Why is Aurora Mass Murder, but Sikh Temple Wisconsin is "Domestic Terrorism"

The Aurora shooter, James Holmes, has continually been referred to in the media as a "mass shooting suspect", but right away, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooter, Wade Michael Page, has been referred to as a "domestic terrorist" by the FBI.

Does anyone know why the discrepancy between the two?

If anything, the white supremacist history of the Wisconsin gunman would suggest that this was more of a hate crime, not an act of domestic terror.

I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I wonder if someone out there can enlighten us on the difference between the two, and if it would apply in this case?

I can't think of any reason to call this "domestic terrorism" rather than a "hate crime" other than to try and scare people?

There is also a very old theory out there that when someone is identified by all three of their names, it tends to denote a conspiracy. Lee Harvey Oswald, conspiracy; Robert Ford, not conspiracy; John Wilkes Booth, conspiracy; Timothy McVeigh, not conspiracy. etc etc etc.

I think the Sikh shooter should have been labelled hate crime, while the Aurora shooter should be labelled a domestic terrorist. Perhaps Aurora wasn't given that label because it was a lone gunman with no political affiliation but it's quite obvious that he falls under the definition of "terrorism".

While the Sikh shooting had someone involved who was a prominent member of an organization which actively spewed hate speech and actions against people of different race.

Pretty cut and dry, who cares what the media says...

Originally posted by babybunnies

I can't think of any reason to call this "domestic terrorism" rather than a "hate crime" other than to try and scare people?

I suspect people didnt react as planned to the label of "mass shooter", because its been used so much. This particular psyop, they decided to change the labeling and use "domestic terrorist" instead, to switch gears and attempt to couple guns to the fear attached to the catch phrase of "terrorism", to try and form the idea in the publics mind that "guns = terrorism", thus "no guns = no terrorism".

Its all about shaping the minds of the public to garner the appropriate moronic reaction (demand guns be taken away from all) so they can provide the pre-planned solution: abolition of the second amendment so an out of control, rogue, fascist government can steam roll the people more easily into complete and total submission and servitude.

The Sihk Temple shooter was labelled as domestic terrorism due to his alleged motives. The definition of domestic terrorism being:

"(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Which would cover his alleged motive of white supremacy and whatnot, whereas the Aurora shooter apparently had no motive that was found and really just went on a rampage.

The 3-name thing would be a great way to pick an argument on a conspiracy site. For example, Timothy McVeigh: A quick search on ATS will turn up all the conspiracy you can handle on that one.

But I digress. I think the Sikh temple is being treated as terrorism because of the guy's association with White Supremacy. Holmes didn't have anything like that in his background, so he's just treated as a garden-variety nut. The FBI can do no wrong by villianizing White Supremacy....

James Holmes shot mostly "White" people.

The Wisconsin gunman shot "Black" people.

The "Divide and Concur" agenda works better in the second shooting, unless James Holmes could be regarded as a White/Hispanic, which I don't think he is.

Originally posted by Whyhi
The Sihk Temple shooter was labelled as domestic terrorism due to his alleged motives. The definition of domestic terrorism being:

"(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Which would cover his alleged motive of white supremacy and whatnot, whereas the Aurora shooter apparently had no motive that was found and really just went on a rampage.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Whyhi because: spelling

By this definition, ANYONE who commits an act that is "dangerous to human life in violation of the laws of the United States" can be called a domestic terrorist.

I'm thinking that the old "holding indefinitely without due process" law might be pulled into play here. Didn't Obama recently sign something like that?

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
The 3-name thing would be a great way to pick an argument on a conspiracy site. For example, Timothy McVeigh: A quick search on ATS will turn up all the conspiracy you can handle on that one.

But I digress. I think the Sikh temple is being treated as terrorism because of the guy's association with White Supremacy. Holmes didn't have anything like that in his background, so he's just treated as a garden-variety nut. The FBI can do no wrong by villianizing White Supremacy....

but that's just my point. Wouldn't the White Supremacy background be better suited to have this labelled as a hate crime? That would surely stir up the masses even more?

reply to post by babybunnies


Because in Wisconsin they are up front and call it what it is.

