Washington Post writer dishonestly calculated death toll from terrorism vs other forms of murder

I’m not sure exactly why Tung Yin (described as “a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon [with an] academic specialty [in] national security law and terrorism”) wrote a new essay in the Washington Post—”Is it terrorism or mass murder? That depends on our biases.“—but I have a few ideas. What Yin does is to claim that our definition of terrorism depends largely on the pigmentation of the perpetrator, and that that is a form of bias.

And it would be if that were the case. I’m not sure it is. But Yin, who apparently is unbiased, offers his own definition of terrorism, which he claims is a better one—though I think he’s dead wrong. His definition is based on body counts rather than motivation of the killers.

First, though, Yin gives the Federal legal definition of terrorism, which comprises violent acts that “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government.” Implicit in that is the idea of promulgating an ideology or to scare people in general. To me, terrorism would include Islamist terrorism motivated by faith and designed to create fear or strike a blow against the West, blowing up government buildings because you feel the government has betrayed its principles (that’s what Tim McVeigh and the Weathermen did), and mass murder of blacks by white supremacists designed to terrorize a community. But it would not necessarily include the mass murder of blacks by a deranged racist who has no goal except to kill African Americans. One-off bigotry is not terrorism, though its acts may create terror.

But does it matter? I think it does—at least in the sense of drawing a distinction between motivations as a way to counter future murders. But Yin’s distinction is useless in that sense.

First, though, he chastizes us for being prone to call murders “terrorism” if the perpetrators are pigmented:

Mass killings look the most like terrorism when their perpetrators seem the most alien from the Judeo-Christian, white majority. That’s no way to judge a crime. We need a new way to classify these attacks.

I’m not sure that’s true, since McVeigh and the Weathermen, who were mostly white, were clearly terrorists, and when a Muslim murders others without any indication that it was motivated by religion or hatred of the West, I don’t think people would call it terrorism. It’s only when they shout “Allahu akbar”, or when ISIS takes credit, that we call it terrorism.  Yin is right that “that’s no way to judge a crime,” but that’s not what using the term “terrorism” is about. It’s not to judge an act, but to place an act within its context, for context is essential in knowing whether there might be similar acts, and in deciding what to do if the answer is “yes.”

Then, further convincing me that he’s trying to exculpate Islam, Yin does a sleazy calculation of deaths from right-wing extremists versus Muslim extremists—and look when he starts his timeline! (my emphasis):

Public declarations are now rare, and without them there is no agreed-upon norm for categorizing these attacks. The recent mass shooters who have generally been called terrorists — Fort Hood’s Hasan, San Bernardino’s Farook and Malik, and Beltway sniper Muhammad — were all identified as Muslims. In a study I conducted in 2012, more than 15 percent of the news about Hasan included the term “terrorist” or “terrorism,” while just over 2 percent of the news about Loughner, a white man, included one of those terms. My study found a disparity based on race and religion that was not limited to mass shooters; in the same study, I examined news coverage of two bombings — one carried out, one attempted — about 30 miles apart, with similar conclusions.

This discrepancy poses two dangers. First, the assumption that mass shootings are terrorism when perpetrated by Muslims but not by others may lead law enforcement and the public to overlook threats posed by non-Muslims. For instance, civil rights lawyer and former FBI agent Mike German, who infiltrated white supremacist groups, has argued that the domestic threat posed by right-wing extremist groups is as great as, if not greater than, that posed by Arab or Muslim terrorists, and yet has been largely ignored by the FBI. A report by the Government Accountability Office tallied 106 killings perpetrated by right-wing extremists in the United States from Sept. 12, 2001, to the end of 2016, more or less equal to the 119 by Muslim extremists in that time. While the exact number in each category may change slightly depending on how we classify individual attacks, the point is that there’s close to parity in the danger posed by each group.

Yes, if you exclude 9/11. But why would you do that? I don’t see a good reason; in fact, I’d start with some more or less arbitrary time, like January 1, 1990.  This kind of calculation, starting on September 12, 2001, is a common tactic of Islamist apologists. What is also leaves out is the huge number of deaths caused by Islamist terrorism in other countries beyond the U.S.  There’s Europe, the UK, and, importantly, the Middle East and other Muslim countries. Let’s tot it up for the whole world, and then see the comparison of right-wing versus Islamist terrorism!

