Even by the WaPo:
'A Muslim man from Maryland who told police he traveled to New York to kill Christian men turned himself in on Wednesday, about 24 hours after he fatally stabbed a man he encountered on the street, officials said.
Authorities described the suspected attacker as someone who had long harbored feelings of hatred toward Christians before violently acting on them this week. Police said he carried out the attack in a way that intended to draw attention.
“The reason why he picked New York is ’cause it’s the media capital of the world,” said William Aubry, assistant chief of the New York City Police Department. “And he wanted to make a statement.”'
When you kill folk of a particular group to make a statement … that's usually considered terrorism toward that group. Especially when it's a Muslim killing Christians, right?
Except in the actual story, it was a white man killing black to make a statement.
But that's not terrorism. It is, at most, a "hate crime". Even if it's "making a statement." But accusing a white man in the US of terrorism isn't something that happens very often. Even when it really, truly, looks like it.
+Dave Hill I guess it's because if you work for Murdoch and are a republican it's because he's a well dressed man.
It's good to be a white terrorist in America.
http://nypost.com/2017/03/22/well-dressed-suspect-in-fatal-stabbing-surrenders-to-cops/
Terrorism has to involve some aspiration of creating social or political influence or change through the act. A mere (sorry) hate crime doesn't intend or aspire to do that…it's just violence motivated by hatred of another group.
Now, are all the Muslim attacks necessarily terrorism? I don't know…you'd have to understand the motivation and aspirations of the attackers to say definitively whether it warranted that label. That said, if someone attacks in the name of a terrorist organization, that's pretty safely "terrorism." But, a Muslim man wanting to kill Christians isn't necessarily terrorism unless he has larger objectives that the murders would help advance.
At least that's my understanding of the difference.
+Craig Froehle For me, the aspect of "making a statement" is what moves this into the terrorism category.
+Dave Hill Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
What political aim was he aspiring to achieve through this?
+Craig Froehle That remains to be seen.
Again, he (allegedly) wanted to "make a statement" — to whom, to what end, and how is that not in some sense political?
+Dave Hill Killing a black man in order to say "I hate black men" isn't terrorism. It might be a hate crime — it most certainly is a hate crime — but it's not terrorism.
Compare that to Roof, who killed the church members "in order to start a race war" — that is (also) terrorism because he's hoping to influence society through his acts.
So if it was to make a public statement that he hated black men, I agree that it's not terrorism per se. If it was to make a public statement that he hated black men and other people who hate black men should do the same, that would be. The story at the time of publication was vague on the particulars.
So looking at the most recent story that pops up (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/us/james-jackson-racially-motivated-stabbing/)
— he 'told police he targeted the victim because he was black and that he viewed the killing as "practice"'
— Prosecutor Joan Illuzzi-Orbon said in court that the charge may be upped to first-degree murder because it was likely an act of terrorism
— First Degree Murder is defined for NY State here: http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-125-27.html .. "the victim was killed in furtherance of an act of terrorism" … as defined at http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-490-05.html :
(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping;
So the DA's office, at least, see this as an attempt to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" I agree that the statements to date don't see to directly support it, but I think lack of discussion about it is, itself, telling.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/us/james-jackson-racially-motivated-stabbing/
It shows how poorly we differentiate terrorism from any other sort of act we feel is repugnant and motivated by something other than greed or lust. It also shows a DA who is likely feeling pressured to call it terrorism so that she doesn't appear "soft on terrorism," even if it's not really terrorism. Labels matter, but so do motivations.
+Craig Froehle True.