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?

Skin colour has nothing to do with it - ETA were always called terrorists (they stopped bombing/killing in 2011) as were the IRA (the real IRA set a car bomb in Ealing, London in 2001 - not 30 years ago )
Members of both The IRA & ETA are predominantly white.

Margarettwat
So calling someone biased is not namecalling? What would you describe it as?

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.

On the contrary. Being biased would mean I have no intention of moving from that viewpoint. I clearly have in the space of a few decently phrased posts done so. I suspected Baker was disingenuous earlier and said so. She has more than explained herself (also pointing out she didn't like my phrasing or tone - which is fair enough). I genuinely don't think so now. However to you I'm still biased. Okey dokey.

I didn't have to explain myself .

Your tone ain't improving!

Anyway.

Terrorism in it's normally used sense by (old time) dictionary owners like me would have an identifiable political aim.

If I don't see this as terror on the current given information please don't throw accusations at me of being disingenuous, racist or any other mudslinging.

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.

Nothing to do with this man and why he's not being labelled as a terrorist. So my point stands

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

Thanks for the information re: Zero. I never knew that - so every day is a school day. I think you are right. I was unnecessarily rude. But at the time I did feel you were digging to find something that fit your narrative.

I don't know I think about the IRA days when my dad worked on building sites and how his friends were treated. I see a correlation today with how muslims (in particular) are treated. It feels/felt that it was unwarranted, but I suppose if we look at the most recent incidents (bar this one), it has been terrorist related and the terrorists mostly have the whole extreme ideology in common. To say otherwise at this point would be naive.

Sorry terrorism not terror. The use of terror is a problem, of course there is terror at an horrific murderous event like this. It's the political "ism" which is the topic here.

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

Then why do so many want to live here?

So calling someone biased is not namecalling? What would you describe it as?

Um, no it's definitely not name calling. It's pointing out your bias.

I really want to know m4dads suspicions about the guy..... and any actual facts behind them

Nothing ive heard so far indicates he was a terrorist but its early days yet

Baker I didn't have to explain myself .

I know you didn't and in my original response to MT I did type that, then it got lost when trying to post, so I posted what I remembered, as quickly as possible.

What you "feel" people "may be" saying shouldn't overtake your manners. Charity in debate is a good one to Google.

Can you tell I'm an orrible parent of teens..

Bye now. No hard feelings I hope.

M4Dad

I don't know for the numerous reasons people move anywhere.

I know many people who want to move to the states with all the gun laws (or lack thereof), complicated healthcare system and all the other things I don't understand. I don't get it, it wouldn't be for me. But they still want to. I know loads of people who want to go and live in Dubai (money, money, money), I can't in all consciousness go on holiday there, but people do and want to, all the time.

Baker noted. None whatsoever. Bye

I have no idea why people would want to leave poor, wartorn, corrupt, starving etc delete as applicable countries and move to safe, prosperous, stable countries like inwestern europe, north america

If he was anything other that white the word "terrorist" would have been used thousands of times by now, especially by the press.

then it would be incorrectly applied.

One example of ISIS claiming a freebie

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/02/asia/manila-philippines-resort-world-isis/index.html

Altwoo - love your post and cartoon

harben I agree it would be incorrectly applied, but the press still do it.

I agree it would be incorrectly applied, but the press still do it.

When? I fully agree the press, especially the likes of the daily mail, level the terrorism label early when the perp is not white, but when was the last time a mass shooting by a non-white person wasn't politically/religiously motivated and the charge was made?