A gunman with an assault rifle opened fire in the terminal at Los Angeles International Airport, killing a TSA agent and injuring four other people, but the incident has not been labeled an act of terrorism.
On the contrary, the Boston Marathon Bombing which left three people dead and dozens injured was declared an act of terrorism the very next day.
In a blog by Ali Abunimah for The Electronic Intifada, the author raises an interesting a question certainly worthy of discussion.
Why is one involving a Chechen and Muslim suspect considered terrorism, but the other involving a white suspect not terrorism?
NBC reported the suspect in the LAX incident, Paul Anthony Ciancia, was carrying anti-government literature when he opened fire. Yet there has been little mention of terrorism as a motive.
Is it unfair to bring race and religion into this story or is the government and the media more likely to throw the word terrorism around when the suspect is Muslim?
RE: Should the LAX shooting be considered terrorism: I think it’s an act of terrorism, although you can’t deny that the shooter’s unstable mental health was a huge factor. But on that note, is mental health also a factor when it comes to foreign terrorists as well? Curious to know the psychology of that.