The explosion outside the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas on New Year's Day is being investigated as a possible act of terrorism, sources said.

… Law enforcement sources told CBS News that the Cybertruck was rented to Matthew Alan Livelsberger, an active duty U.S. Army servicemember who was serving in Germany but was on leave in Colorado at the time of the incident. CBS News spoke to two relatives of Livelsberger who were unaware of any involvement in the incident, but who confirmed he had rented a Cybertruck. One relative told CBS News that Livelsberger’s wife had not heard from him in several days.

McMahill said gasoline canisters, camp fuel canisters and large firework mortars were found in the back of the vehicle after the explosion, which occurred about 15 seconds after the vehicle pulled in front of the building. It’s still unclear how the explosives were ignited, he said.

  • teawrecks
    2·
    4 days ago

    The definition of terrorism is using fear of violence as a political motivator, and I think we all agree that Luigi was trying to make a political statement through the use of violence. Agree or disagree with his message, that was his methodology.

    But yes, in this case, this was a self-immolation protest, with no goal of causing fear. Even if a monk accidentally sets a bystander on fire as a result of demonstration, that is an accident, and no one has any reason to be afraid the monk will come for them next.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      2·
      4 days ago

      I think Luigi if guilty was making a commercial statement. He allegedly attacked the health fund with the highest rate of claim denials with bullets marked with a statement about how they don’t serve their customers fairly

    • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
      1·
      4 days ago

      Hey, you know what, I wanted to go check my own bias here. It looks like I use the late 20th century and the contemporary definition of “terrorism”, with a mental angle, apparently. Fascinating that the definition apparently shifts over time.

      Used GPT to look up the etymology over history for that. (So the obvious grain of salt, but usually definition lookups are fairly straightforward.)

      • 18th Century: It referred to the use of violence by a government to instill fear and maintain control.
      • 19th Century: The use of violence by non-state actors to overthrow governments or achieve political aims.
      • Early 20th Century: Violent acts, often targeting military or symbolic sites, conducted by groups seeking self-determination.
      • Mid 20th Century: Cold War Era: Acts of violence committed by both state-sponsored groups and non-state actors aimed at political subversion.
      • Late 20th Century: Violence targeting non-combatants, often involving hostage-taking, plane hijackings, or bombings.
      • Post-9/11: The use or threat of violence by non-state actors to instill fear, coerce governments, and advance political, religious, or ideological goals.
      • Contemporary: Violence aimed at civilians to intimidate or coerce for political, ideological, or religious purposes.

      The angle part is, CEOs aren’t civilians based on how the government treats them, how they are trumping up charges that a true civilian would never see happen, and how they always seem to escape the law unless they are caught doing tax evasion. They, like the three branches of Federal government, and movie stars, get to live well outside the laws that we mere peasants have to follow.

      Not trying to be contrarian either, I agree, it was likely a political statement through the use of violence.