[froo]

"the FBI said they are not seeking to set a precedent in the case, but to get the company to help them open a single phone that may hold crucial evidence to help explain the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001."

What qualifies this as being a terrorist attack? Is it because the colour of the perpetrator's skin wasn't white? Sandy Hook had double the number of resulting deaths and so is technically more deadly.

Virgina Tech was done by a South Korean born man with even more deaths than Sandy Hook.

Poor reporting WSJ

[bobwaycott]

This is the national narrative of the event now. Presumably, this is because the perpetrators allegedly voiced some kind of allegiance for ISIS or something. The phrasing is meant to invoke all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of 9/11. It's also intended to capitalize on the scaremongering that flows so easily into a national consciousness reeling at the shock of an event like this. We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions. This is arguably why the VA Tech shooting is not terrorism, but this one—and others, like the Planned Parenthood shooting, the Oklahoma City bombing—qualify as terrorism ... and then get repeatedly thrust into the national conversation with those labels so people don't think of them merely as crimes.

[froo]

> We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions.

The Virgina Tech shooter sent an 1800 word manifesto and 27 videos to NBC News during his rampage. I'd say that qualifies as making statements.

[bobwaycott]

It's been a few years, and my recollection is hazy. Sorry. Were these statements political statements of a sort that opposes the US government in a clearly defined way? Did they state some kind of ideological agreement and allegiance to ideas considered anti-US or anti-US-govt? It's late, and I guess I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. I was making a pretty obvious and clear distinction on what kind of political statements I meant. I didn't say statements of any sort qualify the terrorism label.

[froo]

Well I have to admit, my understanding of what constitutes terrorism was not solid, so I googled it. It seems the statements don't necessarily need to be political in nature.

The FBI defines domestic terrorism[1] as:

> "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

> - Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

> - Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

> - Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

The first point, I imagine mass shootings qualify as acts dangerous to human life that violate law.

For the second point, I would argue that sending a manifesto[2] to media with nuggets like what follows are designed to intimidate/coerce a civilian population

"Thanks to you, I die, like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the Weak and Defenseless people — my Brothers, Sisters, and Chil- dren —that you fuck. Like Moses, I spread the sea and lead my people —the Weak, the Defenseless, and the Innocent Children of all ages that you fucked and will always try to fuck —to eternal freedom. Thanks to you Sinners, you Spillers of Blood, I set the example of the century for my Children to follow."

Lastly, the attack occurred on US soil.

1 - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism... 2 - https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/cho_manifest...

[bobwaycott]

Hey, I think there's a chance I misunderstood your original comment to which I replied and started what, to me, has turned into a tangentially related discussion. I wasn't actually trying to provide a legally sound and properly defensible definition of what constitutes calling the San Bernardino event a terrorist attack versus other mass shootings. I was merely offering that it is the narrative chosen for discussing the event, as well as advancing a political agenda, regardless of whether its defining merits actually differentiate it enough from other mass shootings to cross the line into terrorism territory—which I think long ago crossed into the nebulous and ill-defined. Personally, I reject this narrative, and see this event as either YAMS[1], or all mass shootings as YATA[2].

That said, I think there's allegedly more to why the Va Tech shooter wasn't called a terrorist in the national narrative and reporting on the event. That excerpt of his statement sounds like the ravings of a lunatic to me. Of course, I think the same of any type of statements that champion murderous religiously motivated intent. I don't read that and get the sense of any desire to effect political change, influence policy, intimidate, etc. There is a certain practical and theoretical argument that can be made arguing all public actions taken by human agents are inherently political. But some actions are more political than others. I don't think that shooter's statements really had the effect of intimidating or coercing the public. I don't think they even registered in the public consciousness.

Anyway, my original point was that this San Bernardino shooting has been thrust into the national consciousness as part of the terrorism narrative because it's a politically convenient message, and because, as you wondered, the ethnic and religious identity of the perpetrators fits that narrative so perfectly. I mean, it was instantaneous. Had the shooters been radical, white Christians, I don't think that would have happened. There would have been news reporting that asked the question, "Is this a terrorist attack?", and then give a no. Holding the Judeo-Christian god as one's source of obligation doesn't yet fit that category.

[1]: yet another mass shooting

[2]: yet another terrorist attack

[tempodox]

By that definition, the U.S. government and military are terrorist organisations.

