Why isn't the Las Vegas Massacre considered a terrorist act?

2017-10-05T09:18:41-04:00

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2017 9:29 AM

2017-10-05T09:29:13-04:00

Isn't it obvious...

Response by SSgt Ray Stone made Oct 5 at 2017 9:34 AM

2017-10-05T09:34:48-04:00

You already know man...lol. Majority of RP will avoid this topic.

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 5 at 2017 9:57 AM

2017-10-05T09:57:28-04:00

Pure speculation on my part... I do not believe they have, AT THIS POINT, identified an underlying motivation to influence, sway, or intimidate political action or public opinion.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Oct 5 at 2017 9:58 AM

2017-10-05T09:58:36-04:00

Terrorism involves motive. It was indeed an act that terrorized, however it's not deemed terrorism.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2017 10:00 AM

2017-10-05T10:00:37-04:00

Terrorism: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." So far there has been no motive released suggesting that the shooter had political aims.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Oct 5 at 2017 10:00 AM

2017-10-05T10:00:38-04:00

It struck terror in the citizens of the United States it should be!!

Response by MSgt Michael Bischoff made Oct 5 at 2017 10:59 AM

2017-10-05T10:59:26-04:00

So what about Domestic Terrorism?
the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator's own country against their fellow citizens.
Not necessary to have political or religious goals.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Oct 5 at 2017 11:04 AM

2017-10-05T11:04:43-04:00

If a nuclear weapon detonated in Time Square, with no attribution or claim by any organization, would it be a terrorist act? No motivation except death and destruction - not terror, right?

Response by MSgt Michael Bischoff made Oct 5 at 2017 11:08 AM

2017-10-05T11:08:21-04:00

Another thing is what made the Fort Hood attack terrorism? "Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shot dozens of soldiers in what he said was an attempt to protect Taliban leaders in Afghanistan from American troops" This statement seems to fall more under a treasonist act opposed to terror act. Being the act was a stated a military goal. Was it because these goals are attached to religious zealots is that what made it terrorism?

Response by AA Joseph Moody made Oct 5 at 2017 11:13 AM

2017-10-05T11:13:33-04:00

Considering the target of the attack and the current political climate, if this was a terrorist attack that would would mean that the person or people (I'm rebuilding the scene with stitched together video with 3d modeling programs and a game engine, and...I'll be quite on my observations as I have incomplete data and am not finished yet) who did it had an agenda that targeted a stereotypical right wing crowd.
But between you and I, considering what I've seen online before and after this attack, I don't think we have seen the end of it.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Oct 5 at 2017 11:19 AM

2017-10-05T11:19:12-04:00

Because that takes FACTS, not yet in evidence.
Because words mean something, and the flagrant misuse some are apt to do degrades the impact of the word.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2017 2:07 PM

2017-10-05T14:07:13-04:00

It was "vacation" violence.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2017 4:47 PM

2017-10-05T16:47:59-04:00

the difference between a crime, and a terrorist act is the motivation for doing it. it s too early in the investigation to determine if he was trying to influence something through violence, or just a psycho who snapped

Response by SPC Casey Ashfield made Oct 6 at 2017 4:40 PM

2017-10-06T16:40:25-04:00

IF a motive is discovered, it may very well be considered terrorism. If the act fits the DOD definition of course.

My hunch is it wasn't a terrorist attack. The concert had no outright political connection as far as I can tell. I believe it was an outlandish suicide by cop incident.