To not understand why the LV shooter isn't labelled as a terrorist?

[KrayKray00]

Now I might sound rather thick but I cannot understand why the shooter in Las Vegas isn't being called a terrorist.

The definition of a terrorist is

terrorist
ˈtɛrərɪst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
synonyms: bomber, arsonist, incendiary; More
adjective
1.
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"a terrorist organization"

Is it because it has not yet been linked to a political agenda? Or is it because he is not a "typical" terrorist?

I see him as a terrorist, what he has done is appalling.

AIBU or have I got it totally wrong?

Eccentric - either you're a shit-stirrer, or you're completely bonkers. I can't work out which. But either way, you are making a series of very poorly argued points that have already been answered by other posters.

Didn't you read the defenitions that you posted? Terrorism must have a political agenda.

Baker Sorry bucket but are you schooling me.

How funny you are

I do try. But not really, just explaining that using more recent examples helps your argument than ones from 20 or 30 years ago.

loobyloo The IRA were over 30 years ago, and I'll reiterate being a white Irish man in England 30-40 years ago was about as much fun as being a muslim today.

ttbb - apparently not in Nevada.

Are most posts about this just invisible?!

Margaret thanks for your earlier post summarising what is out there about this guy's life. I'd not read any more on this since yesterday morning.

Thanks!

M4Dad I think is right to point out that chosen venue is significant.

As was the tragedy earlier this year in Manchester. The vast majority of people who buy tickets to an Ariana Grande concert will be parents and their children, or groups of teenage girls.

The vast majority of people who buy tickets to a Country music festival are white and Republican. I don't think it's wrong to generalise in this instant, as it isn't wrong.

So for anyone who thinks it's 'not the time and place', please ask yourself.
If this mass shooting had taken place in Detroit, at a Rap/Hip Hop event where the overwhelming majority of attendees would be both African American and Democrats, would you pull anyone up to say "it's not the time or place to ask if the shooter was racist"?

As far as I know no one knows the motivation behind the attack at the moment. At the end of the day what he did was despicable whether it was terrorism or not. On a slightly different note what's the betting that Trump will remain silent on the calls to tighten gun laws? I'm sure there must be growing sentiment in the US for something to be done. How can it possibly be ignored after attrocities such as this? Of course Trump will not want to upset his core voters on the issue.

Eccentric Now I am completely sure you have blown in to MN from one of the Fake News areas of the internet.

Do people like you have an interest in spreading Fake News? Is it to destabilise the entire principle of facts/truth on social media? Is it the potential for communication that social media brings you don't like? Or is it a more localised agenda, you know, ultra-Republicanism, Tax-Payers' Alliance or something?

I'm genuinely curious.

The bias reporting is that there is no hesitation to discuss, suggest terrorism before any confirmation of anything when it is a person who is brown. In recent news reports. There is a lot more talk and debate before they determine a white person is a terrorist (I'm thinking Finsbury park most recently, but I'm sure those who continue to watch the 'news' can come up with stuff more recent).

Not true, and the only bias being displayed here is your own. In fact reporting is always very careful not to label an attack terror until motive is established. Often this is easier to establish with ISIS attacks as the attackers WANT it to be seen as an Islamist attack and will vocally declare it, tell victims and bystanders and leave evidence like letters, flags.

The Darren Osborne case was similar (and quite quickly declared terror too) because he was shouting 'I want to kill all Muslims'.

Because he's not a terrorist.

He's a violent murdering criminal.

As are all "terrorists". Lets not glamourise them with a "cause". They are murderers, pure and simple (and always male).

Sorry to deviate

Thanks to Bucket that should read..
Everyday is a school day.

When I'm interested in changing the minds of the terminally fixated I'll remember to get in synch with your Year Zero approach!

Assuming country music fans to be republicans, and indeed Trump supporters, may not be correct.

Good point my dad loves country music!

M4Dad
You have a point. A very good one. That said I'm always concerned about the incidents that are not as high profile though. But I don't think supposition is the way to go and prefer to acknowledge the facts, which you have pointed out.

Margarettwat I'm not remotely biased at one point a view was expressed and I thought, that's a good point. With good facts to back it up. So if I think one way, and we're having a discussion, I expect you to be able to convince me otherwise. M4Dad, engaged and did that. Without trying to call me names (go figure a grown up explaining something to another grown up without resorting to name calling). Name calling turns people off what you are saying. Even when you are making sense.

Baker I don't get your Year Zero approach reference. Think I just proved I'm not fixated but there you go.

I do find it interesting that we have a couple of people determined to seed rumours from material that is completely unsubstantiated. It was really easy to track the fake news emerging yesterday, let people still seem keen to keep promoting it.

I assume you're looking for an answer more sophisticated than 'because he's white'?

I suppose it is the same way that not all murders are described as assassinations.

He doesn't appear to have had a political agenda (maybe that'll change as more is learned about him).

There was never any difficulty in describing IRAmurders as acts of terrorism, but it wasn't ever applied to Peter Sutcliffe even though he was a serial killer who terrified many women in Yorkshire for years.

It's not in America's interest to find a political aim for Stephen Paddock so there won't be one.

But we all know this was terrorism, deep down.

As has been said further up thread, if there is no political motivation, it is not terrorism.

Sometimes it gets murky - is there a clear definition between hate crime and terrorism? I’d argue probably not.

At the moment there is no evidence that has been released that suggests there was a political motivation.

It's not in America's interest to find a political aim for Stephen Paddock so there won't be one

I agree with that. If my suspicions about the bloke are right then I'd say it would be another distinct step towards civil war in the USA.

Eccentric If you make a claim like that, you should support it with a reputable source. It isn’t up the reader to work out for themselves if what you say has any truth in it. What if I said the sky is purple all the time and expected you to research if that’s true or not? It doesn’t work like that. Post your sources or don’t post at all.

Margarettwat I'm not remotely biased at one point a view was expressed and I thought, that's a good point. With good facts to back it up. So if I think one way, and we're having a discussion, I expect you to be able to convince me otherwise. M4Dad, engaged and did that. Without trying to call me names (go figure a grown up explaining something to another grown up without resorting to name calling). Name calling turns people off what you are saying. Even when you are making sense.

Eh? Where did I call you a name? And very little of that post makes any sense at all.

You are being biased because you are insisting that an attacker being brown is what prompts the media to label attacks terror. Not true. They are in fact very careful not to label attacks terror until evidence appears to back it up. It's only your own bias that is leading you to think that it's somehow different purely on the basis of skin colour when it's not.

Next time there is a terror attack watch the reporting. They are very careful only to suggest there is a possibility it could be terror after enough pointers emerge leading that way (attacker identified as having political affiliations, attackers described by witnesses as declaring aim etc, etc) and it's never called terror until police or other authorities confirm it.

They simply don't report events as terror on the basis the attacker was brown anywhere but in some people's heads.

It just seemed by focussing on 9/ 11as your acceptable start date ( the Year Zero reference - Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea/ Cambodia: the order that history starts with the commencement of the dictatorship, same idea as the French Revolutionary calendar.) talking of Muslims you were narrowing the topic.

I felt you were unnecessarily rude with the original disingenuous dig. MN is a forum for parents not a heavyweight political site.