This may be a dumb question

[spartan61]

but I am curious. Is a mass shooting by a Muslim called a Terror Attack while a mass shooting by someone other than a Muslim called a Hate Crime? What is the difference since the victims are dead? I'm sure it has something to do with politics.

[Gomez163]

1. Good question. The shooter allegedly pledging fealty to ISIS did the trick.

Otherwise I would just call it a hate crime.

[Skittles]

2. in this case it is certainly both

[840high]

7. .+1

[braddy]

3. One is part of an international movement and religion, for a global cause.

[libdem4life]

6. Over the years, terrorists have become freedom fighters and vice versa.

It is a political definition. Kind of like War killing: OK because it is sanctioned by the state. Any other kind of killing: Bad. Not sanctioned or by a state we don't like.

Another I've noticed...if we agree with them, it's OK. If we don't, they are terrorists.

Long been the story. It's how we continue the War Machine...and justify the ginormous sums of money made for a few ... and cost in human and taxpayer capital it destroys. Then we wrap it up in patriotic hoopla, like the icing on a deadly cake.

[braddy]

8. You are going to pull a muscle playing such mental games.

[libdem4life]

9. Say what? My mind hardly broke a sweat

How inappropriate.

[libdem4life]

10. Now I get it. Hadn't seen your post.

Still inappropriate but I guess you took it personally???

[Skink]

4. I'd say if it wasn't for the 911 call

It would only be a hate crime.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. It's inconsistent

and this is the problem of the use of the word "terrorism" and only using it for those of (or suspected of being of) a certain religion.

White Christians shooting up abortion clinics or black churches are never called "terrorists" and the acts are rarely if ever even called "hate crimes" unless alot of blowback happens.

Any individual or individuals, no matter their origin or religion causing mass casualties should be considered "terrorists". And their crime should be considered a hate crime because those willing to do what they do are hateful POSes.

[Nye Bevan]

11. Eric Rudolph was never described as a terrorist?

Google suggests otherwise.

[Chan790]

13. He definitely was described as such...

in fact, I can't recall him being described any other way. It was always "domestic terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph, suspected of the Olympic Park bombing."

It took way way too long to catch that asshole and I was so relieved when they did. There is no better argument for life-without-parole than Eric Rudolph...he needs to die in his cell at Florence ADMAX of old age.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Oh, he will.

I'm a staunch opponent of the death penalty and just throwing this disgusting person in a cell and letting him rot there for the rest of his miserable life, no drama, no fuss, is just fine with me.

[Chan790]

15. Oh, I'm aware.

...even if we do disagree on the DP.

Every once in a while though, someone or another here gets on a high-horse about the cruelty and inhumanity of LwP. I always want to know which one of the current inmates serving life-without-parole in the Supermax unit of ADX Florence they want to move into their neighborhood after their humane release.

I mean, if they've got to be let go, they've got to go somewhere.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Post-9/11 the "rules" changed. Try Dylann Roof or Robert Dear.

Even before 9/11, it took alot of backlash to force calling McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier "terrorists" since they were not looking for white all-American militia types.

[malaise]

17. +1,000 n/t

[The2ndWheel]

12. Human beings invented language out of thin air

so human beings use language to their own particular advantage. It's all subjective. It all depends on what the speaker wants to emphasize about a particular situation.