I wouldn't necessarily include attacks on property with a very low probability of injuring people.
For example, destroying doors at a factory farm or sabotaging oil fracking equipment would both be attacks on property. They might be classified as eco-terrorism or animal right terrorism. But because they're not aimed at killing people, they aren't acts of "terrorism" as most people understand the word.
A politically motivated attack is terrorism, yes. My point is, there are many minor physical attacks where the GTD database researchers don't know whether the attack was motivated by ideology, or they aren't sure which ideology.
The WaPo people appear to be assuming that attacks in this category (a) are motivated by an ideology (not proven), and (b) that ideology is not based on the religion of Islam (not proven).
If there isn't enough evidence of what ideology--if any--motivated an attack, it's premature to call it terrorism. Even if you think it is terrorism, it's premature to say that one ideology (jihadism) isn't the root cause. Until there's good evidence that a different ideology motivated the attack, it shouldn't be counted as an example of "terrorism committed by non-Muslims."
Well would considrer all that terroism. Since Terriosim doesnt have to be for a cause one dislke. Terroism is a tatic, not an ideology in my opionon
I mean you cant go around blowing up shit. Since it may not be plan for death it could easily lead to it and still illegal. Which is why i generaly dont like when even groups I like pull that shit.
I dont know if the Washgiton post assuming the idelogy. The just posting stuff that legally consider a terrorist attack
Now maybe it might be interesting to note stuff that actully LEAD to fatality. But then I guess that would exclude failed attempts as well. So I dont know a way to do those figures
Let me ask. The sniper who shot those cops what would you consider that? Dont seem to be relguous motivated the guy seem to dislike cops. or that church shooting we had.