
During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security - pif
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/italian-americans-were-considered-enemy-aliens-world-war-ii-180962021/?no-ist
======
JackFr
> By the 1920s, pseudo-scientists and polemicists in the 1920s popularized the
> notion that Italians were a separate race from Anglo-Americans.

These scientists were 'pseudo' only in retrospect. It literally took a world
war to knock eugenicists out of the mainstream.

As we pat ourselves on the back today for being so rational and enlightened,
we would do well to remember episodes like that and restore some sense of
humility. The progressives of that era considered themselves no less
enlightened and rational than we do ourselves.

~~~
vixen99
Just to be clear, this was not a small group of pseudo intellectuals. Eugenics
was applauded almost universally by Progessives and Conservatives among
others. Included we can count J. Maynard Keynes, Irving Fischer ('prevention
of breeding of the worst'), Gunnar Myrdal (economics Nobel Prize) Bernard
Shaw, Harold Laski, Sidney Webb and Julian Huxley, Neville Chamberlain,
Winston Churchill and dozens of other famous names. You can say that eugenics
was 'received opinion' in that era.

~~~
klenwell
Don't forget the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and
his infamous phrase: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell)

Holmes is an intellectual hero of mine. I keep it as a reminder that we all
have our historical blindspots.

------
KirinDave
I like this article because it reminds us that "whiteness" is not actually a
strictly racial identity. There are numerous factors that make someone "white"
in America, which makes them acceptable to white nationalists. These purity
rules can _change_ over time to represent what's politically expedient.

Many young Americans are shocked to learn that Italian and Irish (who are
often a baseline of appearance in modern America)were once not only considered
not "white", but were demonized even as much as other races that Europe has
traditionally looked down on.

This is one of the primary reasons that fascism is such an uncomfortable
situation for its citizens. Fascism thrives in the face of an "enemy" that can
be defeated by force and a "strong leader." These enemies will be selected by
convenience, not rationality.

~~~
krapp
>Many young Americans are shocked to learn that Italian and Irish (who are
often a baseline of appearance in modern America)were once not only considered
not "white", but were demonized even as much as other races that Europe has
traditionally looked down on.

This was parodied in the movie Blazing Saddles, set in the American wild west,
with a quote that I'd be [edit: apparently not] banned for repeating verbatim.

~~~
conistonwater
This?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw)
"All right, we'll give some land to the niggers and the chinks... But we don't
want the Irish!" It's a nice film, its director made quite a few good films
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Brooks#Film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Brooks#Film)).

~~~
sammydavis
Mel Brooks is probably our greatest American comedy director and writer, at
least in the second half of the 20th century he's in the top handful. Who
comes to mind, Blake Edwards?

------
iambateman
I love this article, because we have to remind people that Americans have been
afraid of Italians and Germans and Swedes and Jews and the Japanese and
Muslims and the Chinese and DEFINITELY the Irish at one time or another.

Established groups feared new groups. But in the end, these people generally
brought new innovations and economic growth and interesting new foods.

They mashed new cultures with old - not without pain - and eventually gave us
General Tso's Chicken.

In other words, it's gonna be alright.

^^ this is what I tell people who support Muslim bans. I'm not sure if it
helps them, but it helps me.

~~~
conistonwater
I don't know how well it works on Trump supporters, but there's something that
bugs me about this argument. It seems to take a moral issue (do you treat
other people well?), and replace it with an economic issue (do you know of
inventions, food, or some economic benefit _from_ those people?). I feel like
it's a racing certainty that many Italian-Americans lived ordinary lives, and
didn't do anything out of the ordinary—it's a quality shared by the vast
majority of all people regardless of their origins. Shouldn't that be okay
too? Otherwise, how important would someone have to be? Can we use binary
search to find out?

~~~
ericd
If one can't successfully appeal to someone's sense of morality (perhaps
because they have different morals), one can try to appeal to their sense of
self interest.

