Las Vegas mass shooting

It absolutely is beside the point. I'm the one making the point - albeit probably badly, since you think that your argument that he's not a terrorist is on point.

It's not really relevant whether he's a terrorist.

What's relevant is that if he was Arab or Muslim, he would be called a terrorist.

That's my point, and I think it's BS. Call these people who don't belong to an organization terrorists or don't call them terrorists, but don't change the definition because the person is Muslim/Arab/Christian/White/Other.

I'd be fine with them hesitating to or never calling him a terrorist, if they'd do the same thing when a non-White person hurts/kills 2+ people.

Kiyoat mentioned the word stigmatize. That's what happens to Muslims/Arabs when the word terrorist is used every time there's an attack by an Arab person, and never when it's a White person. When it's a bunch of armed White people taking over a federal building or killing others, everyone has to deliberate for days/weeks and then not use that word. When it's only used for Arabs and always used for Arabs, the rest of the population starts to equate all Arabs with terrorism. I've seen it on this forum in previous discussions.
It tisn't (Monty Python skit)! Teach just gave you part of the definiton of terrorism, it's politically motivated. We both just agreed with you that people use the word far too much, and too soon.

What political motive do when know this guy had as of now?

When has the term terrorism been incorrectly applied before?

 
Well....I don't like what many people have to say about this.  What on Earth makes people say things like this?
Inhofe is one of my senators.  Use to be a good guy but as he's approached 80 (may be over 80) he's made less and less sense.  He hasn't had an original idea in years and just rehashes the party line.  Even the local talk radio host has had his issues with him.  He use to come on the radio but pulled the plug when he was challenged too much.

 
It tisn't (Monty Python skit)! Teach just gave you part of the definiton of terrorism, it's politically motivated. We both just agreed with you that people use the word far too much, and too soon.

What political motive do when know this guy had as of now?

When has the term terrorism been incorrectly applied before?
I think all she is saying is she doesn't care what this guy is called as long as a person of middle eastern decent doing this exact same thing is labeled the same way as this guy. 

 
I think all she is saying is she doesn't care what this guy is called as long as a person of middle eastern decent doing this exact same thing is labeled the same way as this guy. 
Yeah, I get that...but I really care zero what some f'ing a-hole killer is called by the media as long as the a-hole son of a b!^@h is dead  on the scene or brought to justice and executed.  Just like I don't care at all if later on the a$$hole$ family tells me "he was really such a nice soft spoken person".  My biggest concern isn't what they may or may not be called.  I can't imagine that anyone that lost someone in this shooting the other day cares either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
More epic fail on the behalf of the republicans.  Again, as I stated previously, when you follow and believe in the unfathomable, you end up saying the unfathomable speaking crazy things.

When you buy into the NRA lie  pole, line, and sinker, you are going to say stupid ..s stuff like this. 

What Tom Delay says below, is a repetitive of what I heard Hannity say and probably a dozen others.  What they don't connect is that while it is true that people pull the trigger, its the guns that gives them the means.  By their logic we should allow private citizen to buy old F-15 fighter jets and Abrams tanks.

With the same logic, we should give drug addicts all of the drugs they need just so they feel at peace of having pills hear by-  after all it is 'the people' that pop the pill. 

If we recognize that 'it is just the people' and guns, bills, knives are just the means, it would make sense to acknowledge that it would be in society's best interest to

1. Not cut the budget (state and federal) for mental health issues

2. Not to provide easy means for someone like this to gain access to weapons of mass destruction. 

While Chicago is used by the gun lobby to point to the ineffectiveness of gun control, they are missing the boat.  I blame Chicago on a failed social structure, failed politics, failed drug enforcement policy and lack of opportunity.   Guns only give those beaten down people a easier means to deal with these issues.  If the guns weren't available that doesn't automatically mean that Chicago would remain what it is - 'murder capital' - as people use knives instead of guns.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/tom-delay-gun-control-guns-not-people-las-vegas-shooting/2017/10/03/id/817482/

quote

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told Newsmax TV on Tuesday that the Las Vegas should not be used to fuel debate on gun control because "it's not the guns, it's the people."

"It's not the gun that pulled the trigger," DeLay, the Texas Republican who served as majority leader from 2003 to 2005, told Bill Tucker on "Newsmax Now" in an interview. "He pulled the trigger.

2nd quote

"But Chicago has the most gun laws in America, as far as gun control is concerned, and it's the murder capital of America," DeLay added.

"It's not the guns, it's the people.

"If we just use the excuse of guns or gun control," he said, "and that makes us all feel good and feel happy, it isn't going to change a thing — and it hasn't changed a thing.” (TG: another example of failed leadership and lack of vision. But also tied to the hip of the NRA)

 
And all I'm saying is when has a middle eastern person not actually been a terrorist, but labeled one after a mass killing?
That is a good question and I don't know if I can think of a time.  First off, it is not like there is some ID or membership card to terrorist groups so really if the killer even has a hint of the act being about politics it would make sense that the person is a terrorist.  If not, they are just an a-hole mass-murder 

 
John Thune’s suggestion for minimizing the number of lives lost in mass shootings: Try to make the killers miss. SMH...
I mean...I guess that is good advice WHILE something like this is going on...but clearly if we could prevent it from even happening it would be better.

We practice, about 5 times a year, "intruder" drills at my school.  And we practice hiding and we practice getting the f#*k out.  

 
The assistant principal and a social studies teacher at my son's school was at the concert on Sunday night.  The AP got hit with some shrapnel in his back, but his injuries aren't expected to be serious.  It hasn't been reported, but I have heard the AP held a woman in his arms as she died.  I couldn't fathom experiencing that.

 
John Thune’s suggestion for minimizing the number of lives lost in mass shootings: Try to make the killers miss. SMH...




"Get small"

200w.gif


 
Disarming the citizenry is exactly what people are talking about; and if you didn't get my point,  regimes that brutalize/commit mass murder agains all or part of their citizenry, first disarms them.




Here are the first-world nations which are basically America's peers.  The citizenry of these nations are not armed.  Which of these are being brutalized by their government?

 Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top