The Vegas tragedy

[Sunstone]

Terrorism is conventionally defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence to bring about some sort of political goal. By "conventional" I mean that's the way it's most typically used. One is free to define words any way that one wants, but one is not free to impose one's own special definitions on others. To say the Las Vegas shooter is a terrorist when it has yet to be shown that he had any political goal to his crimes is to give the word "terrorist" a special definition. To insist that everyone else use that special definition is a bit high handed and usurps the right of people to define words as they wish.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Dylan Roof was clearly a terrorist from the facts. Stephen Paddock we don't know if he was, he so far has left no clue to that. Unless one accepts that this was an ISIS attack, who claimed responsibility, we don't have any other reason to believe it was a terrorist attack so far. Some right wing US people on the internet were calling it left-wing terrorism from the start, without any proof of that either.

I don't know what kind of "benefit of doubt" your country's media has, at least this is not apparent on CNN which is the one I mostly access for your country's news as they posted opinion pieces that seemed to want to call this Las Vegas "terrorism" without proof for it. But do you think should we call it terrorism anyway?

In my country we had a man kill two women and injure many more with a knife attack. The media and government sources here didn't want to call it terrorism even though at the start he had called on "Allah" before stabbing and had prayed at a Mosque shortly before the knifing spree. The attacker was a refugee. Until it emerged he had a manifesto for his attack, he was inspired by ISIS, some medias changed to calling it terrorism.

I don't know how many times I can say it. There is a huge disparity in labels when these killings on a massive scale happen when a white person does it, and when a person of middle eastern origin does it. My links are clearly stating this or are you choosing to not read them?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The Double Standard In How The Media Is Portraying The Las Vegas Shooter

"As the news broke, major outlets across the country wrote headlines that humanized Paddock, pointing out that he was a country music fan, for example. They also portrayed his violent act as an anomaly, labeling him a “lone wolf” who “doesn’t fit [the] mass shooter profile” rather than a part of a systemic problem of violence by white men in this country.

Past mass shooters who were nonwhite or Muslim have been depicted quite differently ― and so have people of color who were victims of gun violence.

“There’s a clear difference in the way this kind of incident is treated and the way it would be treated if it were actually associated with Islam or Muslims,” Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told HuffPost. “It would be instantly called an act of domestic or even international terrorism; it wouldn’t be individualized, but collectivized to the entire Muslim community or faith of Islam.”


Here are some ways white shooters are privileged in the media:

White killers are often humanized

Less than 12 hours after Paddock shot and killed dozens of people, a headline from The Washington Post focused on the fact that he “liked to gamble, listened to country music, lived quiet retired life.”

People on Twitter were quick to point out that nonwhite and Muslim perpetrators of violence don’t often get such humanizing profiles after the fact.

Obituary of a white terrorist:

“He was a quiet man. He liked to gamble, and enjoyed country music. Oh and he also murdered 50+ people.” pic.twitter.com/Pe16EUA11S

— Michael Swander (@MichaelSwander) October 2, 2017

When an unarmed Black person gets killed, the 1st thing we learn are her/his vices. White guy slaughters people...Gosh, what did he enjoy? pic.twitter.com/zWf0hwV6oC


By contrast, some media coverage of Sandra Bland, a black woman who died in police custody in 2015, focused on her “prior run-ins with the law.”

And after Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen, was shot by police in 2014, the hashtag #IfTheyGunnedMeDown spread on social media as people of color wondered how the media would depict them if they were killed.

What’s more, after Sunday’s mass shooting in Las Vegas, at least one headline stated that Paddock “doesn’t fit [the] mass shooter profile,” noting his lack of a known criminal record.

Actually, Paddock precisely fits that profile. Most mass shooters and domestic terrorists in this country have been white, multiple studies show.

