There has been a lot of debate about
the Las Vegas massacre that happened on October 1st, 2017. Many people are
debating whether this can be considered terrorism or not. Many Twitter users
believe it was. As seen in the image, a Twitter user called Own Your Masters posted
a rather cynical picture describing how the United States tends to treat people
of color after a shooting versus white people. In the image, labeled ‘Media and
Politics 101,’ one can see the perceived stereotypes of shooters, like a Muslim
shooter, implies that all Muslims are at fault. In comparison, if there was a
white shooter, they are a lone wolf, and the whole race is not at fault for
that incident. Likewise, if there is a black shooter, people tend to think it
is gang-related, but, if the shooter is a police officer, then the officer is a
natural hero and the victim is collateral damage. This image is meant to target
how humans, specifically in America, see terrorism and how they pick and choose
who they call a terrorist.
This brings us to the question of
“What is terrorism?” The state department defines terrorism as a premeditated,
politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by
subnational groups or clandestine agents. Firstly, the state department says
that terrorism must be premeditated, meaning that it was something planned and
thought out. According to multiple news sources, among them CNN and the
Independent, it seems that Stephen Paddock had been planning it for months
prior to the shooting. Secondly, the state department says politically
motivated. For the time being, Paddock’s motivation remains unknown, even
though ISIS claimed the attack. Experts have rejected that claim because of
ISIS tendency of claiming everything. Next, the state department says that it has
to be perpetrated against noncombatant targets. Stephen Paddock targeted
civilians at a concert in Las Vegas, which means they are not in battle.
Lastly, the state department says that it has to be done by subnational groups
or clandestine agents. This is the sketchy part because what this part actually
accomplishes is making it seem like the United States itself cannot be held as
a terrorist for the attacks it pursues. If ISIS had been behind these attacks,
the attack would have been done by a subnational group, meaning it is
terrorism. Stephen Paddock was a clandestine agent. Clandestine means it was
done in a secretive manner and it seems like Paddock hid his plans pretty
thoroughly because no one seems to be able to find his motivation for this
massacre. All in all, it seems although Twitter users are correct: Stephen
Paddock was a terrorist. He fits all the criteria, but the police still need to
find his motivation for these murders. If it were a person of color, the media
and politicians would jump on the bandwagon and call them terrorists. So, what
makes Stephen Paddock different? Perhaps, his skin color.
I used the Los Vegas attack as well and the chruch shooting attack in Texas on what should be seen as a terrorist attack but is not. Like you said skin color and where someone is from or their job makes a whole difference when defining the attack . these two shootings were not seen as terrorist attacks but the truck attack in New York/ Manhattan was. What was the differnce between these other than the fact that the New York truck attack killed less than half of either of their attacks in Texas or Los Vegas? The person in New York was Middle Eastern while the people in the Texas and Los Vegas attacks were white. That has a big part of how we review attacks like you pointed out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Rita that if people had seen a person of color committing the Vegas shooting then not only the people but the media would immediately assume that it was a terrorist act. I think our biggest issue is how the media portrays these incidents and how it impacts our own opinions on what is a terrorist act. Rather than analyzing an act to see if it fits into the category and definition of a terrorist act, the media jumps on the opportunity to label an incident as a terrorist if the person carrying out the act looks and fits the part of our idea of a terrorist. Which happens to be middle eastern due to ISIS and our past experience with 9/11. It makes you wonder if in 20 years people will still be thinking this way about terrorist acts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Rita that the race of a shooter has a major effect n wether the general public sees an attack as terrorism or not. the media portrays these attacks in ways that make some attacks look like terrorism, while other attacks are just attacks held out by a "lone wolf" for lack of a better word. The general public needs to see true terrorism attacks like the Las Vegas shooting as a terrorist attack, and not just an attack undergone by a truly twisted individual.
ReplyDelete