|
Terrorism is usually meant as an attack on innocent (uninvolved, anyway) people for the purpose of coercing or threatening or scaring a larger group into some reaction. So abortion bombers are certainly terrorists--there intention is to scare the whole industry to bring about a change.
On the others--VT and Columbine weren't meant for coercion so much as perceived payback, and were carried out by fellow students on students. If they were carried out by an outsider who was killing the students to push for a political outcome, they would be terrorist attacks, but that's not the case with those two.
The rapist/murderer was trying to keep his crimes hidden, so certainly there was no attempt to scare or coerce the public.
The DC sniper--that one is debatable. He was trying to cause terror, and even admitted that. His goals seemed more about his own hatred than about any cause, though. Hardly matters now.
The Fort Hood shooter is undetermined, I think. It seems like he was a loner who snapped and had his own personal agenda, which wouldn't be terrorism. But if it turns out he had a grander scheme, or even was encouraged by a larger group somewhere to attack the evil Americans to hurt our war efforts or whatever, he might be considered a terrorist.
Religion or any other group identity can be a cause which motivates terrorists, but they don't prove terrorism by themselves.
The media (calling them right wing is redundant) is just sensationalist. They throw around whatever words will get people the most emotional, because then people will keep watching them. They are just noise makers without any other purpose these days.
Just my random thoughts. I should sleep more and quit babbling on the Internet so late in the morning.
|