Im not entirely sure where we got on track of trying to discuss the reactions of Liberals, Libertarians and Republicans, but I believe that for the most part Americans react similarly wherever they are to a terrorist attack on America.I actually disagree to a point. I think you have people on both sides doing this at different times for this. I can point to many of the liberals and libertarians at a point a bit after 9/11 telling us how we need to understand why we make these people hate us, very much akin to what some republicans and libertarians were saying about the guy that flew into the IRS building recently as well. However, despite that, I think by and large everyone wrote both up as crazy assholes with no regard for others.
What domestic terrorist was a loner? The unabomber wasn't. Timothy McVeigh, not really. People contribute the Fort Hood tragedy to Islamic Extremism and the American Imam who fled to Yemen. The history is stacked with networks and networks and networks and networks, and I think the term "Lonewolf" doesn't actually work, especially when talking about terrorism.For a few reasons. One, there is an inherent notion of planning in the very notion of coming over into the country to perpetrate an attack. Itís this assumption of planning, and patience, that generally makes people look at foreign terrorists as more likely being somewhat more professional. Second is the assumption typically that terrorists that are foreign are most likely operating within some kind of network, even loosely, while often times the notion for domestic terrorists is more of a loner. While this plays into your suggestion of assumptions and biases in people, I think itís a bias in part backed up somewhat with history.
Not the magnitude of deaths caused by 9/11, but the immediacy of deaths caused by 9/11. We probably wouldn't have noticed if people started dying 5 at a time every day post 9/11. We react because someone is responsible for these deaths.lI agree with your statements on Al-Qaeda and Terorrism save for the goal. While I agree that completing the attack isnít always required for the goal the preference is always to complete the attack because it significantly increases the affect of said goal.
I have to disagree with #4. I believe the magnitude of deaths in 9/11 significantly contributed to the impact it had on people.
~5,000 people die annually from texting while driving and it is one hell of a ride to get any legislation past (or was a ride) to try to fix this problem.
Had ~5000 people died within 2 hours, instead of one year.. it would be a completely different story.
Terrorism and studying, researching, and talking about it is my bread&butter. It is the only reason I got into politics. I started watching CNN in the 7th and 8th grade because of 9/11, because I didn't understand a damn thing.I think you made a great post and some really well reasoned arguments. I do think there is a definite stereotyping done in our minds and biases inherent from it on foreign and domestic terrorism. That can be seen in the OP even when the notion that this was sloppy immediately made him think domestic. That said, while I think some of it is likely overblown I think some of it is bred there for legitimate reasons.
I'm still working on that hypothesis btw, just sorta jumped at me.