jailed and to force the Federal Government to cede the wilderness area to ranchers. The government tried to avoid conflict and the occupation continued for a while before locals called on it to act. One terrorist was killed and the others surrendered. But they weren't labelled terrorists save by some left-wingers who wondered whether the same latitude would have been extended if the occupiers were Black or Muslim. But Good Ol' Boys can't be terrorists can they? They're Trump supporters after all and everyone knows that Trump is against terrorists.
Let's look at crimes committed by Muslims. If they say they pledge allegiance to ISIS, should we automatically assume it is radical Islamic terrorism? Clearly, the San Bernadino shootings were terrorist killings. That couple had apparently been communicating with ISIS and had been following ISIS online. The killings were therefore designed to serve the interests of ISIS. Even in that case, it was necessary to discount that they were merely pursuing a vendetta against fellow workers as has happened many times in the US. "Going postal" was coined because of the trend of postal workers killing fellow or former workmates.
In the Orlando shootings, the perpetrator said he pledged allegiance to ISIS. But could this be a case of someone bent on going out in a blaze of glory; how better to do that than with 50 murders and tying them to terrorism? Let's not forget that this guy may well have been motivated by homophobia. The GOP would prefer to treat this as a terrorist act which just happened to take place in a gay bar. They would like to say it could just as well have targeted a church or kindergarten. The GOP is currently going to war against the LGBT community at state level, the freedom to discriminate legislation in North Carolina being just one example. They don't want this to be about homophobia or gun control. Of course they want it to be neatly placed in the Islamic terrorism box. But life isn't usually that easy to categorise.
Dylan Roof shot a number of black people in a Charleston church. He was a racist who had been inspired by podcasts espousing Christian Identity doctrines urging the start of a race war. Use of violence - check. Against civilians - check. In pursuit of political aims - check. Yet he wasn't called a terrorist, except by left-wingers who pointed out that he would have been labelled that way if he were a Muslim. Instead, he was called deranged or unhinged. The right-wing press did its best to ignore the fact it was a case of racial hatred. Instead, it was portrayed as an attack on Christians!
Robert Dear shot 12 people in a Colorado Planned Parenthood Centre, 3 of whom died. He said he was protecting unborn babies from being ripped apart so their baby parts could be sold. He was clearly inspired by a fraudulent video put out by pro-life activists which purported to show PP staff discussing the sale of 'baby parts'. This was quickly embraced by the GOP and conservatives. The Texas Governor, a Republican, even launched an inquiry into Planned Parenthood on the basis of that tape but it not only cleared PP but led to the makers of the videos being charged, much to the chagrin of the Governor. But was Dear labelled a terrorist? No. He was a deranged killer who was pushed over the edge by the murder of countless unborn babies. Not only did his whiteness earn him immunity but also it helped that he was pushing the hobby horse of the GOP. To call him a terrorist would tar the pro-life movement and that isn't the done thing.
Ammon Bundy led a militia which occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. They defended their occupation by arming themselves and threatening to kill any federal officers or police who might try to eject them. Their objective was to prevent another couple of ranchers from being jailed and to force the Federal Government to cede the wilderness area to ranchers. The government tried to avoid conflict and the occupation continued for a while before locals called on it to act. One terrorist was killed and the others surrendered. But they weren't labelled terrorists save by some left-wingers who wondered whether the same latitude would have been extended if the occupiers were Black or Muslim. But Good Ol' Boys can't be terrorists can they? They're Trump supporters after all and everyone knows that Trump is against terrorists.
Let's look at crimes committed by Muslims. If they say they pledge allegiance to ISIS, should we automatically assume it is radical Islamic terrorism? Clearly, the San Bernadino shootings were terrorist killings. That couple had apparently been communicating with ISIS and had been following ISIS online. The killings were therefore designed to serve the interests of ISIS. Even in that case, it was necessary to discount that they were merely pursuing a vendetta against fellow workers as has happened many times in the US. "Going postal" was coined because of the trend of postal workers killing fellow or former workmates.
In the Orlando shootings, the perpetrator said he pledged allegiance to ISIS. But could this be a case of someone bent on going out in a blaze of glory; how better to do that than with 50 murders and tying them to terrorism? Let's not forget that this guy may well have been motivated by homophobia. The GOP would prefer to treat this as a terrorist act which just happened to take place in a gay bar. They would like to say it could just as well have targeted a church or kindergarten. The GOP is currently going to war against the LGBT community at state level, the freedom to discriminate legislation in North Carolina being just one example. They don't want this to be about homophobia or gun control. Of course they want it to be neatly placed in the Islamic terrorism box. But life isn't usually that easy to categorise.