~~~
conistonwater
This one, uh, I point-blank refuse to believe. The moral principles about how
you can treat other people are so widespread and uniform (made it into the
bloody bible, even; the only bit that everybody knows from that MLK speech is
about this), that you're gonna have some serious convincing to do, before I
believe that people "have different morals". It seems more believable that
people have just the same morals they always did, but are applying them very
selectively without proper justification (as it always is with prejudice).

~~~
pc86
And in getting them to apply morality in a more uniform matter, sometimes it's
easier to address morality by way of self-interest than morality directly.
Getting someone to acknowledge than a random Iranian being allowed in the
country will not cause buildings to falls is a good thing, and whether it's
achieved by appealing to their morality or their self-interest it's still a
good thing.

------
rm_-rf_slash
My great-uncle was one of them. A second-generation immigrant, his father
forbade any utterance of Italian in his household. But my great-uncle - born
American - nontheless dealt with discrimination, and so he went a step further
and changed his Italian name to Bill Morgan.

Bill loved his country so much that when he failed the physical for the OSS -
already an army captain - by being legally blind in one eye, he lied and
cheated his way into a formal position helping the British train resistance
fighters in Europe. He was just as conniving when he convinced his superiors
to give him a mission to parachute behind enemy lines and lead a unit of
French resistance fighters.

He made a career with the CIA. Even in the letter he gave me when I was born
(he died before I met him), he described in great detail need to be fit in
mind and body to serve your country.

He's buried in Arlington. So much for a threat to homeland security.

If anyone is interested, he documented his experiences of WWII in an exciting
book, "The OSS and I." It's hard not to enjoy a book with a chapter titled:
"How to blow up a bridge."

[https://www.amazon.com/S-S-I-WILLIAM-J-
MORGAN/dp/B0086N639A](https://www.amazon.com/S-S-I-WILLIAM-J-
MORGAN/dp/B0086N639A)

~~~
logfromblammo
This is heavily stereotypical, but you can judge the loyalty of an Italian-
American with just two questions:

    
    
      Where does your mother live?
      What's your favorite [sports] team?
    

If mom lives in the US, and the team plays baseball, NFL or NCAA football, or
NBA or NCAA basketball, you could probably hand over the nuclear launch codes.
If mom lives in Naples, and the team plays Euro-soccer, you'd better keep an
eye on that guy. If mom lives in Windsor, Ontario, and the team is the Blue
Jays, the test is inconclusive.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I've heard this one before. One would be wise to remember that stereotypes
typically have a small foundation of truth if you dig deep enough.

------
daemonk
Seems like a lot of these historical incidents are being brought up recently.
They are certainly interesting and perhaps show that humanity as a whole tend
to repeat the same actions.

But is it also the goal to attempt to justify the current immigration ban by
citing history? Conway brought up the Obama's tightening of the Iraqi
immigration during his term. Does that somehow justify Trump's immigration
ban?

I guess you can say she is just pointing out the media hypocrisy in being less
judgmental with Obama than with Trump and that may be fair. But ultimately it
is just a distraction in some sense. I fear Trump's camp is sticking to the
"the media is hypocritical" campaign as a distraction. I guess it's a clever
way to use the free bad press.

~~~
ardit33
"Conway brought up the Obama's tightening of the Iraqi immigration during his
term. Does that somehow justify Trump's immigration ban?

\-- No it doesn't What Trump did is not just stop immigration, but completely
stop even people with valid visas, and green cards (Permanent Residents) from
even entering. This is unheard off. Some of them were "detained", put with
handcuffed for over 20 hrs.

In the midst of it there were a 5 yo, grandmas, and folks that worked for the
US government, and served this country.

Completely different than just slowing down/stopping refugees coming in. The
executive order was cruel and poorly implemented, (and parts of it most likely
illegal).

~~~
dominotw
>Some of them were "detained", put with handcuffed for over 20 hrs.

I have travel coming up in two months, this makes me nervous.

