Not all acts of mass murder are terrorism

Calling Vegas ‘terrorism’ is another way of downplaying the Islamist threat.

What’s driving the demand to brand the Las Vegas massacre an act of terrorism? As soon as it was revealed that this mass murderer, this slaughterer of 59 music fans and injurer of an eye-watering 525 more, was a white man, the following cry went out from the so-called liberal set: ‘This must be called terrorism.’ It’s no good, they said — and it might even be racist — to refer to this barbarism as simply mass murder, or to describe the shooter Stephen Paddock as a ‘lone wolf’, or to diminish his evil by calling him ‘mad’. No, just as we call ‘brown people’ terrorists every time they carry out an act of mass violence, so we must call Paddock a terrorist, too, columnists and the Twitterati insisted. The challenge was set: are you going to be racist and call this act ‘mass murder’, or are you going to be progressive and decent and call it ‘terrorism’?

Share
  • Until it is finally determined what his motivations are, I would hold nothing out.

    I still say run-of-the-mill crazy guy.

    • Exile1981

      I say democrat wanting to kill conservatives.

    • It also needs to be determined if other people were involved in the background.

      • That, too.

        Right now, I cannot make heads or tails of this. On the surface, he seemed like an ordinary man.

        • Doubtless many scenarios are possible.
          It could be a camouflaged hit job that went sour. He could be working for the mob or for a spy agency or whatever, out to get just one or two persons in the crowd.
          Or maybe he’s just (as seems most likely) a misanthropist, hating all humanity, who decided weeks or months or even years ago to pull off this mass murder.
          Or maybe he has some political or religious axe to grind.
          I guess a novelist could invent many possible stories.
          I wonder if they will ever find the answer? Truly sad story, that’s for sure. Poor victims.

          • It is possible that he was mentally ill (pill found).

          • Yes, that too. Whatever that means.

          • As I said before, one cannot make heads nor tails of this.

            And there are so many rumours flying around.

          • Maybe we’ll never know – or it will take years to find out.

          • The latter one.

  • Tooth&Claw

    Too much stinks about this whole thing. Until all the facts are in, best to shut up. Yes he meant to terrorize the victims, is it terrorism? Not until a reason for it can be proven.

  • WalterBannon

    the Las Vegas massacre an act of democrat party terrorism

  • Felix_Culpa

    Agree with premise: this is likely not “terrorism.” Terrorism is mainly a political ideology-driven act. This event (currently anyway) seems to have no evidence of any political motivation. Gambling debts, mental illness, and demonic possession all are likely avenues of exploration.

    • Watchman

      “Some people want to watch the world burn.” They aren’t interested in changing it for the better, they just want everyone to die.

      • PaulW

        “…. when my life heads south, the only way to give it meaning is to take large numbers of people with me…. Unlike Manchester or Nice or Paris or Berlin or Brussels, there is no meaning: Indeed, the only meaning is the meaninglessness; that is the point – the black void at the heart of the act.” Mark Steyn, “The Empty Paddock”

        https://www.steynonline.com/8154/the-empty-paddock

    • DaninVan

      I agree with you, Felix. With no stated motive how was this massacre supposed to influence anything? However, from the celebrity rants and comments online one might conclude that this incident could be interpreted as an assault on non-Democrat culture…by a guncollector(?)!
      In anybody’s book that’s just bizarre.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Liberals haven’t declared it mental illness yet so there’s no indication he was a secret Muslim

  • bargogx1

    The Left wants things declared terrorism for reasons that have very little to do with whether or not they are actually terrorism.

    • Their purpose is to weaken the case against Islamic, BLM and Antifa terror.

  • Ego

    The killer’s motive is still unknown, but so was the guy’s who burned the Reichstag.
    If you look at it in terms of who benefits:
    – The Reichstag fire gave Hitler the excuse for a major crackdown;
    – This mass murder could be used by the Left to force gun control and at the same time totally separate Trump from his base. I am not saying this is the case, but it certainly looks like one possible explanation.

  • The goal of terrorism is to terrorize, i.e. to cause great fear in the rest of the population by killing some of the population, causing the survivors to surrender to the terrorists without a fight. So, terrorism must have an ideological or religious or political motive. Islamic terror fits this bill, as do BLM and Antifa terror. A lone crazy (if that was the case in Vegas) does not constitute terror.

  • kkruger71

    The left want to analyze everything and break it up into smaller and smaller groups, as seen in the example of gender (cis, heteronormative, ze, zir) and add that into there identities to narrow things (non-cis demi-queer woman of colour), but for all the bad stuff they want to obfuscate as much as they can and widen definitions. “It’s all terrorism!” here, or “It’s patriarchy!” (i.e. all men) when decrying the rape epidemic in many parts of Europe.