Domestic Terrorism:
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state;
(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 by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
So yeh he ticks all three boxes. But nah let's just call me a racist....good one.
I didn't call you a racist. You're making judgements based solely on what you see as being "race", which is usually racist. But I didn't consider your statement clearly racist enough to call you a racist. Which is why I didn't call you a racist.
Do you often leap to unsubstantiated conclusions? It does make life simpler when you're sure you already know the answers and can just pretend everything fits your preconceived answers. As you did with both your original statement and your reply to my reply.
As for your "ticks all three boxes" comment:
The first and third are primarily about jurisdiction, which is required because it's a definition of "domestic". It's the second one that's the definition of terrorism. It's a "one or more of 3" thing, so I'll do them one at a time.
i) "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population". This is the one that's closest to being true, but where is your evidence that was the
intention? Also, it obviously doesn't meet the "coerce" part. The "intimidate" part, possibly. But probably not as the perpetrator was apparently acting alone with no connection to any group. Dead people aren't intimidating.
ii) "appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". Unless you have evidence that he demanded that government policy be changed this one is obviously untrue. Also, as above, dead individuals with no connection to any group don't carry much weight when it comes to intimidation or coercion.
iii) "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping". Obviously not true in this case as there wasn't any mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. And all of the above as well.
There is a difference between terrorism and individuals killing themselves or others and, despite your clumsy attempt to shoehorn reality into your preconceived ideas, that difference is not "race".
So, I'll ask you again:
What political agenda are you claiming he had and sought to advance by causing terror by killing himself?