[rayiner]

> FBI investigators have said that Farook and Malik had become radicalized over several years prior to the attack, consuming "poison on the internet" and expressing a commitment to jihadism and martyrdom in private messages to each other. Farook and Malik had traveled to Saudi Arabia in the years before the attack. The couple had amassed a large stockpile of weapons, ammunition, and bomb-making equipment in their home.

It's pretty offensive to focus on the shooters' skin color, instead of what they were: violent Islamic fundamentalists.

[froo]

We've seen violent Christian fundamentalists recently with the Colorado Planned Parenthood shootings.

While many around the world consider that a terrorist activity, it had not been labeled as such by US officials (the guy is only being charged with murder and not additional offenses).

I find the double standards to be what is truly offensive.

[rayiner]

The Colorado Planned Parenthood shooters didn't pledge support to a worldwide movement of Christians trying to overthrow the western world order.

[DanBC]

The one still alive describes himself as a "warrior for the babies". He also

> Mr. Dear described as 'heroes' members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings."

He said the attacks were politically motivated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren...

[joezydeco]

But it's terrorism nonetheless. The anti-abortion movement in America is just as organized and well-funded as the group behind the San Bernadino shootings, if not better organized and funded. They also have the protection of 1st Amendment liberties here.

[rosser]

That's absolutely irrelevant. Terrorism is politically motivated violence, full stop. You don't have to be a card-carrying member in a "designated terrorist organization" to be a terrorist, and to suggest that you do is myopic and naïve.

[selimthegrim]

What exactly is this nebulous western world order? These guys we're supposed to be wetting our pants out of fear of can't even agree themselves beyond some blathering about Israel.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

No seriously, how come this case is so much more important than all those other mass shootings (and I'm hearing a lot more about San Bernadino than I'm hearing about Dylan Roof)

[joezydeco]

Because when a fundamentalist Christian shoots up a Planned Parenthood clinic, it's a "lone gunman" and not a "terrorist". Welcome to America.

[MacsHeadroom]

WSJ is simply reporting what the FBI said in reference to Sandy Hook. The FBI is at fault here, not WSJ.

[toyg]

He-said/she-said is poor reporting.

[croon]

"He-said/she-said" is referring to reporting rumours. This is reporting of a public statement of a government agency.

[toyg]

It's also about reporting statements verbatim without trying to discern what the truth is. Writing down a public statement is basically just relaying a message; at that point you are writing a press release for them, not doing journalism. And then you wonder why they replace you with a Reuters feed...

[dragonwriter]

> at that point you are writing a press release for them

Or, as is often the case, cut-and-pasting from a press release they provided you.

[ikeboy]

http://time.com/4136457/terrorism-definition/ tries to give an answer, which doesn't make much sense to me. That's the "official" answer, though.

[froo]

Thank you for the article. Very informative

[forrestthewoods]

A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate.

Revenge murders or anger murders are not terrorists. They kill people and then kill themselves; directly or by police. Because they are dead they are no longer a threat. There is no parent organization to fear.

At least that's my definition. And what I think along the lines of what most people intuitively think.

[froo]

> A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate.

Not trying to nitpick, but with this definition, any police officer who has used the threat of shooting someone with their firearm or taser is using the threat of violence to coerce people.

I'm not a supporter of terrorist organisations in the slightest. I am just sick of the racial profiling that goes on which is helping to fuel their cause.

[chopin]

>Terror on the other hand is practiced by governments and law enforcement officials, usually within the legal framework of the state.[1]

Depending on the circumstances the scenario you describe can be terror. IMHO swatting on shaky grounds would qualify.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics)

[krrrh]

I think that having a political agenda, and stating that they were loyal to an organization (ISIS) that is calling for acts of violence in order to achieve political aims is what moved San Bernadino into the category of terrorism, and something that was missing from Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.

[DanielBMarkham]

"Terrorism" is a topic where we have to come to grips with definitions early on, or the analysis goes seriously astray.

To me, terrorism is the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in a media effort to change political opinion.

I've had this definition for several years, and I have never reached some of the crazy conclusions other commentators reach about the topic "George Washington was a terrorist!" "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and so on.

Definitions matter.

Note: This is not related to the merits of the FBI's case. My point is simply that we can all use the word "terrorism" and all actually be talking about different things.