Do you have a source for this by any chance?

~~~
canadian_voter
It really depends where you're coming from and where you've been.

If your a former Prime Minister of an allied nation, you'll probably only be
detained an hour[0].

Otherwise your mileage may vary[1]. Your local authorities can probably give
you some guidance on this.

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2017/02/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2017/02/03/former-norwegian-prime-minister-detained-at-dulles-airport-
for-an-hour-he-visited-iran-in-2014/)

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-
travele...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travelers-
detained-executive-order-donald-trump.html)

~~~
makomk
Though of course, said former Prime Minister _was_ actually detained under an
Obama-era policy that had nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with a
law passed in late 2015 that had overwhelming bipartisan support. One which
got very little coverage until it could be tied to Trump's actions somehow.

~~~
bb611
It appears that Trump's CBP is significantly different from Obama's though.
Where CBP had the option to stop travelers and didn't exercise it in the past,
they're now doing so more frequently (at least for the subset of travelers in
targeted countries).

This is the problem with giving wide latitude to a trusted administration - it
doesn't stop there.

~~~
dominotw
> CBP had the option to stop travelers and didn't exercise it in the past

I had a colleague on H1b who was sent home because his port of new york when
his place of employment was houston. He was going to visit his sister there
before flying to houston.

This is not a rare exception. There were many, many cases like this in 2009.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Some people would look at this and say

"We unambiguously won WWII. Back then the 'greatest generation' knew what was
needed to win a war, and wasn't squeemish about doing what needed to be done.
WWII was the last major war we actually won. Since then we have become too
politically correct to actually win wars. Trump will change that. We will win
again."

------
saycheese
Executive Order 9066:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066)

------
joshuaheard
I researched this some after Trump's executive order, and it is interesting
because most people know about the Japanese internment because it was the
largest, but we also interned Italians and Germans. These three groups were
also prohibited from buying certain items that could potentially be used in
sabotage.

~~~
cafard
Nations have commonly interned enemy aliens, e.g. P.G. Wodehouse. However, one
hell of a lot of the "Japanese" interned were in fact native-born citizens.

My German-born great-grandparents were not molested by the government during
WW I, though there was harassment of Germans and German-speakers. And in WW II
the US had admirals and generals with names like Nimitz, Eisenhower,
Eichelberger, Gerow.

~~~
blincoln
Counterpoint: _my_ German great-grandparents and their relatives _were_
interred by the US during WWII. They lost most of their possessions, just like
the Japanese prisoners.

------
tptacek
Also, a really great Popehat post on the same topic:

[https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/29/randazza-what-shall-we-
do...](https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/29/randazza-what-shall-we-do-with-the-
dago/)

When we observe that Italians were feared as enemy aliens in the early 20th
century, we mean it literally: Sacco and Venzetti were "anarchists", but
"anarchist" was the term used at the time for "terrorist".

------
davidw
The largest mass lynching in the United States was of 11 Italians in New
Orleans:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14,_1891_lynchings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14,_1891_lynchings)

~~~
WillyOnWheels
This page claims 18 to 21

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_massacre_of_1871](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_massacre_of_1871)

~~~
mikeyouse
Then there's always the Tulsa Race Riots in which upwards of 300 people were
killed while a white mob burned one of the country's wealthiest black
neighborhoods to the ground while arresting thousands of black people and
displacing nearly 10,000.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot)

Technically not a lynching I suppose, but as far as mass killings of
minorities go..

~~~
masklinn
Tusla is more of a massacre than a lynching, Greenwood was bombed from private
planes.

------
yread
There was heavy discrimination of Germans as well during both World Wars

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5of8na/if_th...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5of8na/if_the_midwest_was_mostly_settled_by_germans_how/)

------
sandworm101
Irish, italians, russians, jews, chinese, japanese... is there a group that
america hasnt at some time feared? Did canadians get thier turn?

Having a guilty and irrational fear of some group, whatever the group, seems
almost part of american identity. I cannot think of any period of american
history that wasnt steeped in such fears.

