What the press names these mass murderers makes difference, doesn't it?
"Somali militants burst into a university in eastern Kenya on Thursday and killed nearly 150 students in the worst terrorist attack since the 1998 bombing of the United States Embassy here, laying bare the nation’s continuing vulnerability after years of battling Islamist extremism.A small group of militants, most likely between four and 10, roved from dorm to dorm, separating Christian from Muslim students and killing the Christians, the authorities said. Students described being awakened before dawn by the sound of gunfire and fleeing for their lives as masked attackers closed in."
I think calling the killers "terrorists" instead of "militants" would tend to make a big difference in our response.
I think "militants" are ever present, a "normal" threat, and an internal problem even when "militants" commit a "terrorist attack." But "terrorists?" "Terrorists" are an aberration that deserve a world wide reaction.
If mass murders are "terrorists," I can ask:
Where are the U.S. protestors, tears, and marches?
When are the world leaders going to fly to Kenya to mourn?
Why haven't the birthers and company demanded the President fly to Kenya to mourn in person, same as they complained about him not heading to France for Charlie Hebdo?
Why don't Kenyan lives count for as much as French?