Explain me something americans...

Explain me something americans. When a guy grabs his gun and kills 58 persons attending a gig and another guy that grabs his weapon and kills 26 people in a church are just labelled "lone wolfs" or "mentally unstable" but when some other guy runs over and kills 8 people is labelled a terrorist?

Because the guy in the car is brown.

Should mass murderers be called terrorists too?
Terrorism has a very specific definition, liberal.

It's like you people are still toddlers without the most basic understanding of meaning and language. Like who thinks whitey is behind everything being too complicated for him.

You make a valid point, but what you don't understand is that Sayfullo Saipov, the New York City pedestrian killer was a foreigner and a brown one with a beard at that so "muh moose-lambs!"

I hope that answers your question.

No, i believe it's the opposite. Both 3 cases are victims of alienation and capitalism. The guy who run over 8 people is not more than the other two.

Because "terrorist" is a political label, and it suits people to label brown people terrorists and to label white people "misunderstood lone wolfs".

It's the motive, not the casualties that determines if it's labeled as terrorism.
Yeah, Americans have a hateboner against brown people, but the mass shootings should not be labeled as terrorism.

Holla Forums everyone

Why aren't the motives of the mass shooter "terrorism" in your opinion?

terrorism is politically motivated you numbskull. If there's no political angle, then it's just murder.

SJW's get the fuck out.

...

You seem to have confused the word "terrorism" for "murderer".

Legal Definition of terrorism
1 :the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

The Las Vegas shooter still has no discernible motive and the Texas church shooting seems to have been done due to a "domestic situation going on within the family and the in-laws", with the shooter already having a previous history of domestic abuse and a military discharge. The Manhattan attack was an ISIS affiliated incident with declarations by the assailant having been discovered post-mortum stating him to be carrying out the attack in the name of an already known terrorist group as well as for the obvious political and religious reasons. Know the difference.

Brainlet Answer

Terrorism is only when there's a clear political motivation

Real Answer

The only time a political motivation will be stressed by the media is when it's a political motivation that will bolster a current establishment narrative/agenda. The use of the word "terrorism" only serves a purpose to excuse or validate the expansion of domestic surveillance and continued foreign wars and only dupes and imperialists give a fuck about the distinction as decided by the state.

Don't waste energy justifying the idiocy of others. You're clearly smarter than this.

i see a fag in you

Which instances of mass shootings with a political motivation had said political motivation obfuscated by the media?

I'm not defending the liberal "you better call it terrorism when white people do it too" position, I'm positing a "stop using the word 'terrorism' and bolstering the narratives of the state just because you're trying to get your shitty version of racial justice".

It's pretty similar to how liberals care more about increasing prison sentences and incarceration for white men even while spouting platitudes about broad criminal justice reform or even abolition.


Not once did I say or even imply obfuscation. I said that the establishment will focus on convenient narratives when they occur. Think "shock doctrine" shit.

Fine then, in which instances of mass shootings was the political motivation not or sparsely mentioned.

That book sucks.

every mass shooting is political if you dig deep enough, but the politics will only hold the cycle when it's beneficial to do so
Who cares? It's a concise and descriptive term for a phenomenon I'm referring to, and one I'm confident you understood well enough outside your opinion on the book.

What change in the political landscape did the mass shooters want to achieve?

I see, so even when a mass shooting is committed without any given or discernible reason whatsoever, you are still correct because you stretched the meaning of politics to all human behavior.
It suffers from the conjecture as your post does.

Lefty "independent media" follows the mainstream Media Matters talking points. It pains them to think that they are "on the wrong side of history."

Everyone who uses violence for political ends is a terrorist, so everybody basically

Smugness aside, everyone who is reading me in good faith can see that I'm making the inverse of this argument. And you're missing the point entirely to begin with, which is that the distinction is only meaningful policy-wise in order to justify increasing the state apparatus domestically or abroad. Otherwise it's just fodder for your culture-war facebook memes and forgive me for not giving that the full respect you think it deserves.
Did you just sleep through the Bush years moving into the Obama years or are you just so young that everything before 2010 is meaningless to you? I'm not even asking sarcastically, I sometimes forget just how many teens are here these days.

Because terrorism has to have a political motivation, and as of yet none has been found for the two most recent shootings.

Shooting up a synagogue because Soros is using the Illuminati to feed white babies to welfare queens is terrorism.

Shooting up a school because you can’t get laid and Chad bullies you is not.

The argument is that any word that categorizes all non-state sanctioned political violence as "bad" is some porky shit and you're falling for it. The word "terrorism" will never be applied to the US military or any of their allies (including "moderate rebel" groups that they deem worth funding at any point in time) by design. On the other hand, every genuinely revolutionary group is grouped with ISIS by definition under this useless shitty label. Giving a shit about the label of "terrorist" makes you a stooge to empire.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

reminder the proles MUST be armed