It wasn't that long ago we had a shooting in Germany, and in a rather awkward fashion, those who were banging on about it being Islamist related had to retract their statements as it was quite the opposite.
For what it's worth, I'd suspect this was Islamist related due to Amaq claiming ISIS responsibility for the shopping mall stabbings. However, I will say that those who immediately point fingers towards Islam are as dangerous as those who refuse to accept that Islam has an issue.
So when the Mayor of New York says it was an 'intentional act' but not terrorism and I, along with many people, conclude no, it was a terrorist attack and probably an Islamic terrorist attack we are being as dangerous as people who refuse to accept Islam has an issue?
So there are a couple of subtexts here worth pointing out: 1) In the US, the word "Terrorism" is pretty much only connected to that of extremist Islam. Nothing else is ever universally referred to as terrorism, no matter how disgusting or deadly (insert reference to however many mass shootings we've had).
2) This is New York, the site of the worst domestic terrorist attack in the US, whose 15th anniversary has just gone.
I can speak to the first far better than the second, as I am not a New Yorker, but when Di Blasio says "it's intentional" but doesn't say it's terrorism that is code for "we don't know Muslims did it" because as soon as you say "terrorism" you invoke that it was an act by an Islamic Extremist.
I was listening to the radio when Mayor de Basio announced that the bombing was not necessarily an act of terrorism - it really stuck in my craw, I wondered what his point was. If someone produces, plants and detonates a bomb, it is an act of terrorism in my book.
I just had to google it though. It appears that it may be to do with legal definitions. in the US the accused are treated according to their categorisation. If bombings are considered as terrorism, the perpetrator can be treated as an ‘enemy combatant’ of the US and this would affect how law enforcement officers detain and interrogate. The laws of war can be applied.
Whereas those who share the ideology only, but have no tangible connection to said groups are treated as ‘domestic jihadists’ and are treated as regular criminals in terms of detention, interrogation and prosecution.
I’m guessing in this case that the difference meted out by tough US judges may be (say) 100 years for an enemy combatant and the lesser sentence of 95 years for a domestic jihadist.
I think George Bernard Shaw got it right though when he described England and America as two countries divided by a common language
It wasn't that long ago we had a shooting in Germany, and in a rather awkward fashion, those who were banging on about it being Islamist related had to retract their statements as it was quite the opposite.
For what it's worth, I'd suspect this was Islamist related due to Amaq claiming ISIS responsibility for the shopping mall stabbings. However, I will say that those who immediately point fingers towards Islam are as dangerous as those who refuse to accept that Islam has an issue.
So when the Mayor of New York says it was an 'intentional act' but not terrorism and I, along with many people, conclude no, it was a terrorist attack and probably an Islamic terrorist attack we are being as dangerous as people who refuse to accept Islam has an issue?
So there are a couple of subtexts here worth pointing out: 1) In the US, the word "Terrorism" is pretty much only connected to that of extremist Islam. Nothing else is ever universally referred to as terrorism, no matter how disgusting or deadly (insert reference to however many mass shootings we've had).
2) This is New York, the site of the worst domestic terrorist attack in the US, whose 15th anniversary has just gone.
I can speak to the first far better than the second, as I am not a New Yorker, but when Di Blasio says "it's intentional" but doesn't say it's terrorism that is code for "we don't know Muslims did it" because as soon as you say "terrorism" you invoke that it was an act by an Islamic Extremist.
I was listening to the radio when Mayor de Basio announced that the bombing was not necessarily an act of terrorism - it really stuck in my craw, I wondered what his point was. If someone produces, plants and detonates a bomb, it is an act of terrorism in my book.
I just had to google it though. It appears that it may be to do with legal definitions. in the US the accused are treated according to their categorisation. If bombings are considered as terrorism, the perpetrator can be treated as an ‘enemy combatant’ of the US and this would affect how law enforcement officers detain and interrogate. The laws of war can be applied.
Whereas those who share the ideology only, but have no tangible connection to said groups are treated as ‘domestic jihadists’ and are treated as regular criminals in terms of detention, interrogation and prosecution.
I’m guessing in this case that the difference meted out by tough US judges may be (say) 100 years for an enemy combatant and the lesser sentence of 95 years for a domestic jihadist.
I think George Bernard Shaw got it right though when he described England and America as two countries divided by a common language
It's an excellent and incredibly insightful point @Raith_C_Chattonell. My original comment was referring to the colloquial usage of "terrorism" within the media being limited to acts perpetrated by Muslims, as opposed to hate crimes (which do have their own legal distinction) or just general mass violence.
As far as classifying or trying someone as a terrorist (which is rare), that is an incredibly controversial distinction because it essentially strips a defendant of all of their constitutional rights. Now is the point in the conversation where we could go on to discuss post-9/11 laws that suspended Habeas corpus rights, others which allowed for torture, many of which were covered up and there remain attempts to be cover-ups to this day. Long story short it ends in me foaming at the mouth because I'm still not over that deplorable part of American history.
Instead, I'll leave you with this piece which attempts to look at how many people have been tried and convicted as terrorists:
Comments
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-african-americans-ahmad-khan-rahami-treatment-article-1.2798518
I just had to google it though. It appears that it may be to do with legal definitions. in the US the accused are treated according to their categorisation. If bombings are considered as terrorism, the perpetrator can be treated as an ‘enemy combatant’ of the US and this would affect how law enforcement officers detain and interrogate. The laws of war can be applied.
Whereas those who share the ideology only, but have no tangible connection to said groups are treated as ‘domestic jihadists’ and are treated as regular criminals in terms of detention, interrogation and prosecution.
I’m guessing in this case that the difference meted out by tough US judges may be (say) 100 years for an enemy combatant and the lesser sentence of 95 years for a domestic jihadist.
I think George Bernard Shaw got it right though when he described England and America as two countries divided by a common language
As far as classifying or trying someone as a terrorist (which is rare), that is an incredibly controversial distinction because it essentially strips a defendant of all of their constitutional rights. Now is the point in the conversation where we could go on to discuss post-9/11 laws that suspended Habeas corpus rights, others which allowed for torture, many of which were covered up and there remain attempts to be cover-ups to this day. Long story short it ends in me foaming at the mouth because I'm still not over that deplorable part of American history.
Instead, I'll leave you with this piece which attempts to look at how many people have been tried and convicted as terrorists:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123571858
This has happened just now