To be sure, Yin does take into account that some people (and yes, they exist) studiously ignore religious motivations in Islamist terrorism, but he still calls it “stereotype-based law enforcement”, which has a ring of the pejorative about it. Fighting terrorism based on ideology, whether that be white supremacy, desire to bring down the US government (McVeigh), or further an Islamist agenda, is the only useful way we have to fight it, and it means that we must watch groups that are likely to kill. And governments are of course doing that. But the futility of Yin’s focus and of his semantic argument becomes clear in his last paragraph (bolded):

Second, it’s possible that law enforcement and other decision-makers will acknowledge and respond to this singular focus on Muslims by overcompensating in the opposite manner so as to appear nondiscriminatory. The Fort Hood shooter, for example, had repeatedly drawn complaints from fellow soldiers for appearing to justify terrorist attacks against Americans in the Middle East. The FBI was even aware that Hasan had been in email contact with al-Qaeda provocateur Anwar al-Awlaki. It is one thing to avoid racial or religious stereotyping but another to ignore red flags for fear of being perceived as bigoted, as appears to be the case with Hasan. Yet this tension is inherent in stereotype-based law enforcement.

One first step toward resolving the question of “what is terrorism?” — at least in the colloquial sense — is to stop focusing so much on the perpetrator’s perceived intent and to look more at the effects of the violent act. Today, attackers such as Hodgkinson, Hasan, Rizwan, Malik, Loughner and Roof have one thing clearly in common: Even if it’s not clear why, they want to kill as many people as possible. That should be enough to call them all terrorists.

Now, of what use is that? Is it really more important for our safety to count bodies than to judge motivation? I doubt it. That means that you ignore Muslim terror cells, stop monitoring dangerous right-wing groups, and, well, just do nothing. Yin’s article turns out to be a recipe to make nice with Islam and do nothing to prevent future killings. But it’s simply fatuous to lump deranged one-off mass murders with ISIS.

51 Comments

  1. Deac
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    So that means that a community that constitutes less than 1% of the US population is responsible for more terrorist deaths (since September 12th…)than right-wing extremists, which originate from the white community (70% of the population)

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 18, 2017 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

      That doesn’t make any sense; not all white Americans are on the far right. If you want to make a meaningful comparison, compare the overall per capita murder rate for Muslim-Americans and non-Muslim Americans. I think you’ll find that American Muslims form a pretty law-abiding community.

      • Posted June 18, 2017 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

        I think you’ll find that American Muslims form a pretty law-abiding community.

        Only if you ignore the facts.

        The percentage of Muslims inside U.S. prisons is more than 11 times their percentage of the overall population.

      • Deac
        Posted June 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

        YOUR reasoning does not make any sense.
        Not all white Americans are on the far right, but not all Muslims are jihadis either.
        And common murders are not terrorism.

        • Posted June 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

          Civility, please (viz., first sentence).

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 18, 2017 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

          Right. So to have a meaningful comparison of relative dangerousness, you’d need to present stats for both far-right extremists and Muslim jihadis in the US, which you didn’t do. It’s meaningless to make a comparison to the 70% of the US population that’s “white.”

          • Deac
            Posted June 18, 2017 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

            OK, the stats are in:
            Since the randomly chosen date of Sept 12th 2001, there were 106 killings by right-wing extremists and 119 by Muslims.
            Right-wing Americans are half of the population; Muslims are less than 1%

            • mikeyc
              Posted June 19, 2017 at 1:24 am | Permalink

              “Right-wing Americans are half of the population”
              This so obviously wrong I suspect I know why you’d make such a risible claim.

              No matter, the worst of it is you completely ignored what Ken was trying to tell you – you are not using comparable populations.

              • Deac
                Posted June 19, 2017 at 6:57 am | Permalink

                Tell me why it is wrong and give me the comparable numbers

  2. Craw
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Do we only call someone a thief if they try to steal millions?

  3. Tom
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    It’s a strange world, no matter how vile somebody will find a reason to exculpate ideological terrorism by making the false comparison with the activity of the unhinged fringe.
    At the moment in Germany the Government is paying more attention to sniffing out supposed neo Nazis than rounding up and deporting known Islamic extremists.
    Why is it that all Western Governments make more effort quelling public reaction to terrorism than integration.
    We still see those dedicated followers of “traditional” fashion and behaviour wandering our streets as if it didn’t matter in a time of tension, where is the attempt at blending in with Western Society or even acknowledging that there is a problem whilst stubbornly sticking to the ways of the “old country” which, I point out, they have left for want of a better life.
    Surely if there ever was a time to show allegiance to the new societies it is now when it can make a difference.

