Las Vegas : American White man masacared 58 people, more than 500 injured.

[Hamartia Antidote]

That is how they train their soldiers when they send them to bring peace in Muslim countries, forgetting that one day majority of them will come back with a guilty conscience and twisted mind. that is why a big number of such crimes are committed by veterans

The guy never served in the military.

 

[Meengla]

Since we are all still speculating--I will add my own latest conjecture! I am beginning to doubt the guy did it. It's so improbable, given his profile, that it's more and more unlikely. We shall see--or shall we ever? BTW, the internet is rife with a gazillion conspiracy theories about it--and a lot of them are from Americans expressing their dearly held opinions, betraying the current deep political and cultural faultlines....

 

[Mitro]

If the shooter was Muslim they would have cried a river now bcoz it's their own sick white man they don"t even mention in media anymore they don't care about their own people and put some restrictions on gun control.

 

[maximuswarrior]

It was probably the Mossad, CIA, FBI, ATF, FDA and the Illuminati.

Oh.. and can't forget about the reptilians. I'm sure they have their own involvement in this as well.

Let’s just keep it simple. He was a white angry male terrorist.

 

[jhungary]

He wasn't label a terrorist because his motive is unknown

TO be called a Terrorist, you need to know why he kill that many people, otherwise all mass-murderer, serial murderer and anyone goes on spree killing would have been called Terrorist.

People only were called Terrorist when their goal is to coerce the population or the government, if the old guy just snapped because he cannot pay his casino debt and or medical bill, you cannot be called a terrorist.

Again, US labelled more White Men (White Supremacist group/anarchist group) , Black Men (Black Power) and Jewish (Jewish Extremist) than Muslim as terrorist.

 

[maximuswarrior]

LOL I love it how some of these members are so obsessed with semantics here.

Guess what, we are never going to find out his motive and yet he is a terrorist.

 

[TMA]

And a clueless Taslima nasreen tweeted with her brain on the side table claiming the shooter must be Muslim. she later deleted the tweet

Is she not Muslim?

 

[jhungary]

LOL I love it how some of these members are so obsessed with semantics here.

Guess what, we are never going to find out his motive and yet he is a terrorist.

It's not semantics, it's THE LAW.

FBI and DOJ have a very well defined definition of Terrorism, it's under US Law and Constitution for Federal to be able to try for Terrorism cases, otherwise it is the State responsibility. You can of course try to try Paddock on federal terrorism charge, but if he is alive and he cannot produce a motive on that, you will fail and since he ALREADY had been tried for the same crime, he cannot be tried for the second time regardless of what charge you indict at State or Federal Level.

And that's the LEGAL perspective on this, and I seriously doubt you understand any of this. For you the uninformed and feeble, the US never called a white man terrorist blah, blah, blah. You don't even know there is a legal implication to call someone a terrorist.

He is an old man that kill people, that's put him in the same group of Oba Chandler and Robert Spangler, nothing more.

 

[TMA]

It's not semantics, it's THE LAW.

FBI and DOJ have a very well defined definition of Terrorism, it's under US Law and Constitution for Federal to be able to try for Terrorism cases, otherwise it is the State responsibility. You can of course try to try Paddock on federal terrorism charge, but if he is alive and he cannot produce a motive on that, you will fail and since he ALREADY had been tried for the same crime, he cannot be tried for the second time regardless of what charge you indict at State or Federal Level.

And that's the LEGAL perspective on this, and I seriously doubt you understand any of this. For you the uninformed and feeble, the US never called a white man terrorist blah, blah, blah. You don't even know there is a legal implication to call someone a terrorist.

He is an old man that kill people, that's put him in the same group of Oba Chandler and Robert Spangler, nothing more.

On what basis does the LAW define terrorism as such? Just curious.

 

[jhungary]

On what basis does the LAW define terrorism as such? Just curious.

