TexasCHLforum.com

imkopaka wrote:

TVGuy wrote:
If you're using the term "terrorist" in the generic form, please refer to the actual definition:

"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological aims."

Fixed that for you. I agree with your point, but if you exclude religious and ideological goals from your definition, every Muslim terrorist attack that's ever occurred no longer meets the definition of "terrorism." One could argue that Antifa and BLM wouldn't either.

While I agree with your reasoning, Muslim extremists conflate religion and politics. The fact they attack based on their religion in fact makes it their politics.

Antifa and BLM are purely political organizations, so they would fit the original definition.

Will we ever know his motive? Will we ever know the complete truth of what really happened and who was really involved or knew what he was planning?

carlson1 wrote:Will we ever know his motive? Will we ever know the complete truth of what really happened and who was really involved or knew what he was planning?

We should know more than we do now....which is nothing as far as a motive goes.

I don't remember a case with a dead suspect that we knew so little about motive four days in.

Las Vegas shooter booked rooms facing Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago in August - USA TODAY
https://apple.news/AOpcrO9DcRWKUrATp7qBtKw

Sicko

philip964 wrote:Las Vegas shooter booked rooms facing Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago in August - USA TODAY
https://apple.news/AOpcrO9DcRWKUrATp7qBtKw

Sicko

He also booked room overlooking an earlier event in Vegas as well as other events in different locations
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/05/l ... rts-report

TVGuy wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

imkopaka wrote:

TVGuy wrote:
If you're using the term "terrorist" in the generic form, please refer to the actual definition:

"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological aims."

Fixed that for you. I agree with your point, but if you exclude religious and ideological goals from your definition, every Muslim terrorist attack that's ever occurred no longer meets the definition of "terrorism." One could argue that Antifa and BLM wouldn't either.

Until we know this guy's motives, we can't really say whether he is a terrorist, or not. We can speculate and guess, but that is all.

Agreed and that is why I said "until that link is proven". My point was that it is misleading and incorrect to call any mass killing a terrorist event.

That's true, and I've been lecturing people on Facebook about that for days; I simply wanted to make sure the whole definition was there.

TVGuy wrote:

imkopaka wrote:

TVGuy wrote:
If you're using the term "terrorist" in the generic form, please refer to the actual definition:

"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological aims."

Fixed that for you. I agree with your point, but if you exclude religious and ideological goals from your definition, every Muslim terrorist attack that's ever occurred no longer meets the definition of "terrorism." One could argue that Antifa and BLM wouldn't either.

While I agree with your reasoning, Muslim extremists conflate religion and politics. The fact they attack based on their religion in fact makes it their politics.

Antifa and BLM are purely political organizations, so they would fit the original definition.

I would say BLM is more ideological than political. Race is the driving factor behind their hatred - namely hatred of white people, but also more generally hatred of non-blacks. Their goals are not really political, even if they paint them that way. Even though they want their goals carries out through congress, their goals include things like forced reparations for slavery, stopping "systemic oppression" of blacks (i.e. let them do whatever they want), and eliminating the police - both as an organization and as individuals. IMO they meet the ideological part of the definition.

I disagree with the original posted definition on a couple of points. First, "illegal" is a red herring. Rebellions are illegal, but that doesn't make rebel synonymous with terrorist, despite what those in power want us to think. Second, I agree with others who expand the definition beyond political to include ideological, religious, and similar aims. Third, I think the targets are key to distinguishing terrorism from other types of violence.

For an act to be terrorism, I think the intended victims have to be non-governmental and non-combatant. When the Son's of Liberty targeted the King's tax collectors, I argue that wasn't terrorism. When Washington's forces slaughtered Hessians on Christmas, I argue that wasn't terrorism. When the French Resistance targeted soldiers and agents of Vichy France, I arge that wasn't terrorism.

All that said, I agree we know nothing useful about the LV killer's motivations. If he had an ideological agenda he wasn't very vocal about it. Maybe he was like Charles Whitman. Maybe he was like George Hennard. We'll probably never really know.

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2 ... onths-ago/

Isis tripling down on shooter being converted six months ago.

I guess it all comes down to who is the biggest liar, or who can we trust more?

TVGuy wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

imkopaka wrote:

TVGuy wrote:
If you're using the term "terrorist" in the generic form, please refer to the actual definition:

"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological aims."

Fixed that for you. I agree with your point, but if you exclude religious and ideological goals from your definition, every Muslim terrorist attack that's ever occurred no longer meets the definition of "terrorism." One could argue that Antifa and BLM wouldn't either.

Until we know this guy's motives, we can't really say whether he is a terrorist, or not. We can speculate and guess, but that is all.

Agreed and that is why I said "until that link is proven". My point was that it is misleading and incorrect to call any mass killing a terrorist event.

and I would argue that it is misleading and incorrect to say that this mass killing is not a terrorist event. We simply don't know yet, so it is incorrect to say it was or it wasn't.

philip964 wrote:https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2 ... onths-ago/

Isis tripling down on shooter being converted six months ago.

They actually quadrupled down by the end of Monday, so this is the 5+ time they have repeated it.

Not that I trust Daesh, but I can't imagine them doing so repeatedly if there was no basis. They know there would be tons of egg on their face.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21978/fak ... mpaign=ijr

CBS reports shooter used "automatic rounds".

https://www.infowars.com/former-trump-c ... isis-tape/

Made Isis tape.

Infowars does not endorse this information. So this maybe is one step above CBS news.

Official: Las Vegas shooter tried to buy tracer rounds before massacre - CNN
https://apple.news/AGA8so2PISLit5xEFPhJ2Jw

Tried to buy tracer rounds at gun show in Phoenix.

Sicko. Just a sicko. Bad words I can't use on this forum.