Acts of Terrorism megathread

[CountDeMoney]

Good news is silencers may be legal.

What could happen.

I see that stun guns are becoming vogue again in some states.  I guess women forgot what it was like to get zapped and stuffed in the trunk of a car.

[Barrister]

Well the Vegas shooting has certainly overshadowed Edmonton's little wanna-be ISIS terrorist.  He only attempted to kill 5 people.

His first appearance in court is tomorrow.  But today I had a reporter from Reuters show up in court asking if he was going to be there.

I'm not in docket court tomorrow, but I think I might just go for the circus.

[11B4V]

This dude has some sack.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/22221773_10212668568762773_1307730259429361522_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoibCJ9&oh=bdfefd07f0b838f40f4e824942256d5a&oe=5A820AA7

[HVC]

When the shooting would restart he'd duck down.

[Monoriu]

This dude has some sack.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/22221773_10212668568762773_1307730259429361522_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoibCJ9&oh=bdfefd07f0b838f40f4e824942256d5a&oe=5A820AA7

The bystanders next to him would have him to thank for the attention that he attracted. 

[jimmy olsen]

Trump - What happened is in many ways a miracle
https://www.google.co.kr/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/03/trump-on-response-to-las-vegas-shooting-what-happened-is-in-many-ways-a-miracle/

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/04/lone-wolf-white-terrorist-las-vegas

What's a 'lone wolf'? It's the special name we give white terrorists

We have a double standard in the United States when it comes to talking about terrorism. The label is reserved almost exclusively for when we're talking about Muslims.

Consider Stephen Craig Paddock, the shooter in Sunday's massacre in Las Vegas. Is he a terrorist? Well, the authorities aren't calling him one, at least not yet.

This is all the more remarkable because Paddock's actions clearly fit the statutory definition of terrorism in Nevada. That state's law defines terrorism as "any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population".

Stephen Craig Paddock shot and killed at least 59 people and injured more than 500 others. If that doesn't qualify as a textbook definition of Nevada's terrorism law, I don't know what does.

Yet, when asked at a press conference in Las Vegas if the shooting was an act of terrorism, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo replied: "No. Not at this point. We believe it's a local individual. He resides here locally," suggesting that all terrorism is foreign in nature.

...

[Berkut]

Yes, lets play the race card. If it was a black guy who did this, we would certainly call it terrorism, right?

White people are desperate to protect the reputation of white mass murderers. It's ever so important to us, so we create cool names for them we would never apply to some not white guy.

This is pretty fucking simple. "Terrorism" is a word with an actual meaning (and its Nevada state legal definition is largely irrelevant to that accepted meaning). It's not like calling this terrorism or not has any kind of emotional relevance to white people. I would have no issue calling it terrorism if I thought there was some reason to think his motives were in fact those that define terrorism.

I don't even know why anyone would think that calling some particular act "terrorism" or not has any particular emotive weight such that white people would want to avoid doing so if they can. Would it make us all feel better or worse if this was called terrorism instead of random act of extreme violence?

[grumbler]

Berkut, your point would only hold water if people like Timothy McVay, were considered terrorists.  Or if Dr Henry Bello was NOT considered a terrorist.   But, as Prof Bayoumi points out, he has a double standard, so doesn't believe either of those situations are true.

[grumbler]

Oh, and looking up the full statute defining terrorism in Nevada, one can see that it is incredibly broad:

NRS 202.4415  "Act of terrorism" defined.
      1.  "Act of terrorism" means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:
      (a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or
      (b) Cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of:
             (1) Any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services; or
             (2) Any natural resource or the environment.
      2.  As used in this section, "coercion" does not include an act of civil disobedience.

So, if a bank robber takes hostages when her plan goes awry, and causes the bank to be shut down and the street outside cordoned off, this is an act of terrorism ("the use ... of ... coercion or violence which is intended to [c]ause substantial... impairment of ... [a]ny building [or]...  transportation...")

The difference between use of violence for political purposes and other uses of violence is worth preserving.  There are definitely cases where the failure to classify terrorism as terrorism is inexplicable (like the case of Dylan Roof in Charleston, as clear a case of terrorism as one could ask for, or James Fields, Jr, in Charlottesville, not charged with terrorism despite the fact that he didn't even know his murder victim), but there are also cases where charges of terrorism are equally inexplicable (as in this case, based on what is known so far, or Micah Johnson in Dallas, who was clearly interested in killing police officers for its own sake).  If the perp is not concerned with who the victims are, only the message, then it is terrorism.  Otherwise, it isn't.

