• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harvard Graduate Asked To Leave Apartment

DebateChallenge said:
That's your definition not the general definition and not the commonly accepted definition.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not my definition. It's the one I like the best.


The point remains that Paddock didn't want to terrorize people into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily want to do....he wanted a quick way out of lidfe and decided to have some fun and take as many people with him as he could.


There was no higher motive.

No political agenda.


Paddock's actions, whilst causing terror, was not a terrorist attack. It was an end in itself...to kill as many people as he could before he killed himself.
 
Rich2018 said:
Actually it's not my definition. It's the one I like the best.


The point remains that Paddock didn't want to terrorize people into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily want to do....he wanted a quick way out of lidfe and decided to have some fun and take as many people with him as he could.


There was no higher motive.

No political agenda.


Paddock's actions, whilst causing terror, was not a terrorist attack. It was an end in itself...to kill as many people as he could before he killed himself.
Click to expand...

If that is the definition you like best and you don't consider Paddock a terrorist for the reasons you describe than you could say Salman Ramadan Abedi was not a terrorist either.
 
DebateChallenge said:
If that is the definition you like best and you don't consider Paddock a terrorist for the reasons you describe than you could say Salman Ramadan Abedi was not a terrorist either.
Click to expand...


Paddock was not a terrorist because he was not seeking to make people chose a course of action they wouldn't otherwise chose.

That his victims and those around them went through a terrifying ordeal is no in doubt.

But there was no political agenda - he just wanted to kill people before he killed himself.


A terrorist seeks to kill/harm people so that they will choose a certain course of action in fear or terror of being killed/harmed themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom