a harmless package... not like franks... he needs a license to carry that thing and stuff

Have to agree... bad guy dead = good.

illegal in 37 states.

money saver.

They blow up so young these days.

very nice!

😂

---

so....the bomber was a white conservative home-schooled Christian...is that why this hasn't been labeled an act of terrorism?

I'm calling it terrorism.

The FBI defines domestic terrorism as acts perpetrated by “individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”

I'm not sure why this is an issue. Why is the 'terrorist' label important to anyone? What makes this conversation volatile?

true, the official definition may rule out the terrorism label later on, but to me the goal of terrorists is to create fear for their cause to advance.

I agree 100%. In my mind, this guy got off on creating fear and 'terror'...and in my mind that makes the acts 'terrorist'....but why is the label of any importance? Is this anything more than an opportunity to argue and accuse the 'other side' of something political, or racial, or ?????? Seems stupid to me

sounds right.

Labeling acts of violence and terror as "terror" has become a cultural clash, and, in some minds, indicative of racial and religious divides in the US.

Use of the term "terrorism" became a big deal when Obama was scorned for not saying 'radical Islamic terrorism". Trump has no problem using that phrase, particularly the term "terrorism" when acts of violence are committed by minority persons. Here, the deceased bomber is being called a "very challenged young man."

Labels (subversives, commies, extremists) have been used throughout American history to villify large, mostly minority, groups of people.


There could be a monetary factor here, also: defining an act of violence with the term "terror" invokes a decision to provide federal funding to local govts to aid in the investigation and follow-up of terrorism incidents.

so...labeling is bad....and 'not labeling' is bad

I've always gone with the philosophy that for it to be "terrorism" there should be a message. Ie... do what we want or there will be more deaths...
That fits with radical islam (get out of the middle east) or radical Christians (we're killing people until our nation becomes more christian!)

In this case I don't see it.

This guy seems more like a serial killer than a terrorist... so far...

here's an interesting article about the use of the word "terrorist" in the US, especially in cons media...

https://www.justsecurity.org/46778/conservative-correctness-terrorism-double-standard/ 



White terrorists seem to get a pass while minority perpetrators, especially with Muslim sounding names, are called terrorists. It seems that the most common source of terrorist incidents in the US is by white supremacists, but their crimes are not labeled terrorism (i.e. Dylan Roof & Charlottesville driver). This contributes to the anti-immigration movement, less focus of resources and effort to fight a major threat of domestic terrorism. and the civil divide between the races in America.

The, "Is it terrorism or not?" problem comes from a fear of offending the death cult by calling their barbaric acts terrorism. It's as absurd as trying to define hate crimes, a bad dead is donee, it's no better or worse because of the perpetrator's mindset.

IMO the bomber clearly terrorized Austin, a lack of manifesto or some demands doesn't diminish the harm to the people of Austin.

---

Which death cult?