    • Posted June 18, 2017 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      I’d say the German Government is in fact doing way too little about Neo-Nazis. Attacks are increasing and becoming more brazen and the police advise people to “stop provoking them” (i.e. stop being Jewish and owning a business, or being a leftist and owning a house — examples from my immediate acquaintances).

      Recently a white supremacist in the military registered as an asylum seeker, and was planning to fake a Jihadist attack, like the one recently perpetrated on Dortmund Football Club…

      Pro-Nazi corruption is not especially widespread, but it’s extremely in the system. The recent Neo-Nazi trial has been such a debacle because the police wrote off Nazi assassinations as Turkish mafia deaths, and then destroyed multiple files.

      (And of course they’re not doing anywhere near enough to stop Islamic extremism either.)

      • jay
        Posted June 19, 2017 at 8:33 am | Permalink

        Numerically, anti semitic behavior in Germany is FAR higher among Muslims, and the government is asking people not to ‘antagonize’ them. Including not being openly Jewish. Women are told to be careful how the dress, wearing (non Muslim) jewelry etc.

        Yet the tiny numbers of neo Nazis gets the attention.

        Do not be fooled by the term ‘far right’ as applied in EU . Pretty much anyone who’s not a socialist or SJW gets classified as far right.

  4. Aldous
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    There are many strange, circuitous rationalizations of why Islamist violence is not as big of a deal as the “islamophobes” are making it.

    A popular one is the oft heard “well let’s be rational here you’re actually more likely to die falling down the stairs or in a swimming pool than by terrorists”. Okay, that’s true but we don’t have to spend billions on intelligence and security to prevent further stair and pool accidents and it’s difficult to calculate how many deaths from terrorism have been prevented by law enforcement agencies. Read about the Toronto 18 and imagine the toll had they not been foiled.

    So to understand how ridiculous this “pools are more dangerous” argument sounds to many or most people let’s play the imagination game. Let’s imagine the next time a black teenager is shot by a belligerent racist policeman the response of the intellectual elite was “horrible no doubt, but a black teenager is exponentially more likely to die in a pool or falling down stairs” how would that sound?

    What is it about people being stabbed or eviscerated in a bomb or mowed down by a truck that turns a certain section of our intelligentsia into the elders of Planet Vulcan?

    • Posted June 18, 2017 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

      Next time someone throws out the ‘pools are more dangerous’ argument refer them to the laws and safety regulations governing the building and maintenance of pools and ask them what more they think could be done to prevent pool deaths.

      If pools were unregulated there would be many more pool deaths. It would be a scandal.

      The ‘But X causes more deaths’ argument only works if nobody is doing anything about X.

      • Filippo
        Posted June 19, 2017 at 7:00 am | Permalink

        In the litigious U.S., or at least the state in which I live, there emerged some years ago a legal concept called “attractive nuisance.” A diving board at a motel pool is an example. Which is to say, apparently, that some kid, a minor and therefore legally not responsible, who is not a motel guest, and despite a sign in big bold letters saying “guests only” and “adult supervision required,” walks by and cannot resist the temptation to jump on the diving board into the pool and get hurt, and then the parent/guardian of the child sues the owner. So the solution has been for motel owners to remove the diving board. (I wonder if diving boards have ever qualified for consideration for the Darwin Award.)

        I was at a waterfall at a national park some years ago watching a boy walking barefoot on smooth river rocks in the water, his father no more than five feet away. It struck me that both were clueless about the risk of slipping and falling and hitting the back of ones head on the rock. Which is exactly what happened. I wondered if the falls would qualify as an “attractive nuisance” and someone would try to sue the National Park Service. (One hears of the occasional incautious soul persisting in climbing a waterfall and falling to his death.) I guess what applies there is that no one can sue the gov’t without the gov’t’s permission.

        • jay
          Posted June 19, 2017 at 8:46 am | Permalink

          There are specific exemptions for places like nature parks (especially government run), but also for certain activities that have inherent dangers like skiing and other sports, offroading parks (one of my passions), motorcycling and racing venues etc.

  5. Fernando
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Another thing that people like Yin don’t think about is that the reason Islamic terrorists have not killed much more people is because we spend an enormous amount of money to stop them. That money is needed somewhere.

