How come the US media isn't calling the Tulsa Oklahoma shootings terrorism?

[Cali_Democrat]

They terrorized the black community in Tulsa, did they not? They were gunning people down because of the color of their skin. Folks in Tulsa were scared to go outside...many were quite fearful and rightfully so.

Why isn't this being called terrorism by the US media? If the shooter's name was Mohammad Khan, would the US media call it terrorism? You bet. Nitwits like Hannity and O'Reilly would be screaming bloody murder. Free Republic would be outraged. The outrage has been muted because the perp had fair skin and his targets were black.

I smell a double standard. It appears you can only be considered a terrorist if your skin is brown and you have a Muslim sounding name.

[marybourg]

1. You're right, I'm sad to say.

[peacebird]

2. Sad, isn't it?

[NYC_SKP]

3. Because the victims weren't white and the agressors were.

You can be a white terrorist, by the way, but only if you go after rich people or corporate interests.

[Cleita]

4. For the same reason that Pravda in the Soviet Union never talked about the Gulags. n/t

[bigapple]

5. tradionally

terrorism is defined as violence against civilians for political reasons. There doesn't seem to be any political agenda in this case. This is just a mass killing (not even a serial killing). Just like school shootings are not automatically terrorism whereas the Bombay hotel shooting was.

[Meiko]

6. 3 people is a hardly

a "mass" killing. You act as though death squads are marching through the streets killing as they go. Let's hope it never come's to that eh!

[bigapple]

8. you're right

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two

according to the FBI, this does not qualify for mass murder (four or more). This does quality for spree killing (two or more).

[treestar]

7. Of course they aren't.

Terrorists are Muslims, of course.