Hey, I think there&#x27;s a chance I misunderstood your original comment to which I replied and started what, to me, has turned into a tangentially related discussion. I wasn&#x27;t actually trying to provide a legally sound and properly defensible definition of what constitutes calling the San Bernardino event a terrorist attack versus other mass shootings. I was merely offering that it is the <i>narrative</i> chosen for discussing the event, as well as advancing a political agenda, regardless of whether its defining merits actually differentiate it enough from other mass shootings to cross the line into terrorism territory—which I think long ago crossed into the nebulous and ill-defined. Personally, I reject this narrative, and see this event as either YAMS[1], or all mass shootings as YATA[2].<p>That said, I think there&#x27;s allegedly more to why the Va Tech shooter wasn&#x27;t called a terrorist in the national narrative and reporting on the event. That excerpt of his statement sounds like the ravings of a lunatic to me. Of course, I think the same of any type of statements that champion murderous religiously motivated intent. I don&#x27;t read that and get the sense of any desire to effect political change, influence policy, intimidate, etc. There is a certain practical and theoretical argument that can be made arguing all public actions taken by human agents are inherently political. But some actions are more political than others. I don&#x27;t think that shooter&#x27;s statements really had the <i>effect</i> of intimidating or coercing the public. I don&#x27;t think they even registered in the public consciousness.<p>Anyway, my original point was that this San Bernardino shooting has been thrust into the national consciousness as part of the terrorism narrative because it&#x27;s a politically convenient message, and because, as you wondered, the ethnic and religious identity of the perpetrators fits that narrative so perfectly. I mean, it was instantaneous. Had the shooters been radical, white Christians, I don&#x27;t think that would have happened. There would have been news reporting that asked the question, &quot;Is this a terrorist attack?&quot;, and then give a no. Holding the Judeo-Christian god as one&#x27;s source of obligation doesn&#x27;t yet fit that category.<p>[1]: yet another mass shooting<p>[2]: yet another terrorist attack