~~~
gm-conspiracy
The 1990s?

~~~
sandworm101
Gays+aids? Urban black "super predators? Werent the 90s the height of white-
flight and the bussing debates? Perhaps thats a different type, an internal
fear.

Perhaps the post-apollo 70s? Americans then feared nuclear war generally, but
not russians as a people. Racism was a thing internally, but i cannot think of
an especially hated outside group.

------
gozur88
How could this not be the case when we were at war with Italy? If the article
had said Italian-Americans _weren 't_ seen as a threat that would be news.

------
zeveb
And during WWI there were similar issues for ethnically-German Americans. For
whatever reason, I don't know much about what the ethnic-German experience in
WWII was — maybe after the first war ethnic Germans just blended into
mainstream American culture.

------
humanrebar
I'm starting to think that Trump made this move partly to get his left-wing
opponents to lose credibility with people in the center by doing something
with (if you're generous or disinterested) plausible justification.

That is, it's clear to me that people calling this "racist" might even be
correct, but it may not matter if it seems like they're calling middle America
racist. That looks a lot like being understanding towards Iraqis ("I know
you're not all terrorists") while being bigoted towards Americans ("You're
clearly all racist!"). Anyway, once that meme (doesn't really like Americans)
is implanted, then Trump takes a hit today but get some "marketing" wins in
the long run when it comes to other issues coming up (Supreme Court
appointments, ACA changes, etc.)

~~~
anigbrowl
I dispute your attempt to conflate protests against Trump's ban on entry with
an indictment of middle America. People who support the ban do so for a
variety of reasons and are not neatly grouped in the political center as you
suggest, just as people who oppose the ban do so for a variety of reasons and
can not be neatly grouped on the left.

 _it may not matter if it seems like they 're calling middle America racist_

It's true that promoting such a perception would benefit the Trump
administration, but as I always say to people seeking to capture some
ideological territory, 'you don't speak for the American people.' At present
the administration is rather overdrawn at the credibility bank.

~~~
humanrebar
> I dispute your attempt to conflate protests against Trump's ban on entry
> with an indictment of middle America.

You can refute all you want. I'm talking about real conversations I've had
with real people. It looks like some Americans are hateful towards "hateful"
Americans and it puts people on the defensive and pushes them away.

EDIT:

> you don't speak for the American people

Right. That's not the message that people are getting. There are lines being
drawn and many decent people feel like they're being hated along with neo-
nazis. That sort of visceral feeling is hard to shake off when you want to
later appeal to their sense of decency when health insurance rules are being
reconsidered.

~~~
cshipley
Well here, talk to me. I protest the travel ban. I think it is racist. Not
middle America, but the president and his strategist.

I think a lot of other people who are for the ban aren't racist, just
misinformed. A lot seem to think Muslim immigrant|refugee == terrorist.

One person told me "I'm for the ban because I don't want them to come and kill
me and my family in our sleep."

I blame this perception on the people who seek to profit by the general
hysteria, not those manipulated by it. I am sad for the victims of it.

~~~
humanrebar
Disclaimer: Maybe you (and any particular reader of this post) are an
exception to the rule -- I don't know you personally. I only know the people
I've personally interacted with in this whole national discussion.

> A lot seem to think Muslim immigrant|refugee == terrorist.

Some do. But some people think the U.S. never landed on the moon. That is,
just like not every Muslim is a terrorist, not every person who wants change
in our visa laws wants to introduce internment camps, etc.

It's fair to think the due diligence done in admitting foreign nationals has
been lacking. I think this particular approach is heavy-handed and inhumane,
but we're not arguing for a more humane alternative... actually, I'm not sure
what we're arguing about other than people are mad and think things are really
racist right now.

> I'm for the ban because I don't want them to come and kill me and my family
> in our sleep.

So maybe you heard "Muslims are clearly dangerous" when they meant "my
government's job is to protect my family and waiting until people are dead is
too late". And even if they think Muslims are more dangerous, the right
response is to, empathetically, discuss facts (statistics, counterfactuals)
with them. The goal is to appeal to their better nature, not to make them lose
so we win. All the left-wing apoplexy and panic these days is actively harmful
from that perspective.

> I blame this perception on the people who seek to profit by the general
> hysteria, not those manipulated by it. I am sad for the victims of it.

Me too. I think the misconceptions about Trump-voting America is the another
instance of the same phenomenon. And it's no less harmful, in my mind.

~~~
anigbrowl
Sorry for the late reply here. I fully agree that not all those who acquiesce
with the travel ban are racist, and their position is further complicated by
the fact that the vast majority of people in the USA know very little of
immigration. I've sat in legal education classes where criminal lawyers
expressed shock and amazement at their prior ignorance of the immigration
system and how differently it functions from the criminal justice system.
Immigration law is crazy complex and that makes it a terrible subject for
trying to resolve in the format of a TV debate or something where you can
otherwise assume a basic level of audience familiarity with the issue - the
same reason astrophysicists argue out their disagreements via peer review
rather than on Bill Nye's weekly science podcast.

