31acujoker wrote:Well the definition of terrorism is the use of violence to spread terror in pursuit of a political agenda.
As far as we can tell the Las Vegas shooter had no political cause he was trying to further with his actions, therefore by definition he's a mass murderer and 'technically' not a terrorist.
Hope that answers your question
gracethedamsel wrote:31acujoker wrote:Well the definition of terrorism is the use of violence to spread terror in pursuit of a political agenda.
As far as we can tell the Las Vegas shooter had no political cause he was trying to further with his actions, therefore by definition he's a mass murderer and 'technically' not a terrorist.
Hope that answers your question
Its a good answer but usually terrorism is as well related to religion and conspiracy to hate other people with different culture or an act of revenge or something. However, i find it pretty unfair for the Las Vegas massacre to be not considered a terrorist attack cause I am sure this shooter had some violence agenda to a point. I don't know if i am making any sense lol
Rachel M wrote:A better question is why this attack was an outrage, yet the last terrorist attack using a vehicle had "very fine people" involved.
Mr Irony wrote:Rachel M wrote:A better question is why this attack was an outrage, yet the last terrorist attack using a vehicle had "very fine people" involved.
If you are referring to the events in Charlottesville, it's because that wasn't a terrorist attack. The perpetrator was not even charged with First Degree Murder. He acted out of rage when counter-protestors attempted to violently disrupt an event he was part of. That is very different than planning and carrying out a remeditated mass slaughter of innocent individuals who have done nothing to you whatsoever as happened in New York and elsewhere.
Rachel M wrote:
ahahaha, that's adorable. "Individuals who have done nothing to you whatsoever", as opposed to the crowd a Nazi (many of whom are apparently "very fine people") drove into who apparently were just begging for it. What is it about you Breitbart types that make you completely weak in the knees where Nazis are involved?
drawscore wrote:The only thing a terrorist understands, is terror. and while it goes against everything in which I believe, I have come to the realization, that if we are to stop these attacks, we must use the same, or a greater level of brutality on them, and treat their bodies with disdain and contempt.
Bury them with bacon in their mouths, and their asses pointed toward Mecca, or just kicked into a pit of pig carcasses. Film it, and send it to al-Jazzera.
Brutal? Yes. But if you fight fire with fire, you fight terror with terror.
So ask yourself this: "Would you prefer these animals responsible for Las Vegas and New York be executed, or for them to live out their lives with "three hots and a cot" at taxpayer expense?"
Drawcore.
BoundJana wrote:That's exactly what doesn't work, showing how you brutalize corpses or captive terrorists will only motivate others to follow in their footsteps, because they now see a reason why they attack you.
Rachel M wrote:You mean the story you post every couple of months despite it being completely, utterly, unquestionably false?
News flash, idiot: the Koran only prohibits eating pork, and even then makes exceptions (if refusing the meat would make you a rude guest it allows it, even). Maybe if you actually made some effort to learn about the world around you instead of coming here to post everything you see on your Facebook wall you would know that.
Oooh, I know! We'll discourage white christian terrorism by burying them with oysters and dressed in mixed fabrics! Leviticus says they hate that!
Rachel M wrote:Strange that the only people accusing those run down of "starting a physical altercation" are the white supremacist-friendly rags like Breitbart and their ilk. Nice attempt to gaslight with the "conspiracy" angle though, it makes a nice deflection from your attempt to handwave away a Nazi running people over intentionally.
Rachel M wrote:Strange that the only people accusing those run down of "starting a physical altercation" are the white supremacist-friendly rags like Breitbart and their ilk.
Mr Irony wrote:Rachel M wrote:Strange that the only people accusing those run down of "starting a physical altercation" are the white supremacist-friendly rags like Breitbart and their ilk. Nice attempt to gaslight with the "conspiracy" angle though, it makes a nice deflection from your attempt to handwave away a Nazi running people over intentionally.
Well here's some of the raw footage posted by CNN. I take it you trust them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUv7hIVXKFQ
Mr Irony wrote:Rachel M wrote:Strange that the only people accusing those run down of "starting a physical altercation" are the white supremacist-friendly rags like Breitbart and their ilk.
Here's a great article by the LA Times, hardly a right wing site, offering multiple perspectives on the events that happened.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cha ... story.html
It's very clear from these accounts that the counter protesters showed up to create havoc and once you do that you never know how things will turn out. Most often though it's quite bad as it was in this case.
Rachel M wrote:...and again, the only people buttressing your claims are - coincidentally, I'm sure - far right bloggers. Weird that you're picking "defending Nazis and neo-Confederates" as a hill to die on.
Mr Irony wrote:If you can watch that video and read those descriptions and still believe that the protesters were non-confrontational and were no different than the people who were out riding their bikes in New York City who were run down by an actual ISIS terrorist then I'll just leave it to others to determine your credibility.
Rachel M wrote:Are you ever going to get it through that thick skull of yours that being "confrontational" or not has nothing to do with THE ACT OF INTENTIONALLY DRIVING INTO A CROWD TO KILL OR MAIM, or are you just going to keep frantically flailing to defend your Nazi pals and justify it beyond all reason?
Mr Irony wrote:Rachel M wrote:Are you ever going to get it through that thick skull of yours that being "confrontational" or not has nothing to do with THE ACT OF INTENTIONALLY DRIVING INTO A CROWD TO KILL OR MAIM, or are you just going to keep frantically flailing to defend your Nazi pals and justify it beyond all reason?
Well it has everything to do with whether the individual is a terrorist or not. Your original question was why was Charlottesville not considered a terrorist attack. The answer is that it was a non-premeditated murder largely motivated by circumstances. No one is defending him, just pointing out that he did not target a random group of individuals like so many Islamic terrorists do.
That's the difference.
Mr Irony wrote:Rachel M wrote:Are you ever going to get it through that thick skull of yours that being "confrontational" or not has nothing to do with THE ACT OF INTENTIONALLY DRIVING INTO A CROWD TO KILL OR MAIM, or are you just going to keep frantically flailing to defend your Nazi pals and justify it beyond all reason?
Well it has everything to do with whether the individual is a terrorist or not. Your original question was why was Charlottesville not considered a terrorist attack.