General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Greenwald: Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine? [View all]apnu
(8,756 posts)I'm saying people other than the cops and prosecutors are jumping on the terrorism bandwagon for racial reasons. Because the bomber's religion is Islam and bombs are involved. Also McVeigh's motivations were more along the lines of terrorism in that there was social and political reasons for the bombing. In the case of Boston, we don't yet know what the motives are, and Greenwald also says this, so how can we call it terrorism yet?
And so I'm saying, again, people jumping to terrorism as a conclusion don't have all the facts and are hysterically and emotionally reacting to the bombing. I think people, here in the US, easily jump to "terrorism" because our culture defines any attack involving an Islamic person an act of terror because we're so paranoid and afraid, culturally.
And if you look at the usual suspects on the Republican side, they're giddy to call this terrorism. These are the same people who pat their wallets after they pass a black man on the street. They see a young Muslim kid and automatically assume this is terrorism before collecting all the facts to verify if that is the case.
Its the presumption that this must be a terrorist attack because of the bomber's ethnicity and culture that's racist. It may very well be an act of terror, then again was not Columbine or Tucson also meant to terrorize people as well as kill them?