Well, thank you for adding yet another mindless accusation based on nothing but hatred and prejudices. Wonderful.
So....lets get the count down
A terrorist act gets reported with a guy with a "middle eastern sounding" name, a guy that looks middle eastern, or a guy that is a muslim and people are attacked and smacked down for jumping to the conclussion (or even simply suggesting as a likely possability) that it had to do with radical Islam.
However
A terrorist act gets reported and a single report comes out suggesting the FBI is looking into a white guy and we're instantly see suggestions of the KKK, Stormfront, and the Tea Parties and naturally the same people who come out of the woodwork to scold people jumping to conclussions for Islamic Extremism are no where to be seen.
Well, on behalf of someone that does tell people not to just jump to conclussions and call every single crime that a radical muslim does a "terrorist attack" let me actually show equal footing...its freaking ridiculous to jump to conclussions or use this as a chance to take "joking" political shots at groups you dislike.
There's a lot still to come out with this and its anyones guess at the moment what happened.
There are a couple of things that I find interesting when comparing Homegrown Terrorism and International Terrorism.
First, Homegrown Terrorists have a completely different image than International Terrorists. If Muhammad al-Jihad, born in Pakistan, killed 20 people, and interrupted Manhattan business with a car-bomb, then we would have an image of a foreign enemy attacking Americans because he hates Americans. If Carl Sagan, born in Dallas, killed 20 people and interrupted Manhattan business with a car-bomb, then we would look into Sagan's life and be horrified at his living condition, his mental issues, or his socio-economic background.
Would you believe a report that said that al-Jihad was not an Islamic extremist, although he was Muslim, and acted for "rational" reasons?
Would you believe a report that Carl Sagan acted as an agent of Islamic extremism even though he grew up Protestant?
If the terrorist does not fit the common perception of terrorist, then we tend to eliminate his ideologies from discussion. If the terrorist is a common perception of terrorist, then we tend to eliminate tangible rationality from discussion.
Second, there is the question about how savvy the terrorists are. It seems to be that we expect more from an international terrorist, and that we count on them to be Professionally Terrorists. This fits into the first point because we consider the international, ideologically driven, terrorist to be part of some large scheme. We must keep in mind that the current charts we use to decide who is who in al-Qa'ida came from a single interrogated suspect years ago. We try to conceptualize al-Qa'ida in the terms of the Mafia, or a gang where there is a leader pulling the strings, and that there are guides for those who want to earn their badge, or become a "made-man". We point out the Madrassahs in Pakistan, and the FATA, areas and confirm out beliefs that the terrorists from those regions are trained. We watch videos of al-Qa'ida training camps and we suspect that they're training to become Professional terrorists. We remember 9/11 and the European attacks, and we see a linearity that these terrorists learn the trade and become Professional terrorists. But...
Three, Terrorism does not rely on operational success or efficiency, as much as doing a Math exam does. The entire purpose of terrorism is not dependent on whether or not the car bomb went off, but how the people would react to the notion that the attacker's INTENTION was to kill innocent people. In this regard, terrorism is not about being efficient on a Math exam, but how the Professor reacts to your math exam. In this regard, Terrorism is not about getting the job done, but showing that you INTEND to do the job.
The likelihood of somebody being killed by a terrorist attack is less likely than being mauled by two species of bear on the same day. Yet terrorism is still America's boogeyman.
Four, We don't react to people being killed and buildings blow up, but we react to the INTENTION that someone want people to die, and things to blow up. The estimated damage done does not affect our feelings about terrorism, but how HARD we react.
Five, We claim that Professionalism might make a difference between an International and a Homegrown terrorist. But after all the Terrorist is out for something, being successful in an operational sense, does not sound really professional does it? The Terrorists job is done when he/she shows that he/she is capable and intends to cause harm. The extent to which the terrorist causes damage does less good for his/her cause.