Crime Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did Whitman have a motive? I think the most important part of being a terrorist is the number of people they kill.

By that standard a bombing that only damaged property and injures people wouldn't be terrorism. Is that your suggestion?

{<huh}
 
There are a few different definitions of 'terrorism':
. Systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.
. Violence or the threat of violence directed against civilians for the purpose of creating intense fear, which the terrorist hopes to exploit to attain political or ideological goals.
. The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

You have:
. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
. Charles Whitman, a shooter who positioned himself atop the observation deck at the Main Building tower at the University of Texas in 1966.
. Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the 'Unabomber', is an American mathematician, anarchist and domestic terrorist. Bombing period: 1978 - 1995.

I would say that the three listed above and Stephen Paddock are all homegrown American terrorists.

By the definitions cited, neither Whitman nor Paddock would be classified as terrorists. Whitman left numerous writings describing his unwanted and irrational compulsion to kill but no social or political justifications/demands. At this time, no such motives are attached to Paddock either.
 
If he had a letter that said 'I hate the the government or I hate Democrats or I hate Republicans or I hate white or I hate black or I hate and by killing them my political agenda moves forward, yes.
He appears to have hated humans with no apparent motive.

Not terrorism
 
According to HuffPo and NYT and several others in social media, white males are the biggest problems the US faces.

According to things like statistics and the FBI, white Christian terrorists are the number one killers of law enforcement.
 
By that standard a bombing that only damaged property and injures people wouldn't be terrorism. Is that your suggestion?

No. I was answering the emphasis the other poster was putting on motive. I don't think it is all that important. But, even with your example, people could have been killed. It just happened they were injured. It would still be considered terrorism in my book. Your case involves 'intent'.
 
He had a brain tumor.

Yes, and some believe it influenced his behavior as far as the shooting. Maybe they will find the same thing with the shooter from Las Vegas after they do an autopsy.
 
Why the "recent"? Was there a worse one im not thinking of?
 
Because chinese fire lance deaths in the 9th century only killed Matt Damon
 
Did Whitman have a motive? I think the most important part of being a terrorist is the number of people they kill.
No, killing a lot of people isn't even a pre requisite of terrorism. You could just run around slapping women to get them to vote the way you want and it would be terrorism with zero deaths.
 
If there is no political motive, no. The race doesn't matter. Considering it was a white guy mowing down mostly whites I can't see a reason, but the investigations should clear it up in due time.
 
Are we even sure that the perp(s) were even white though?

It always amazes me how easily people trust what is directly fed to them via newspapers and television.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top