First of all, you have to know the definition of terrorism. Some people say it cant be defined. I go by what i was taught which is: "the use of violence or threat of use of violence in order to gain goals which are either political, ideological, or religious."
It all comes down to motive or MO (Modus operandi or Mode of Operation). The reason behind the criminal activity. Terrorist attacks have a "political, ideological, or religious goal." Whether it be for their god, freedom for the republic of bumfukustan, or there's no place for leaf shinobi in my homeland. Also, there's always a statement attached "that i do this for whatever" and most times there is a bigger organization claiming to have given the go ahead for that act.
People can site non-muslim criminal acts and say, "how come this is not considered terrorism." But can you site a major criminal act by a Muslim that was not linked to a terrorist organization or did not a have statement attach. Major meaning that it made nation headlines.
Also, most times it is the media that makes the statement of terrorism up first and the investigators always almost always say, "that we don't have enough information at this time to make that statement true." or something of that nature.
And even though a major criminal act by a Muslim was not terrorism, the act itself is usually glorified by actual Muslim terrorist groups. They praise their actions and those people that did that act are now considered heroes to their cause. So if there is a double standard, the Terror organizations are partly to blame for making it so.
I vote no if anyone cares.