I’m sorry, was he not a white man with a **** ton of guns? Because that is the profile. TMZ on Twitter

— Kate Harding (@KateHarding) October 2, 2017


— jesse Williams. (@iJesseWilliams) October 2, 2017

Source:The Double Standard In How The Media Is Portraying The Las Vegas Shooter

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Terrorism is conventionally defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence to bring about some sort of political goal. By "conventional" I mean that's the way it's most typically used. One is free to define words any way that one wants, but one is not free to impose one's own special definitions on others. To say the Las Vegas shooter is a terrorist when it has yet to be shown that he had any political goal to his crimes is to give the word "terrorist" a special definition. To insist that everyone else use that special definition is a bit high handed and usurps the right of people to define words as they wish.

I suggest you read post #23 and ponder cause ultimately this is the crux of my argument.

 

[sayak83]

It makes a lot of sense. His actions caused terror in the sense he cause panic and actually killed people. A Muslim man in the United Kingdom can drive a fan and kill a large swath of people, and die at the hands of cops media automatically questions whether it was terrorist related.

One must consider the social distinctions in acts caused by individuals of different backgrounds and the labels that are given. If you do not think there are biased labels given between white individuals and individuals of middle eastern or African origin or Muslim origin you are foolish.

I am not sure the definitions in a given state law. But terrorism is frequently defined as inspiring fear through violence among noncombatants in order to advance an ideological agenda that the society is opposing. Thus there can be communist terrorism, ecological terrorism, terrorism for separatists or religious terrorism. A single person or a group without known ideological agenda killing people for no known ideological agenda is not called terrorism.

 

[Jumi]

I don't know how many times I can say it. There is a huge disparity in labels when these killings on a massive scale happen when a white person does it, and when a person of middle eastern origin does it. My links are clearly stating this or are you choosing to not read them?

So your point is that this was terrorism without motive? If we add all mass shootings in the US this year as terrorism, we have lost meaning of the word completely.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

From the same link in #23

White killers often get a pass from the president

President Donald Trump responded to Sunday’s attack by calling it an “act of pure evil” and tweeted out his “warmest condolences” to the victims and families.

But the response pales in comparison to Trump’s past statements about violence committed by people who appear to be Muslim.

A non-exhaustive comparison of the response by President Trump to terror attacks depending on whether the perpetrator(s) or victims are Muslim #disappointing pic.twitter.com/qPbsAtULus

— Miqdaad Versi (@miqdaad) October 2, 2017
For instance, after the fatal shooting of a policeman in Paris in April, for which the self-described Islamic State claimed responsibility, Trump tweeted that the “people of France will not take much more of this.” And after a truck attack and stabbing in London in June that was also claimed by ISIS, Trump condemned it and called on courts to reinstate a travel ban on certain Muslim-majority countries.

Yet after Sunday’s attack on his own soil, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, Trump did not call for any action or policy changes to prevent such attacks in the future.

“I can guarantee you, President Trump would have reacted differently ― it would have been night and day ― if there was some association with Islam,” CAIR’s Hooper told HuffPost. “He would have called it terrorism, there would have been calls for extreme, extreme vetting.”

As the seemingly endless cycle of mass shootings in the U.S. goes on ― Sunday’s attack was the 273rd this year ― some people are calling for the country to reject the all-too-common response when white men commit deadly attacks: extending thoughts and prayers, but taking no real action.

 

[sayak83]

The Double Standard In How The Media Is Portraying The Las Vegas Shooter

"As the news broke, major outlets across the country wrote headlines that humanized Paddock, pointing out that he was a country music fan, for example. They also portrayed his violent act as an anomaly, labeling him a “lone wolf” who “doesn’t fit [the] mass shooter profile” rather than a part of a systemic problem of violence by white men in this country.

Past mass shooters who were nonwhite or Muslim have been depicted quite differently ― and so have people of color who were victims of gun violence.

“There’s a clear difference in the way this kind of incident is treated and the way it would be treated if it were actually associated with Islam or Muslims,” Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told HuffPost. “It would be instantly called an act of domestic or even international terrorism; it wouldn’t be individualized, but collectivized to the entire Muslim community or faith of Islam.”


