Why isn't the situation in Ferguson deemed "domestic terrorism"? Would any President other than Obama have taken command of the National Guard staged in that area to handle the rioting? I was to young to remember the riots in LA in the early 90's, how was that situation handled at the time?
It seems this has gained traction as almost a civil rights movement. We even have a thread on here that has turned into more outrage over the bigotry of aldeer members instead of outrage about the situation in Ferguson and how it was allowed to escalate.

Ferguson looks like a smaller version of the LA riots.

Friend of mine dated a young woman who was in school at USC at the time. USC's campus isn't terribly far from the flashpoint of the LA riots. USC officials told students they had either 60 or 90 minutes to evacuate campus and after that they could not ensure their safety. She said they were terrified.

It's not deemed domestic terrorism for the same reason the Fort Hood murderer wasn't deemed a terrorist and treated as such. Don't wanna hurt no feelings.

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear 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; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.


This is from the FBI's website. Are the actions of the riot not in an attempt to intimidate civilians and politicians due to their dissatisfaction in our judicial system? Just to me in the way I read it the events that occurred were an act of terrorism.

Sure reads that way Reptar..Off with their heads