Under Title 18 US Code 2331, the definition of Terrorism is defined as

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A)
involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be 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
(C)
occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2)
the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3)
the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A)
declared war;
(B)
armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C)
armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and


(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be 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
(C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

To be precise, unless you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt that Paddock action is to coerce a civilian population, or the government, or to affect the conduct of a government by killing all those people, the case does not suit the term terrorism.

In layman term, unless he want to achieve something by killing 58 people and that something have to do with either a group of people or the government or try to impede how the government to function, you cannot call it a terrorism.

So, what will be able to have Paddock called a terrorist? If he attack all these people because he have an agenda to the concert organiser, then it would be an intimidate or coerce a civilian population (like if he try to extort money form the organiser or so on)

Or if he try to kill all these people to influence how State of Nevada decision to hold these concert outdoor, then it would be domestic terrorism

Or if he engineering this attack to attack the US government in any sort or way, (like trying to kill off federal agent or attack on federal land) then this incident would be a terrorist attack.

But if his motive behind this attack is to just to suicide by cop or sick of living or anything not said before that involve the population and government, then this would not be a terrorist incident and it's merely a mass shooting.

 

[Meengla]

... He wasn't label a terrorist because his motive is unknown
Again, US labelled more White Men (White Supremacist group/anarchist group) , Black Men (Black Power) and Jewish (Jewish Extremist) than Muslim as terrorist.

Overall I agree with you. I think, in the same vein, a 'serial killer' is far more dangerous than someone just blowing a fuse and got killed when caught: A Serial Killer will not stop until he's stopped. A Serial Killer will be patient and methodical and would usually pick his target carefully--not randomly. A Jihadi maybe a suicide bomber or not but that's not because he blew a fuse--it's deeply rational. [Okay, enough of my pseudo psychology!]

BUT... there shouldn't be any denying that, much like the Japanese and the Germans were stereotyped in the World Wars--much like all Communists were stereotyped during the Cold War--there is now a concerted effort in MSM to deny any semblance of humanity to Muslims. While there maybe validity in in stereotypes--it's the job of the media to create a complete narrative.

The world would burn even if 1% Muslims are as bad as they are portrayed, given the numbers.

 

[TMA]

Thank you

Under Title 18 US Code 2331, the definition of Terrorism is defined as

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A)
involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be 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
(C)
occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2)
the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3)
the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A)
declared war;
(B)
armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C)
armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and


(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be 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
(C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

To be precise, unless you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt that Paddock action is to coerce a civilian population, or the government, or to affect the conduct of a government by killing all those people, the case does not suit the term terrorism.

In layman term, unless he want to achieve something by killing 58 people and that something have to do with either a group of people or the government or try to impede how the government to function, you cannot call it a terrorism.

So, what will be able to have Paddock called a terrorist? If he attack all these people because he have an agenda to the concert organiser, then it would be an intimidate or coerce a civilian population (like if he try to extort money form the organiser or so on)

Or if he try to kill all these people to influence how State of Nevada decision to hold these concert outdoor, then it would be domestic terrorism

Or if he engineering this attack to attack the US government in any sort or way, (like trying to kill off federal agent or attack on federal land) then this incident would be a terrorist attack.

But if his motive behind this attack is to just to suicide by cop or sick of living or anything not said before that involve the population and government, then this would not be a terrorist incident and it's merely a mass shooting.

thank you.
But my question is why and not what.
Why is this the definition ?

 

[wiseone2]

LOL I love it how some of these members are so obsessed with semantics here.

Guess what, we are never going to find out his motive and yet he is a terrorist.

semantics matters before court of law

 

[NoOne'sBoy]

He wasn't label a terrorist because his motive is unknown

TO be called a Terrorist, you need to know why he kill that many people, otherwise all mass-murderer, serial murderer and anyone goes on spree killing would have been called Terrorist.

People only were called Terrorist when their goal is to coerce the population or the government, if the old guy just snapped because he cannot pay his casino debt and or medical bill, you cannot be called a terrorist.

Again, US labelled more White Men (White Supremacist group/anarchist group) , Black Men (Black Power) and Jewish (Jewish Extremist) than Muslim as terrorist.