Here are some ways white shooters are privileged in the media:

White killers are often humanized

Less than 12 hours after Paddock shot and killed dozens of people, a headline from The Washington Post focused on the fact that he “liked to gamble, listened to country music, lived quiet retired life.”

People on Twitter were quick to point out that nonwhite and Muslim perpetrators of violence don’t often get such humanizing profiles after the fact.

Obituary of a white terrorist:

“He was a quiet man. He liked to gamble, and enjoyed country music. Oh and he also murdered 50+ people.” pic.twitter.com/Pe16EUA11S

— Michael Swander (@MichaelSwander) October 2, 2017

When an unarmed Black person gets killed, the 1st thing we learn are her/his vices. White guy slaughters people...Gosh, what did he enjoy? pic.twitter.com/zWf0hwV6oC


By contrast, some media coverage of Sandra Bland, a black woman who died in police custody in 2015, focused on her “prior run-ins with the law.”

And after Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen, was shot by police in 2014, the hashtag #IfTheyGunnedMeDown spread on social media as people of color wondered how the media would depict them if they were killed.

What’s more, after Sunday’s mass shooting in Las Vegas, at least one headline stated that Paddock “doesn’t fit [the] mass shooter profile,” noting his lack of a known criminal record.

Actually, Paddock precisely fits that profile. Most mass shooters and domestic terrorists in this country have been white, multiple studies show.

I’m sorry, was he not a white man with a **** ton of guns? Because that is the profile. TMZ on Twitter

— Kate Harding (@KateHarding) October 2, 2017


— jesse Williams. (@iJesseWilliams) October 2, 2017

Source:The Double Standard In How The Media Is Portraying The Las Vegas Shooter

This is Rubbish. The reason one focuses on the character and ideological motives of a person is because a society wants to know if that person's previous behavior could have alerted somebody if he/she was going to do something like this. That this person lead an exceedingly normal life with no previous indicators of violence or any alarming actions privately or publicly is very very troubling. That is why people are focusing on how he lived.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I am not sure the definitions in a given state law. But terrorism is frequently defined as inspiring fear through violence among noncombatants in order to advance an ideological agenda that the society is opposing. Thus there can be communist terrorism, ecological terrorism, terrorism for separatists or religious terrorism. A single person or a group without known ideological agenda killing people for no known ideological agenda is not called terrorism.

I'm familiar with the complex definition but aside from the "clinical" usage of the word "terrorism" the Vegas shooter regardless of the motive was a terroristic act. It cause panic and loss of life. Again my point is there is a discrepancy when labeling people. Come on folks use a compare and contrast analysis! I've supplied several links that are backing up what I'm conveying here.

 

[Jumi]

As much as I dislike Trump and his disproportionate responses, I see no reason why he should call this terrorism so far.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This is Rubbish. The reason one focuses on the character and ideological motives of a person is because a society wants to know if that person's previous behavior could have alerted somebody if he/she was going to do something like this. That this person lead an exceedingly normal life with no previous indicators of violence or any alarming actions privately or publicly is very very troubling. That is why people are focusing on how he lived.

It's rubbish but other sources I've supplied have said the same thing. I've even supplied a research paper from Harvard university regarding this. Dylan Roof had an ideological motive when he killed 9 black parishioners for the cause of starting a race war and he was not labeled a terrorist. Not to mention this kid was offered burger king before going to jail. What you're talking about are what you perceive but your perception is most definitely not reality.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

As much as I dislike Trump and his disproportionate responses, I see no reason why he should call this terrorism.

Let me see. this guy purchased what over 20 weapons......He used an assault rifle out the window killing 59 people....I don't know, I think anyone with some damn sense would claim the act itself is terrorism. Tell me why is it that ever mass shooter that is white is considered a lone wolf and is always considered mentally unstable? As opposed to a person of color? Check this article by CNN out:

Suspect charged in Edmonton attacks that injured five

"A Somali refugee charged with five counts of attempted murder is accused of stabbing a police officer in Edmonton, Canada, after hitting him with a car and later plowing a truck into pedestrians on a busy street, injuring four.

Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, 30, also faces charges of dangerous driving, criminal flight causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Superintendent Stacey Talbot said at a press conference Monday.
While authorities were investigating the incidents as acts of terrorism, no terrorism charges have been filed against Sharif at this time."

Although in the article he will not be charged with terrorism, and is suspected to act alone, the article highlights two important things: Somalia, and Immigrant.. What I'm saying is the media has a narrative to dehumanize the person to feed into the prejudices of society. The same thing about the Somalian cop that shot the white woman:

"
The report stoked fear among Somalis in the Twin Cities, who have worked for decades to become part of the city’s fabric. There are now Somalis on the police force, the city council and in the Minnesota House of Representatives. But the largely Muslim population of Somali Americans in the region still face Islamophobia and innuendo about terrorism.

“They fear this will be just another event used to create animosity toward the Somali community,” Mohamud Noor, executive director at the Confederation of Somali Community in Minnesota, told The Post.

Already, hateful posts criticizing Islam and sharia law are filling social media in response to the police shooting. Several far-right blogs featured sensational headlines that blamed the officer’s ethnicity for the deadly use of force."

Source:After Minneapolis officer in police shooting is named, Somali community braces for backlash

 

[Jumi]

Let me see. this guy purchased what over 20 weapons......He used an assault rifle out the window killing 59 people....I don't know, I think anyone with some damn sense would claim the act itself is terrorism.

So you propose we remove the current meaning of the word and start a new one, based on ... amount of weapons instead of ideological motives?

 

[sayak83]

I'm familiar with the complex definition but aside from the "clinical" usage of the word "terrorism" the Vegas shooter regardless of the motive was a terroristic act. It cause panic and loss of life. Again my point is there is a discrepancy when labeling people. Come on folks use a compare and contrast analysis! I've supplied several links that are backing up what I'm conveying here.

It's the standard definition most commonly used everywhere. Otherwise a serial killer would be defined as a terrorist. He is also causing terror by picking off victims with no rhyme or reason.

 

[Sunstone]

I suggest you read post #23 and ponder cause ultimately this is the crux of my argument.

I don't doubt there is a double standard, but that double standard is no reason to insist everyone adopt a redefinition of "terrorism".

 

[Jumi]

Dylan Roof had an ideological motive when he killed 9 black parishioners for the cause of starting a race war and he was not labeled a terrorist. Not to mention this kid was offered burger king before going to jail. What you're talking about are what you perceive but your perception is most definitely not reality.

And he is still a terrorist and should be treated as such. That is clear as day. Paddock so far has been given no motive, except by ISIS.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I don't doubt there is a double standard, but that double standard is no reason to insist everyone adopt a redefinition of "terrorism".

We should as the Harvard research paper I linked stated that we must make an equal standard definition of crimes of this magnitude so that the media coverage can have an equal label on such actions thereby maintaining a balance whether these acts are foreign or domestic.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

And he is still a terrorist and should be treated as such. That is clear as day. Paddock so far has been given no motive, except by ISIS.

But the problem is in that particular region, as it was said Roof cannot be charged with terrorism based on some statute.

Edit: The paper further states, however the problem with this is that it opens up Pandora's box to groups that are anti-government, anti-fascist, who are extreme in their views which would interfere, according to the ACLU of freedom of expression.

 

[Jumi]

But the problem is in that particular region, as it was said Roof cannot be charged with terrorism based on some statute.

It is a different case and if so, it's completely wrong in your country's legal system. Since Roof matches completely the definition of terrorist.

Here is a case of non-white mass shooter in the US, whom you may remember, who like Paddock is not a terrorist according to the definitions of the term:

Seung-Hui Cho - Wikipedia

 

[Sunstone]

We should as the Harvard research paper I linked stated that we must make an equal standard definition of crimes of this magnitude so that the media coverage can have an equal label on such actions thereby maintaining a balance whether these acts are foreign or domestic.

Then we'll also need to invent a new word for what is conventionally called "terrorism" today.