[Ed. – Raise your hand if you can find at least a dozen problems with this idiotic argument.]
Taking a page from conservatives who complain when people shy away from labeling armed jihadi attacks as “terrorism,” some liberals were quick to demand that the Charleston black church massacre be classified in the same way. And with good reason. The dictionary definition of the word is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” That fits the white supremacist’s intentions exactly.
The liberals’ point concerned racial bias in the media. But correcting the terminology problem carries implications beyond what some on the left intended. For one thing, if a non-Muslim white American mass shooter is no different than a radical Islamic militant, then that raises the question: What “counterterrorism” methods should we be using on our homegrown terrorists?
That’s the right question — because it turns out that we are really dealing with the same profile of person.
Criminal justice professor Adam Lankford has researched how psychologically similar American “rampage shooters” are to foreign Muslim extremists. In a New York Times op-ed after the Newtown massacre he counseled, “We should think of many rampage shooters as non-ideological suicide terrorists. In some cases, they claim to be fighting for a cause … but, as with suicide terrorists, their actions usually stem from something much deeper and more personal.”