 _It 's fair to think the due diligence done in admitting foreign nationals
has been lacking._

It really isn't. It takes a huge amount of vetting for a refugee to given
permission to enter the USA. It's fairly easy to enter the country if you're a
citizen of the EU or Japan or Canada or Australia (all of which have a good
deal of socioeconomic common ground with the USA) but overall it's difficult.
Visas are simply not handed out like cookies.

Some immigrants have subsequently committed crimes or even acts of terrorism
within the US. but the incidence is significantly lower than that of natural-
born American citizens. None of the available evidence supports the claim that
there is some sort of security crisis requiring the imposition of drastic
measures.

 _the right response is to, empathetically, discuss facts (statistics,
counterfactuals) with them. The goal is to appeal to their better nature, not
to make them lose so we win_

I wholly agree and practice this diligently, but at some point the
responsibility falls upon the listener to evaluate the information that has
been provided to them and make a decision. If they just can't make up their
mind for whatever reason, then chances are they'll never be politically active
and investing more effort in persuading them is not an effective use of my
time. If they endlessly pose counterarguments and excuses, then after a while
I start to they're either arguing in bad faith or they have an position that
they can't defend but don't want to give up, and it's likewise a waste of my
time.

Lest this seem dismissive I'd like to point that I've been discussing politics
civilly as an adult for maybe 25 years now, so if I give up on trying to
persuade someone it's not from an inability to articulate an argument or an
unwillingness to entertain opposing points of view.

 _Me too. I think the misconceptions about Trump-voting America is the another
instance of the same phenomenon. And it 's no less harmful, in my mind._

Get back to me when people being shot for supporting Trump without really
believing in much of anything is a regular (or even an occasional) occurrence.
By contrast I can point to a significant and growing death toll for acts of
terrorism carried out by members of the far-right.

------
xHopen
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVmkDUkZT4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVmkDUkZT4)
When are we gonna , once for all, understand it

------
minikites
It's a shame so many people can't function without being afraid/angry at a
dehumanized "other". Sometimes it's outright malice (Syrian refugees today),
sometimes it's softer but just as harmful ("the Japanese are going to take
over the world!!" in the 1980s) and sometimes it's from within (Japanese and
Italians in WWII, the entire history of black citizens in the USA).

And when a new "enemy" arrives that's more appealing than the old "enemy" we
reclassify the old "enemy" to be on "our side" (i.e. Greeks, Italians, etc
used to be considered non-white).

~~~
falsestprophet
It is important to understand the United States is leading a bombing campaign
that has recently killed over 50,000 people in Syria and Iraq. Killing people
on a vast scale from countries and also accepting immigrants (including
military age males) from the same country at the same time is more complicated
than #WereACountryOfImmigrants.

~~~
knz
> United States is leading a bombing campaign that has recently killed over
> 50,000 people in Syria and Iraq

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to omit the fact that both Iraq and Syria have
areas experiencing active warfare? The bombing campaign is not occurring in a
vacuum, is targeted at people engaged in warfare against us or our allies, and
those conflicts have killed far more people than just the bombing campaign -
including via the use of chemical weapons.

I'm not trying to justify civilian casualties, the ongoing drone attacks on
multiple continents, or even answer whether we should be involved in these
conflicts - I just think the situation is more nuanced than "the US has
bombed/killed 50,000 people in Syria and Iraq".

~~~
finid
_Isn 't it a bit disingenuous to omit the fact that both Iraq and Syria have
areas experiencing active warfare?_

But what you seem to ignore is that the _active warfare_ in both countries was
caused by us. And in Libya too.

Think about that. Those countries are now a mess because of "regime change".

~~~
knz
I'm aware that the US/NATO was involved in the Arab Spring. But again, I think
the reality was far more complex - Mohamed Bouazizi didn't immolate himself
because the CIA/MI6 told him to. There were videos from the time of people
marching and being shot by their governments - those governments could have
chosen to bring meaningful reform but instead chose violence. Likewise with
Assad in Syria - the CIA/MI6 aren't making him drop barrel bombs or use
chemical weapons.