 

[jhungary]

Thank you

thank you.
But my question is why and not what.
Why is this the definition ?

That's because of the legal frame work in the US.

Crime and Punishment has been the responsibility of the State, so each state have a different set of law and different set of punishment, like in Georgia, I can convict someone with First Degree Murder even if the murder is not pre-planned, the term "Malice" in Georgia is different from other states, where Malice can form at an instant. But if I convict someone with 1st Deg Murder in some other states, the prosecution would required to prove the pre-planning stage to show Malice. And it's the same deal with sentencing, some states have death penalty, some don't.

Then there are Federal Level crime, a crime which either committed "Cross-States" so it would not lies in States Jurisdiction, say if I live in New York, and I defraud you by prank calling you and take your money that way, and you live in California, then where exactly this crime has happened? As the US constitution defined, you cannot be trial twice for the same crime you committed. Which mean if you cannot show a jurisdiction and say you randomly pick a place where you can try to charge me, but if you pick New York, then I can simply argue you live in California, and vice versa, so there is crime that you can only be charged Federally (in this case, Inter-States Wire Fraud)

Now, you probably still don't know why the US need to define Terrorism. The problem is, Terrorism is a crime that state the Terrorism Incident happened from do not have the jurisdiction on, let's put Timothy McVay as an example. The victim, is the US Government (As he bombed Federal Building) so you cannot charge him under State Law, and you would need to define a Federal Law to charge him, otherwise he could not be charge at all, and that's where 18 USC Chapter 113B comes in, which is defined this as an Act of Terror and he was charged with using a Weapon of Mass Destruction (2332a), conspiracy to use weapon of Mass Destruction (2332a) and Destructive use of Explosive and Bombing equipment (2332f)

Law for Terrorism exist before the height of so called "Muslim Terrorism" in fact it was one of the founding law when US has been established in 1776. It's kind of funny actually, because if we use today law and use it on the time when US wages war of independence, then George Washington is actually a domestic terrorist.

Overall I agree with you. I think, in the same vein, a 'serial killer' is far more dangerous than someone just blowing a fuse and got killed when caught: A Serial Killer will not stop until he's stopped. A Serial Killer will be patient and methodical and would usually pick his target carefully--not randomly. A Jihadi maybe a suicide bomber or not but that's not because he blew a fuse--it's deeply rational. [Okay, enough of my pseudo psychology!]

BUT... there shouldn't be any denying that, much like the Japanese and the Germans were stereotyped in the World Wars--much like all Communists were stereotyped during the Cold War--there is now a concerted effort in MSM to deny any semblance of humanity to Muslims. While there maybe validity in in stereotypes--it's the job of the media to create a complete narrative.

The world would burn even if 1% Muslims are as bad as they are portrayed, given the numbers.

The problem is that people can use the term "Terrorist" or "Terrorism" for anything, if you remember there is a Crown Prank (People dress up as crown and scare people) last year, the media widely report this is a terror trend, but does it mean you can charge these people a Federal Charge of Terrorism? Nope.

I don't denied the Media misuse the word, but that is what the Media do worldwide, abusing the fact to sell story, I don't think from country to country there aren't a single media outlet not doing that, the problem is, the US Government cannot say or do or tell the Media to do anything. Which mean whatever a normal citizens would be swayed by the Media Outlet and say "Muslim are this or that" since not many people actually do know about Law.

The fact to the matter is, while you are talking about Media, Professional or Social, but I am addressing why US did not call any crime result in large amount of casualty as a terrorist incident. If you have to ask me, why the media started this abuse in the first place, then I will say Media have a history to stereotype people, black equal thief, Asian equal nerd and just now they peg Muslim equal Terrorist. Are there anything anyone can do to stop this trend? Unfortunately, unless terrorism does not happen ever again in US, the Media will continue to label Muslim as terrorist, as much as unless we don't have Black Crime anymore and Asian Nerd anymore, today we still see Media portray stereotype as Black = Thief and Asian = Nerd. And there are absolutely nothing we can do to change it.