toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
Right, exactly. No one KNOWS for sure. He left no letter or message, said nothing to no one. But he attacked and killed dozens of people and shot hundreds in an attempted massacre. Now, if he had gone into a school and done that, with no more information, people would assume he was a gun nut, violent and with a screw loose and no one would question that. Likewise with the Mandalay shooter: one of the few CIRCUMSTANTIAL bits of evidence we have is that of all the places he COULD have gone to and considered, he chose a super right-wing conservative event. Without knowing anything else, this tips the statistical likelihood that he was motivated by left wing leanings somewhat in that direction. It's MORE evidence than we have that he was right wing or did it with no political motives at all.
Not sure why people are questioning that when if a person kills a black or a muslim, they call it a HATE CRIME, even though they have no idea whether hate was really involved. At least here, you DO have some supporting evidence for the contention, and I will stick with that until someone can prove me wrong. I mean, had the Mandalay been a Hillary rally, every Leftist on the planet would be calling it a political hate crime, WITH NO MORE EVIDENCE. Kook, Old Lady? I think not.
There's no way you can prove he wanted to do anything other than shoot up a large crowd.
WHERE did I ever say anything about my being able to PROVE anything? Please try to learn to READ. All I've said is that barring a lack of any other evidence, the fact that he chose to shoot up a far right wing crowd tilts the statistical likelihood of it being a circumstantial motive in that direction, in the same way it would had it been a far left crowd. Ask any police detective and they will tell you that as one of the few clues in the case, they have to consider that until something proves otherwise.
Yeah and even cops calls them theories of a crime, not facts.
.
The only thing I called a fact was that the Mandalay shooter massacred a group of people attending a country-western concert that was undoubtedly attended largely by a conservative-leaning audience. IMO, that circumstantially supports a statistically significant chance this was not by accident. It's too bad those that come to other conclusions must resort to disagreeing by calling those who don't see things their way a "kook."
Had the shooter instead targeted a Berkeley auditorium full of left-leaning radicals while a radical left speaker was giving a talk killing many there, 150 papers across this country would all be labeling it a deliberate right-wing hit job without question, and NOT a random event.
The shooter scoped out multiple venues including Lalapalooza for christs sakes - are you going to pretend THAT is a rightwing event? Stop lying.
Link? Did he tell you that? Also, he PASSED on that event, didn't he?