  6. sensorrhea
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Excluding 9/11 is bizarre. Republicans used to say with a straight face that GW Bush had kept us safe from terrorism – of course they always meant “aside from 9/11.”

    Meanwhile SJWs say more white guys kill people than Muslim terrorists – aside from 9/11.

    • Craw
      Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      Not bizarre at all. Motivated.

      • sensorrhea
        Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:20 am | Permalink

        I agree. I just mean logically bizarre.

    • sensorrhea
      Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      Dylann Roof was clearly a terrorist. He has admitted that he wanted to spark a race war. It was much more than a random act of racism.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 18, 2017 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

      Though I see your reasoning, I also think there’s a valid reason to exclude 9/11. Following that horror, there were multiple changes in the way terrorism, especially Islamist terrorism, was dealt with by US security agencies.

      It marked a new era in US and international society – a sort of loss of innocence.

      We’d had major terrorist events before of course, including involving airplanes. (Those of us old enough can remember the multiple hijackings of the 70s.) But 9/11 really was a watershed moment.

      However, I still think there are multiple flaws in Yin’s reasoning.

      • Craw
        Posted June 18, 2017 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

        Those changes went into effect 12 Sept 2001? No; this is tendentious, a standard dodge for misleading with statistics, as our host rightly notes.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted June 18, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

          No they didn’t, but some were introduced immediately. Excusing Islamist terrorism is not a charge that can be laid at my feet, and that’s not what I’m doing. I write about it frequently. In fact I’ve got another anti-Islam post coming out on my website today or tomorrow.

          • Craw
            Posted June 18, 2017 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

            I don’t mean you were using the dodge, only that the people Coyne criticizes are. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted June 18, 2017 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

              Cheers.

  7. fizziks
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Ugh. That GAO report supposedly showing parity between Islamic terrorism and right-wing terrorism is one of the stupidest and most pernicious lies floating around the Left echo chamber right now.

    There are a number of severe problems with it:

    – It was released before Orlando and San Barnardino, which, if included, would make the raw numbers more like 190 to 106. To me that’s not even, its almost double.

    – There are a number of incidents of likely Islamist terror that have instead been classified as “workplace violence” because they happened to take place in a workplace, thus reducing the Islamist body count. These include, most notoriously, the Ft. Hood shootings, and also a gentleman who shouted ‘allahu akbar’ while beheading a female co-worker at a warehouse in Oklahoma.

    – Muslims are about 1% of the population of the United States while those with (non-Muslim) right wing views comprise at least 10% of the population depending on how one defines right wing. Thus even a parity in their relative death counts points to Islamic terrorism being much more of a problem.

    And, of course, most dishonestly of all:

    – They start the counting on September 12, 2001. I think there may have been something significant that occurred before that.

  8. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    We have a word for people like Timothy McVeigh,Ted Kaczynski, and Eric Rudolph….”domestic terrorist”.

    The Patriot Act (about which I have decidedly mixed feelings) defines them in part as doing actions which “B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government”.

    It’s an entirely reasonable definition.

    The Symbionese Liberation Army was also considered a terrorist group.

    Mr. Tung Yin wants to redefine words, and I’m always a tad suspicious of that.

  9. dd
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    “You have a greater chance of being killed by a white supremacist that Islamic terrorist.”

    Can’t tell you how many times that has appeared on my facebook feed. And also said to me in person. Finally, one of those postings actually linked to how that “statistic” was calculated.

    When I clicked, I immediately noticed that, yes, the data’s starting point was September 12, 2001. And its ending point is in 2015 leaving out Orlando and San Bernardino, even though still quoted today.

    Note that it’s people who think of themselves as educated, high-information, and especially, science-friendly….meaning progressives/leftists who quote this. And not only quote it, but you can sense their moral righteousness when they do so.

    So, a far more interesting question is, What precious and sacrosanct thing is being protected Brunhilde-like with this wall of fire?

    BTW, Wouldn’t any such statistic have to be adjusted for population? Since the available population for potential white supremacists is white men in the US, of which there may be around 90 million, and the potential population for Muslim terrorists is what around 2 million…..well you get my point.

