Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT ACT, acts of domestic terrorism are those which”(A) involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
This is not my definition of domestic terrorism or something I’ve heard. This is the FBI’s official definition of domestic terrorism. When Stephen Paddock fired off round after round from automatic weapons at concertgoers, from his 32nd floor hotel suite at the Mandalay Bay Hotel last night at around 10 pm., he was in direct violation of section (A), (B), and (B-i) of the USA PATRIOT ACT. But you already knew that. I doubt that you needed to see the law written in this article to know that Stephen Paddock had committed an act of domestic terrorism. You’re probably not a lawyer or a news reporter. The two types of people, who I’m more than certain know these things by heart, considering their credibility and probably careers depend on knowing these type of things. If we all are aware of that, why was it not reported anywhere that what Stephen Paddock did last night was an act of domestic terrorism? The president of the United States seemed to have trouble bringing himself to call this incident such, as he spoke to the nation this morning. This, from a man who sitting at his desk, in Washington D.C, in the United States Of America, called the train bombing in London earlier this year an act of terrorism before it was even reported by the London authorities. Why is it so much easier for some people to call terrorism when an act comes from a person who does not look like them? It almost seems like some have reserved words like “terrorist” for certain groups of people. Racism is probably the easiest answer to why, but it still baffles me that people can allow themselves to think this way. How? It’s not like this is the first act of domestic terrorism committed in the United States by a “red-blooded, born and raised in the good ole’ U. S. of A., American citizen. So why is it so hard to believe that such a thing could happen? Common sense says that if it can happen once, it can happen again, right? I mean, we did say that we put a man on the moon before. Would it really be so hard to believe that we could send a man up there again? There is definitely some racism in the selective use of words like terrorism. I think that even more than racism, the selective use comes from a need by people to see things through the lens of good vs. evil. In their minds, I think they believe that good and evil is defined by entire races, statuses, or classes of people. When the perpetrator of such a horrendous crime easily falls into the category which they fit in, they feel extreme guilt. Most horrendous acts like this one are done by individuals with evil intentions. The fault does not fall on a whole race, religion, or creed of people for the actions of one, or a few. But this type of thinking does not fit the agenda of some. Therefore, when an action like this takes place, the first separation of self from the act they look for is race. Was the perpetrator of another race other than theirs?? If yes – see, I told you “those people” are animals. That’s why “we” need to get rid of them. If no, they’ll move on to the next separating factor on the list. Religion. Was the perpetrator of a religion other than theirs? If yes – see, I told you “that” religion preaches hate “we” need to get rid of them. If no, move on to the next separating factor on the list. The next and final separating factor on the list is political affiliation. Was the perpetrator of a political affiliation other than theirs? If yes – see, I told you “that” political affiliation is nothing but trouble, “we” need to get rid of them. But what happens when the perpetrator is of the same race, has no religious ties whatsoever, and has no political affiliations at all????? Well, you get what we have going on in the media right now. Selective speaking. People are being extra careful not to throw the “terrorist” label onto this person until they can find out if they can, or can not separate themselves from the perpetrator. The very definition of selective phrasing or wording.