The Dallas Shooter Was Not A Terrorist

In the wake of the shooting of police in Dallas, people across the political spectrum have been calling the shooter a "terrorist". Well, those people are wrong. He was not a terrorist, he was an insurgent. Some may say that is just arguing semantics; words have meanings though. First, terrorism aims at influencing politics through the use of violence against the population. 9-11 in New York, 7-11 in London, San Bernadino, these are all examples of terrorism, where civilians were the primary targets. The shooter in Dallas was a member of the New Black Panther Party, which describes itself as a Nationalist movement. Listening to their rhetoric, the organization sounds like a stereotypical communist revolutionary movement from the Cold War era. It has called for, and now had members carry out attacks on uniformed representatives of the government. That is the text book definition of an insurgency.

I'm not the first to bring forth this idea; it did occur to e right after the shootings, though. After hearing alternative media outlets bring up this point, I think it's important to get this out to a broader audience. It's important, because how we identify the enemy (and they are an enemy) we deal with them. The black nationalism the NBPP espouses is a direct threat to the country The fact that its members have now take direct action against authorities takes the movement directly into the realm of insurgency. It is now no different than the insurgents that killed US and Iraqi soldiers in Iraq. Actually, it is different, because these insurgents aren't fighting in the streets of Baghdad or Basra. They are, and will be, fighting on the street of US cities'

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.
Recommended article from FiveFilters.org: Most Labour MPs in the UK Are Revolting.

The Dallas Shooter Was Not A Terrorist