  10. Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Start that timeline a few decades earlier and the majority of terrorist acts (and media mentions) will be from left-wing groups, mostly white. A few centuries earlier and it will be deliberate state policy in Europe (mostly white). It seems simple enough to define it as “ideologically motivated mass killings intended to target civilians.” Then the comparison to Loughner is off base since he intended to be an assassin, if I recall correctly. I do agree that the media falls short on labeling right-wing terrorism for what it is. Racism could be considered sufficiently ideological to be terrorism, and consciously trying to foment a “race war” should qualify under the political definition, i would think. It seems to me that the word “terrorist” matters because it places responsibility on the ideologies and groups that promote them. If an ideology causes its adherents to be more likely to commit mass murder than they would have otherwise been, then we should call it terrorism.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

      I agree with you about how terrorism should be defined.

      I think one of the problems we have is government interfering in the determination of what terrorism is. President Obama had a tendency to sympathize with leftist ideology and so Fort Hood was called workplace violence for a long time.

      Now that Trump is in office, there’s an extreme focus on just being Muslim (rather than Islamist) to the exclusion of all else. So right-wing terrorism is not getting enough attention.

      People like Yin come out because the government has gone too far in an ideological direction. During the Obama administration, it was people like Sebastian Gorka who got air time. The actual definitions are okay imo. Yin is focusing on the wrong thing.

      • Posted June 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

        My vantage point on the media is probably not typical, but I’ve been seeing arguments like Yin’s in a continuous stream going all the way back to 2001. The substance of media bias critiques doesn’t seem to have changed in decades. They just swap out the content each year with newly picked cherries. Underlying these critiques is the notion that all media is propaganda for somebody, and the audience is a mass of uncritical receptacles who are easily brainwashed by any and all subliminal messaging. The thing that stands out today is that the right wing has begun fully exploiting their own critiques using the exact same frameworks and assumptions.

  11. Craw
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    So, when a KKK mob of 50 lynched a single victim that wasn’t terrorism? Maybe not even close at 1/50 per klucker? Insane.

  12. Mack
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    To add to the absurdity, it’s reasonable to assume that in the post-9/11 period, the focus on islamist organizations has resulted in the disruption of numerous terror plots. Conversely, the federal government has probably not invested anywhere close to the same resources on domestic and far-right groups. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to guess that if the same resources were spent averting islamist terror as has been spent on right wing groups, we may have seen more and larger successful attacks from islamist.

    This consideration make the equivalency more false.

  13. Posted June 18, 2017 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    I suspect a Connotation Treadmill (cf. Pinker’s “euphemism treadmill”) plays some role. People are being attacked on Twitter. Groping might be a sexual assault. Speech is considered violence to a certain demographic.

    Extremer terms have been associated with offenses that get smaller and smaller. This leaves an itch to deacribe “attacks” as “terrorism” whether or not the perpetrators are actually terrorists.

    “Terrorists”, as commonly understood, are people who want to terrorize a demographic for some political aim to intluence its behaviour. They make use of mass media to air a terrible spectacle.

    The inherent problem has little to do with bias. We aren’t left in the dark, when terrorists leave a manifest or by spelling out the connection to some ideology that exists somewhere. The categorization becomes difficult when no clear manifest can be attributed. Then, the categorization will inevietably be driven by “othering”. Ideas or ideologies that “stand out” more, will more likely attract attention as a reason for terror. The more ordinary or diffuse they are, the less observers will draw that connection.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 18, 2017 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

      Groping IS sexual assault.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 18, 2017 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

      Groping IS sexual assault. There’s no “might” about it.

      • Posted June 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

        I am not going to argue with native speakers, but it thought it to be an ordinary word with a range of uses, where one context is sexual assault. My wording was bad, and something is lost in translation. Other than that, I thought it was clear that I argue about words, not actions.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted June 18, 2017 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

          I agree that there’s a problem with what is called violence these days. Words vs actions makes a big difference.

          However, groping is a physical action.

  14. Posted June 18, 2017 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  15. Torbjörn Larsson
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Let’s tot it up for the whole world, and then see the comparison of right-wing versus Islamist terrorism!

    I do not know about the whole world. But I can pull from [fallible] memory that 2014 Europol statistics had ~ 1 % religious motivated murders by terrorists, while 2015 was in parity with (the dwindling) earlier dominating separatist motivated murders by terrorists. (The latter would be both right and left extremist attributable, mostly right extremist now IIRC.)

    Not because of lack of trying mind you, already 2014 had the same amount of court cases on both groups, but a decided lack of efficiency. But somewhere 2014 an ISIS propagandist had the bright idea to spread the kill-by-trucks-and-knife meme on the web.