Originally posted by Pedro4077
James Holmes shot mostly "White" people.

The Wisconsin gunman shot "Black" people.

The "Divide and Concur" agenda works better in the second shooting, unless James Holmes could be regarded as a White/Hispanic, which I don't think he is.

Sikh's are "Black" now? lol... looks like you're the one pushing divide & conquer.

reply to post by babybunnies


It's actually both.

They are domestic terrorists and they have a history of committing hate crimes.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by Pedro4077
James Holmes shot mostly "White" people.

The Wisconsin gunman shot "Black" people.

The "Divide and Concur" agenda works better in the second shooting, unless James Holmes could be regarded as a White/Hispanic, which I don't think he is.

Sikh's are "Black" now? lol... looks like you're the one pushing divide & conquer.

From an MSM perspective Indians are Black, and George Zimmerman is White/Hispanic - That's the games "They" play, not me.

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
The 3-name thing would be a great way to pick an argument on a conspiracy site. For example, Timothy McVeigh: A quick search on ATS will turn up all the conspiracy you can handle on that one.

But I digress. I think the Sikh temple is being treated as terrorism because of the guy's association with White Supremacy. Holmes didn't have anything like that in his background, so he's just treated as a garden-variety nut. The FBI can do no wrong by villianizing White Supremacy....

but that's just my point. Wouldn't the White Supremacy background be better suited to have this labelled as a hate crime? That would surely stir up the masses even more?

I don't know. Simply put, I just think that the government is more interested in adding more "domestic terrorism" crimes to their crime database right now than they are hate crimes (which, in the end, are just civil-rights violations). I guess it will be a lot more convincing to the public when the government can show that their gun-grabbing is related to an increase in terrorism; gun-grabbing for civil-rights violations may not go over as well.

Who knows? Might be worth a little research....

Political agenda = Terrorist
Nutter = Mass Murderer

Originally posted by Whyhi
The Sihk Temple shooter was labelled as domestic terrorism due to his alleged motives. The definition of domestic terrorism being:

"(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Which would cover his alleged motive of white supremacy and whatnot, whereas the Aurora shooter apparently had no motive that was found and really just went on a rampage.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Whyhi because: spelling

Regardless of motive, the outcome was the same: it terrified American people. Thus, they are both domestic terrorists.

As Boncho said, who cares what the media says. They're too busy trying to be politically correct to be concerned about things like common sense.

Originally posted by Pedro4077
James Holmes shot mostly "White" people.

The Wisconsin gunman shot "Black" people.

The "Divide and Concur" agenda works better in the second shooting, unless James Holmes could be regarded as a White/Hispanic, which I don't think he is.

I'm not going to point out the obvious here. It's clear you're either just stirring # or really are clueless.

As for the op,they're both domestic terrorists to me. But,really,terms are just labels...every one means something different to someone else.

Could it have to do with the fact that the theater shooting involved common people and the people in the Sikh temple were influential rich business owners?

a particular ethnicity/faith was targeted...

in their temple, their place of warship.

Originally posted by Pedro4077

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by Pedro4077
James Holmes shot mostly "White" people.

The Wisconsin gunman shot "Black" people.

The "Divide and Concur" agenda works better in the second shooting, unless James Holmes could be regarded as a White/Hispanic, which I don't think he is.

Sikh's are "Black" now? lol... looks like you're the one pushing divide & conquer.

From an MSM perspective Indians are Black, and George Zimmerman is White/Hispanic - That's the games "They" play, not me.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Pedro4077 because: (no reason given)

I've never heard the MSM media refer to "Indians" as you put it,as being black.

don't anthropologists classify Indo-Aryans (South Asians) as dark-skinned Caucasians?

then again, India the subcontinent is the most historically ethnically diverse, and includes also Mongoloids right?