The news is out: [Terrorism once seemed to serve a purpose, albeit an awful one. Osama bin Laden was evil but rational: The most effective way to attack a military superpower for its interventionist policies is to strike civilians.
However, the latest assaults in France, shooting a priest and knifing three people in a church, are as close to pointless as one can imagine. The acts do not even pretend to defend Islam, and they convince no one of the faith. At least there was a hint of purpose — entirely evil, of course — in the beheading of a teacher last month, as an act of revenge for having shown his students a caustic cartoon of Mohammed.
To his credit, French president Emmanuel Macron strongly defended free speech and secularism. In doing so, he suffered the wrath of Islamic leaders and activists worldwide. For them, everyone else must surrender their freedoms to avoid attack by murderous extremists.]
I find it extremely stupid when writers, specially of European descent, opine about terrorism as a one-sided non-white crime. The FBI describes it as an “unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal : the use of violence as a means of achieving a goal.
The destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City; the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City; opening fire on a crowd attending the final night of a country music festival in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring more than 800; “Karen” calling the cops on negroes; dropping bombs on innocent children from an airplane are all acts of terrorism. But most western writers don’t seem to know the definition of terrorism.