[DGuller]

It seems to me like what makes something a terrorist act is the intention to advance some agenda by means of terrorizing people.  The main goal of terrorist act is not to cause casualties, but to affect behavior of people.  Not all mass casualty crimes fit this, and this one doesn't appear to.

[Oexmelin]

The problem being that "for political purposes" makes the definition much more plastic than what you seem to allow from the moment the violence is not simply instrumental for a clear material goal (i.e., bank robbery). Terrorism may "mean something", but calls such as these are also attempt to signify there is a clear political effect to these shootings that is not adequately captured by either media tone, and legal response. I think it is difficult to deny the difference in tone in media between mass white shooters, mass "brown" shooters, and even black victims of cops. That some want to pin the terrorism label on the predominantly white mass shooters is an attempt to call attention to such imbalance.

Mass shootings by white people, in the US, happen with regularity, yet few people seem willing to carve out a new legal status for them that would answer their regularity, and their effects - yet we see travel bans and deportations being proposed out of the fear of terrorism. On that, the Onion is right: it is the perpetration of mass shootings that have become normalized in political discourse, while answers to them are labelled "undue politicizing", while the perpetration of terrorism is always shocking, and its political and State-response, normalized. 

[Barrister]

Our home-grown wanna-be terrorist (Five counts of Attempted murder.  Now what is that?  Can you win a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry?) is being called a lone wolf because, though ISIS inspired, he appears to have no ties to a wider terrorist network.  And he's somali.

[DGuller]

The problem being that "for political purposes" makes the definition much more plastic than what you seem to allow from the moment the violence is not simply instrumental for a clear material goal (i.e., bank robbery). Terrorism may "mean something", but calls such as these are also attempt to signify there is a clear political effect to these shootings that is not adequately captured by either media tone, and legal response. I think it is difficult to deny the difference in tone in media between mass white shooters, mass "brown" shooters, and even black victims of cops. That some want to pin the terrorism label on the predominantly white mass shooters is an attempt to call attention to such imbalance.

Mass shootings by white people, in the US, happen with regularity, yet few people seem willing to carve out a new legal status for them that would answer their regularity, and their effects - yet we see travel bans and deportations being proposed out of the fear of terrorism. On that, the Onion is right: it is the perpetration of mass shootings that have become normalized in political discourse, while answers to them are labelled "undue politicizing", while the perpetration of terrorism is always shocking, and its political and State-response, normalized.

Sometimes a definition needs to be plastic in order to make sense.  If you call every mass casualty event a terrorist attack, then what's the point of having a separate term for a mass casualty attack?

I do agree that we have yet another example of hypocrisy with how we're dealing with mass shootings versus terrorism.  Somebody shoots 500 people, it's just the price of freedom.  Let's not over-react.  Somebody shoots up a couple of dozen of people as a terrorist attack, and it's "OMG, OMG, OMG, people are fearful, we have to do SOMETHING!!!".

[viper37]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/04/lone-wolf-white-terrorist-las-vegas

What's a 'lone wolf'? It's the special name we give white terrorists

We have a double standard in the United States when it comes to talking about terrorism. The label is reserved almost exclusively for when we're talking about Muslims.

Consider Stephen Craig Paddock, the shooter in Sunday's massacre in Las Vegas. Is he a terrorist? Well, the authorities aren't calling him one, at least not yet.

This is all the more remarkable because Paddock's actions clearly fit the statutory definition of terrorism in Nevada. That state's law defines terrorism as "any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population".

Stephen Craig Paddock shot and killed at least 59 people and injured more than 500 others. If that doesn't qualify as a textbook definition of Nevada's terrorism law, I don't know what does.

Yet, when asked at a press conference in Las Vegas if the shooting was an act of terrorism, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo replied: "No. Not at this point. We believe it's a local individual. He resides here locally," suggesting that all terrorism is foreign in nature.

...

that's false.  Lone wolf has been used for many muslims terrorism acts when committed alone.  We generally reserve "terrorisme" accusations for when there's a clear link between a terrorist organization and the person committing the crimes.