Even outside of internal pressures, geopolitics are at play as well - Iran and
Russia are playing "the great game" as much as the US/NATO are in the fight
against terrorism.

~~~
finid
Since the so-called Arab Spring started in Tunisia, you have to ask yourself
why we didn't push for "regime change" in that country.

The demonstrations in Syria were not spontaneous. They were engineered. If you
have time, read the email exchanges between the US ambassador to Syria and H.
Clinton.

Regarding Iran and Russia playing "the great game", they're supporting the
legitimate govt of that country. Without their support, Assad would have been
dead years ago, and Syria would have been in worse shape than it is now.

You might start by reading [https://wikileaks.org/clinton-
emails/emailid/18328](https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328)

Edit: Added WikiLeaks links

~~~
eternalban
Considering that Iran has been, without the least exaggeration, in active
cross-hair of the "great game" of the Anglo vs Russ for the past 150 years,
saying that Iran is playing the "great game" is rather bizzare.

~~~
knz
I was using the term loosely - not specifically the UK/Russia relationship.

------
badmadrad
Using this as a criticism of Trump's travel ban is a false equivalency.

There have literally been a rash of terrorist attacks in Europe perpetrated by
radicalized Syrians, Somalians, and Iranians. Not to mention the knife attack
from Somalian refugee (who was getting a free ride) at Ohio State.

Read through these lists and tell me there is nothing to be worried about:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2016)

Yes, being a victim of a terrorist attack is as likely as getting hit by
lightning but that doesn't mean you should wrap yourself in aluminum foil and
go outside in a thunderstorm. You usually protect yourself and take shelter.

Its ok to protect yourself when there is a conceivable threat.

That being said, I do feel the travel ban was hastily rolled out without much
coordination and caused some people to be detained that shouldn't have been
but to completely disregard the principle of it as misguided or racist in some
way is just disregarding the truth of the state of world.

In fact, many pundits are saying this going to create more propaganda or
create more terrorists.

First, I disagree with notion that we should care about ISIS's propaganda.
People don't become terrorists because a country bans them. They become
terrorists when foreign power drops bombs and puts boots on the ground in a
country they feel is theirs. Others become terrorists because they are forced
to or naive minded people looking for some purpose in life.

If all we care about is their propaganda we will be frozen to inaction because
anything you do can be spun against you.

Furthermore, the things ISIS hates the most is the cultural imperialism
imposed on them. They don't like western values and don't want to adopt any
western ideas since they are a threat to the foundations of their belief
system. A threat they are willing to kill for. So really you are damned if you
do and damned if you don't with ISIS. It's an ugly and complicated mess and
comparing to Italians or Japanese is a gross oversimplification.

~~~
tptacek
What travel ban should we enact to create common-sense protections in this
country from the gathering toddler threat? In 2015, more people were shot by
toddlers than by radical Islamist foreign nationals.

~~~
jbmorgado
As a initial disclaimer, being European I'm totally in favour of gun
control... which of course would solve all of these toddler's acidental
killings and many of the mass shootings.

That being said, your argument is intellectually deceiving. Toddlers neither
carry out acts of terrorism, neither they kill or hurt in the name of any
ideology.

Terrorism by definition means to terrorise the population, not kill the
greatest amount of people. Besides that, when you carry out a terrorist act in
the name of some ideology, be that radical islam, white supremacy, national
separatism, etc., society is called not to act upon the results of your
actions but on the ideology committing the terrorist act itself. The answer to
why toddlers accidentally kill people with guns is easy: they have guns
available and they aren't old enough to understand what they are doing. But
the answer to why do radical islamists or white supremacists kill people is
all but simple.

Also as a final thought. Even inside terrorism there are degrees on morality.
Sure it's bad to carry out terrorism even in the name of national identity and
freedom (i.e. IRA, ETA), but at least you have a clear message on what are the
terrorists' demands and how to stop it. Radical Islam (and others) don't even
have these demands - unless the submission of all the western world to radical
islam can be considered a valid demand.

