What is considered terrorism?
Recently there have been three different attacks and shootings but out of the three only one have been called terrorism and the other two are just known as mass shootings. The three attacks in order are the Los Vegas shooting attack, the Manhattan New York truck attack, and the Texas shooting at First Baptist Church. The Los Vegas shooting killed at least 59 people and 527 people were injured. The shooter had 23 firearms in his suite at the hotel and 19 firearms at home. The Manhattan truck attack had a driver plowed a pickup truck down a crowded bike path killing 8 and injuring 11 which Mayor Bill de Blasio declared this rampage a terrorist attack. The Texas attack had a gunman opened fire inside the church and had 26 killed and 20 injured.
The only one of these three attacks that were considered a terrorist attack was the Manhattan truck attack while the other two are known as mass shootings even though the Manhattan truck attack killed and injured less than half than the other two attacks. All three were premeditated violence against civilians but only the Manhattan truck attack is seen as terrorism. For the Texas shooting, Trump called it a "mental health problem" that the shooter had but called the Manhattan truck attacker a terrorist. For the Los Vegas shooting Trump said: "It was an act of pure evil" but wouldn't call the shooter's attack terrorism. What tends to happen like the NYTimes article says is "Muslims are defined as terrorists while lone non-Muslims are deemed 'mass shooters.'" While all the attacks are awful and should never happen, it does seem like only when the person is Muslim or middle eastern we call it terrorism like the driver was in the Manhattan truck attack but when the person is white and American we dot see it as a terrorist attack and just see it as a mass shooting done by someone who was not sane. This needs to change. The Manhattan attack was sad but the Texas and Los Vegas attack was much worst and are the ones that seem more like terrorist attacks to me. If the shooters were Muslim and/ or middle eastern instead of white it is very likely that the news would have called it terrorist attacks rather than just mass shootings. To me, a terrorist attack is when a person or a group of people kill a large number of people normally having it planned out beforehand that causes fear, It does not have to just be politically motivated to me. In the college Democrats club meeting, we talked about all attacks around when they happened when we had our meeting Monday. We talked about why Los Vegas is not considered a terrorist attack instead of a mass shooting. It came down to because it was not politically motivated but like others in the meeting I thought that shouldn't matter and it is like a terrorist attack and should be counted as one. We talked about the Texas and Manhattan attack at the same time since it happened less than a week apart. We talked about how the Texas attack was not given much attention like the Manhattan attack was and how Texas should be considered a terrorist attack as well.
Manhattan Terrorist not Los Vegas article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/terror-attacks-vegas-nyc.html
Manhattan attack article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/nyregion/police-shooting-lower-manhattan.html
Texas shooting article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/terror-attacks-vegas-nyc.html
Los Vegas shooting article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting-live-updates.html
I find Elif’d post to be very interesting, as I did not realize what the State Department delacred ‘terrorism’ to be. I agree that these other shootings should be corrected in their titles, and deemed such an act. Terrorism is not just based on the skin colored or the religious affliction of the doer, rather the intent and result of the actions.
ReplyDeleteThank you Caitlin. Like you said terrorism is not based on skin color or religious afflicition and is instead based on the intent and reslt of the actions/ violence done. I feel like some people dont see that and just look at their skin color, religion, or orgin of where the person thhat hurted people are from which shouldnt be done like that.
DeleteI find this post to be very interesting, considering the definition of the word terrorism is rather vague. There needs to be a more solid, set in stone definition of the word terrorism, considering countries can create a definition that would work best in favor for themselves. Although these three attacks are very similar, why is only one considered a terrorist attack? The general public needs a solid definition of the word terrorism so that they truly know when an attack is terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the general public needs a slid definition of what terrorism is since they dont really have one now but feel like even if they did their will still be people that judge it based on the person's sin or religion rather than the intent and action which needs to change.
DeleteI like your post and how it seems like you think that in a way we try and define terrorist attacks as being carried out by those who aren't American. And when those acts are committed by someone from the U.S. we tend to deem it something else, even if it fits the category of being a terrorist attack.
ReplyDeleteThank you and you got it exactly right. That is how I think for right now at least.
DeleteI found your poster to be interesting because of how you talk about how the United States defines terrorism and how it seems to that the U.S. does not want to be called terrorist. One cannot pick and choose who the definition applies to. There needs to be a definition that can be applied to all terrorist acts, not just those carried out by "clandestine agents or sub-national groups."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that one should not be able to pick and choosewhothe definition applies to but sadly in the United States if people committhe same act the term is applied to a select few while the others that should be called terrorist acts are called something else.
Delete