    • Oran Bouville
      Posted June 18, 2017 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      The problem with world-wide comparison, though, is that in Islamic countries it’s very hard to tell right-wing terrorism from the Islamist kind. Both are socially conservative, religious and hostile to ethnic minorities.

  16. Michael Fisher
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    I do wish writers today used the first paragraph to provide a synopsis & also a brief outline of what their intent is. I found this article surprisingly wishy washy for a lawyer.

    I get the distinct impression that he wants more mass killings to be categorised as acts of terrorism & that’s why he chose a post-9/11 start for his statistic: “…Hodgkinson, Hasan, Rizwan, Malik, Loughner and Roof have one thing clearly in common: Even if it’s not clear why, they want to kill as many people as possible. That should be enough to call them all terrorists” and “the assumption that mass shootings are terrorism when perpetrated by Muslims but not by others may lead law enforcement and the public to overlook threats posed by non-Muslims”

    I think he’s thinking as a lawyer – trying to clear up major problems in the definition of what constitutes a terrorist – which is important in law, but he’s done a very poor job of it.

    *********************
    Here is a partial list of his publications [see link at bottom for a full list] & I think his concerns include the making of expedient, bad laws that bite back later [torture, Guantanamo etc.] & government ‘overreach’

    National Security Lies (2018) (forthcoming).
    Is Diversity Diverse Enough? (2014)
    Were Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber the only White Terrorists? (2013)
    Joint Terrorism Task Forces as a Window into the Security vs. Civil Liberties Debate (2012)
    Through a Screen Darkly: Hollywood as a Measure of Discrimination Against Arabs and Muslims (2010)
    Great Minds Think Alike: The “Torture Memo” (2009)
    Distinguishing Soldiers and Non-State Actors: Clarifying the Geneva Convention’s Regulation of Interrogation of Captured Combatants Through Positive Inducements (2008)
    Blogging While Untenured and Other Extreme Sports (2007)
    The Impact of the 9/11 Attacks on National Security Law Casebooks (2006)
    Coercion and Terrorism Prosecutions in the Shadow of Military Detention (2006)
    Procedural Due Process to Determine “Enemy Combatant” Status in the War on Terrorism (2006)
    Ending the War on Terrorism One Terrorist At a Time: A Non-Criminal Detention Model for Holding and Releasing Guantanamo Bay Detainees (2005)

    https://law.lclark.edu/live/profiles/271-tung-yin

  17. aljones909
    Posted June 18, 2017 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    I think the claim that skin colour is a factor is ludicrous. There’s probably dozens of European organisations that were classed as terror groups (mostly no longer active):- The Red Brigade, The IRA and ETA come readily to mind.

    • Posted June 19, 2017 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

      My country was plagued by communist terrorists during the last century. They were white, secular, of Judeo-Christian heritage, the boys and girls next door. And they were terrorists. Some of today’s Muslim terrorists are also white (e.g. the Tsarnaev brothers). While I do not claim that I am not at all racist, I couldn’t care less about a terrorist’s skin pigmentation.

  18. Posted June 18, 2017 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    If ‘terrorism’ was just defined by the pigmentation of the murderers then ‘terrorism’ would be one of the main causes of death among young black men.

  19. zytigon
    Posted June 19, 2017 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan speaking about the 18th June 2017 Finsbury Park ( hit and run ) terror attack against people leaving a Mosque
    said:
    “One of the things these terrorists hate about us is whether you’re a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Bhuddist, a Sikh, member of an organised faith or not, rich or poor, old or young, you’re accepted for who you here in London.”

    I think his list makes a very grudging acknowledgement of atheists, nones, poetic naturalists, realists, secularists, humanists, folk who don’t want anything to do with primitive superstitions, etc

    Doesn’t sound very accepting.

    I realize that there is a lot more to a person than the religious or political views they might agree with at any one time in their life. I respect what can be respected about them but oppose that which is criminal, anti-social, misanthropic, damaging to human well being.

  20. Posted June 19, 2017 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Judging by Mr. Tung Yin’s name, he comes from a community which is not “People of the Book”. If the Islamists he is trying to whitewash take over, this community would not have the luxury to live in obedience and pay jizya but would have only the other two options – conversion or death.

    Listening to people like him makes me sick. Like some Trojan insisting to bring inside that nice horse.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: