Las Vegas shooting: At least 58 dead, 515 injured in Mandalay Bay shooting [Update Post #41]

[s28]

Amazing how quickly the White community both humanises and rationalises these people. No self reflection on the society they live in, the 'values' they uphold and whether they need a Reformation. Meanwhile if it was a Muslim they'd be saying why don't the Muslims root out these people etc etc

 

[Gilly]

Amazing how quickly the White community both humanises and rationalises these people. No self reflection on the society they live in, the 'values' they uphold and whether they need a Reformation. Meanwhile if it was a Muslim they'd be saying why don't the Muslims root out these people etc etc

You always seem very quick to mention white, its like you have to play the victim card every time there is some event. You seem very insecure about your position as a muslim, why would it bother you what the whites are doing/saying. You make strawman arguments and then blame it all on whites, its like an obsession. Why do you let this sort of stuff wind you up so much, why do you even bother with it. All you are doing is drawing more attention to muslims by creating a forum for an argument between muslims and whites. Its like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[s28]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Stephen Paddock carried out a planned shooting rampage and killed at least 58 people in Las Vegas. But that doesn’t make him a terrorist? <a href="https://t.co/sENcYGklkE">pic.twitter.com/sENcYGklkE</a></p>— TRT World (@trtworld) <a href="https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/915596136190054400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 October 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[www787]

You always seem very quick to mention white, its like you have to play the victim card every time there is some event. You seem very insecure about your position as a muslim, why would it bother you what the whites are doing/saying. You make strawman arguments and then blame it all on whites, its like an obsession. Why do you let this sort of stuff wind you up so much, why do you even bother with it. All you are doing is drawing more attention to muslims by creating a forum for an argument between muslims and whites. Its like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the race who had terrorized the world based on color of their skin isn't playing a victim card in a country that has elected certified bigot, racist, and ignorant President.

 

[Gilly]

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the race who had terrorized the world based on color of their skin isn't playing a victim card in a country that has elected certified bigot, racist, and ignorant President.

Don't worry I get it, you hate people who have white skin because they are racist.

 

[www787]

Don't worry I get it, you hate people who have white skin because they are racist.

First, I am not worried.
Second, I do not hate you, I do not even know you. For me to hate you I would have to know you.
Third, I do not hate racists, rather i feel sorry for them because they are ignorant, and no one is born ignorant, you are made into one.

Racism in US is alive and thriving, those are the facts, You must be white and probably do not face it, but non-white people do experience from time to time. and Yes! Trump is a bigot, racist, incompetent, and, not every Trump's supporter is a racist but every racist is a Trump's supporter.

 

[www787]

Don't worry I get it, you hate people who have white skin because they are racist.

And telling anyone to not point out the hypocrisy of media relating how they are portraying different people from different race who has committed mass murder is probably the most ignorant and racist thing to do. Media is probably the most important weapon to sway people minds in a direction they want to. So, please do not tell anyone to stay quiet in matter where the only and the best thing one can do is to point out the hypocrisy as you see it.

 

[Gilly]

And telling anyone to not point out the hypocrisy of media relating how they are portraying different people from different race who has committed mass murder is probably the most ignorant and racist thing to do. Media is probably the most important weapon to sway people minds in a direction they want to. So, please do not tell anyone to stay quiet in matter where the only and the best thing one can do is to point out the hypocrisy as you see it.

Actually I was educating you, the media don't determine what is a terrorist event that is decided by the FBI. The media just report on the information provided by the FBI. Its not up to the media to decide what is and what isn't a terrorist event. The FBI have released a statement on this event and why they have yet to establish if it is indeed a terrorist event, until they know the reasons behind it they simply don't know why he shot all these people. Sometimes when these mass murderers act they make sure everyone knows why they did it and the FBI instantly know if it is terror related but in this instance they don't know. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. This person did not leave any thing to let them know why he did it.

Do you know if he was suffering from some mental disease, was he doing it for political reasons, did he do it for religious reasons, was he ****** off about something else. Seeing how you know why he did it why don't you contact the FBI and let them know.

 

[www787]

Actually I was educating you, the media don't determine what is a terrorist event that is decided by the FBI. The media just report on the information provided by the FBI. Its not up to the media to decide what is and what isn't a terrorist event. The FBI have released a statement on this event and why they have yet to establish if it is indeed a terrorist event, until they know the reasons behind it they simply don't know why he shot all these people. Sometimes when these mass murderers act they make sure everyone knows why they did it and the FBI instantly know if it is terror related but in this instance they don't know. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. This person did not leave any thing to let them know why he did it.

Do you know if he was suffering from some mental disease, was he doing it for political reasons, did he do it for religious reasons, was he ****** off about something else. Seeing how you know why he did it why don't you contact the FBI and let them know.

ha ha ha. Oh Okay, so he is white, so, killing 50+ and 500+ isn't same as terrorism. I get it, white people can't or have never terrorized anyone. Got it Sir.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Actually I was educating you, the media don't determine what is a terrorist event that is decided by the FBI. The media just report on the information provided by the FBI. Its not up to the media to decide what is and what isn't a terrorist event. The FBI have released a statement on this event and why they have yet to establish if it is indeed a terrorist event, until they know the reasons behind it they simply don't know why he shot all these people. Sometimes when these mass murderers act they make sure everyone knows why they did it and the FBI instantly know if it is terror related but in this instance they don't know. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. This person did not leave any thing to let them know why he did it.

Do you know if he was suffering from some mental disease, was he doing it for political reasons, did he do it for religious reasons, was he ****** off about something else. Seeing how you know why he did it why don't you contact the FBI and let them know.

)

Please stop trying to educate others, it's too funny.

Here...

According to Nevada state law, an "act of terrorism" is described as follows: "Any act that involves the use of violence intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41483943

The state law is clear, the definition is clear. According to the defintion, it was an act of terrorism.

 

[Gilly]

ha ha ha. Oh Okay, so he is white, so, killing 50+ and 500+ isn't same as terrorism. I get it, white people can't or have never terrorized anyone. Got it Sir.

No you don't get it, you still need education.

I will give you an example, to you what would be the worse crime. A) A man white burns one copy of the Koran B) A Pakistani man burns eighty copies of the bible.

What would be the outcome if both went to court in Pakistan, have you got the courage to answer this hypothetical question.

 

[Gilly]

)

Please stop trying to educate others, it's too funny.

Here...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41483943

The state law is clear, the definition is clear. According to the defintion, it was an act of terrorism.

As I said.

The incident is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. But authorities were quick to point out that they are not labelling the incident an act of terrorism.

"We do not know what [the gunman's] belief system was at this time," Joseph Lombardo, sheriff of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said Monday. "Right now we believe it is a sole actor, a lone-wolf-type actor, and we have the place under control."
Despite the unprecedented number of casualties, the incident doesn't qualify as terrorism under federal law, which defines terrorism as the "unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

In other words, if we don't know the gunman's motivations, it's too early to call something an act of terrorism.

 

[KingKhanWC]

As I said.

I'm aware of this, investigation is on-going but you have once again failed to grasp a simple point.

The Nevada state law is very clear, according to the law he is a terrorist. But of course nobody expects America to label him as such. They've spent millions demonising one particular group to further their own agenda of looting so dont want to label anyone who is not part of this group as a terrorist. Not everybody is dim mate, only some, usually Islamaphobes and idiotic patriots.

 

[Gilly]

I'm aware of this, investigation is on-going but you have once again failed to grasp a simple point.

The Nevada state law is very clear, according to the law he is a terrorist. But of course nobody expects America to label him as such. They've spent millions demonising one particular group to further their own agenda of looting so dont want to label anyone who is not part of this group as a terrorist. Not everybody is dim mate, only some, usually Islamaphobes and idiotic patriots.

Federal law overrides state law everytime, everyone knows that even children.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Federal law overrides state law everytime, everyone knows that even children.

It was domestic terrorism so need to overide anything.

Do you believe the man is a terrorist having read the state law? Yes or No?

 

[Gilly]

It was domestic terrorism so need to overide anything.

Do you believe the man is a terrorist having read the state law? Yes or No?

Yes under state law it is domestic terrorism.

Do you believe that under federal law it is terrorism? Yes or no?

 

[Robert]

This man cannot be classed as a terrorist as his action had no political motive.

The Unabomber was a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes under state law it is domestic terrorism.

Do you believe that under federal law it is terrorism? Yes or no?

Yes it does.

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(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

But he's A WHITE NON-MUSLIM. How can America then justify their own state terrorism if they publically start labelling non-Muslims as terrorists.

 

[KingKhanWC]

This man cannot be classed as a terrorist as his action had no political motive.

The Unabomber was a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

Both state and federal laws do not state it has to be politcally motived. You are just using one definition which is actually not offical.

 

[James]

Given the definition of Nevada state law provided by KKWC, no doubt this heinous act would be described as terrorism, however this is admittedly an unusual definition of terrorism - generally, definitions would include there being a political, religious or ideological angle to the act. There may well have been this of course, we just don't know yet.

 

[Gilly]

Yes it does.



But he's A WHITE NON-MUSLIM. How can America then justify their own state terrorism if they publically start labelling non-Muslims as terrorists.

How does it qualify under domestic terrorism, just want your reasoning on it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

How does it qualify under domestic terrorism, just want your reasoning on it.

You asked for the federal defintion which I have provided under CHAPTER 113B—TERRORISM. 5A or 5Bi both confirm this.

 

[Gilly]

You asked for the federal defintion which I have provided under CHAPTER 113B—TERRORISM. 5A or 5Bi both confirm this.

So if it ends up he was mentally sick ( brain tumor for instance) will it still qualify as terrorism.

 

[www787]

No you don't get it, you still need education.

I will give you an example, to you what would be the worse crime. A) A man white burns one copy of the Koran B) A Pakistani man burns eighty copies of the bible.

What would be the outcome if both went to court in Pakistan, have you got the courage to answer this hypothetical question.

Stop playing dumb, You already know the answer of your own question. Obviously a person white person would be punished, discriminatory.

Courageous enough to say as it is, compare to you, who get uptight whenever it comes defending a Caucasian, who has committed the worse crime against humanity. You aren't responsible for the Caucasian race.

Below is the perfect example of bias, hypocrite Media. Enjoy the show

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nV5fXPVeZoQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=52&v=nV5fXPVeZoQ

 

[www787]

Stop playing dumb, You already know the answer of your own question. Obviously a person white person would be punished, discriminatory.

Courageous enough to say as it is, compare to you, who get uptight whenever it comes defending a Caucasian, who has committed the worse crime against humanity. You aren't responsible for the Caucasian race.

Below is the perfect example of bias, hypocrite Media. Enjoy the show

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nV5fXPVeZoQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=52&v=nV5fXPVeZoQ

and if you have issue for a non-white person raising relevant points, then i can try finding you a white person raising the same points. Between the host is half white.

 

[Gilly]

and if you have issue for a non-white person raising relevant points, then i can try finding you a white person raising the same points. Between the host is half white.

You still don't get it do you,

Its not about the color of the person, its the reasons behind the act. You are just fixated on his color.

They don't know why he did this, its not about skin color its about reasons, I don't know why he did it, you don't know why he did it, no one knows why he did it.

When they know the reason why then they can label it, usually when someone commits a crime like this the make it known why they did it so they can label it very quickly but this man did not leave and clues as to why he did it.

For you its all about the skin color and having the opportunity to scream and shout racism.

 

[www787]

You still don't get it do you,

Its not about the color of the person, its the reasons behind the act. You are just fixated on his color.

They don't know why he did this, its not about skin color its about reasons, I don't know why he did it, you don't know why he did it, no one knows why he did it.

When they know the reason why then they can label it, usually when someone commits a crime like this the make it known why they did it so they can label it very quickly but this man did not leave and clues as to why he did it.

For you its all about the skin color and having the opportunity to scream and shout racism.

You are white, and you would not understand "white privilege" in US, not any other country, but US, which was perfectly defined by Mr. Noah in his show. Enjoy the show.

 

[KingKhanWC]

So if it ends up he was mentally sick ( brain tumor for instance) will it still qualify as terrorism.

Considering the amount of planning which took place, it would be hard to pass off as being mentality ill or unstable. A cold heart terrorist fits fine with me.

 

[Gilly]

Considering the amount of planning which took place, it would be hard to pass off as being mentality ill or unstable. A cold heart terrorist fits fine with me.

I see that when the question gets to hard to answer you just avoid it but I will try one more time.

What was the reason this man killed so many people, can you answer that question?.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I see that when the question gets to hard to answer you just avoid it but I will try one more time.

What was the reason this man killed so many people, can you answer that question?.

I've just given you the answer if you bothered to read properly. Imo from what I've read, he was a cold hearted killer/terrorist. He wanted to kill as many people as he could before taking his own life. Unless more evidence appears regarding his motive , I will stick to this. He terrorised thousands of people taking many lives. No motive can undo or make sense of what he did.

 

[Gilly]

I've just given you the answer if you bothered to read properly. Imo from what I've read, he was a cold hearted killer/terrorist. He wanted to kill as many people as he could before taking his own life. Unless more evidence appears regarding his motive , I will stick to this. He terrorised thousands of people taking many lives. No motive can undo or make sense of what he did.

There are many cold hearted killers in America, white cold hearted killers strike in the US every day, under your reasoning they are all terrorists.

 

[KingKhanWC]

There are many cold hearted killers in America, white cold hearted killers strike in the US every day, under your reasoning they are all terrorists.

It's not my reasoning but the laws, which I have provided references too. But you carry on making excuses for this man not being a terrorist.

 

[Gilly]

It's not my reasoning but the laws, which I have provided references too. But you carry on making excuses for this man not being a terrorist.

You are being very ignorant, I'm not making excuses for this man not being a terrorist. The FBI are trying establish what his motives were and why he did this and at this moment they have no idea. When they are in a position to make determination they will classify his crime.

Just like when the police attend to a body found somewhere they have to gather all the available evidence to establish if it is a murder, suicide or death due to natural causes. Until they gather their evidence they keep an open mind.

That's all that is happening here they are gathering the evidence so they can make an informed judgement, nothing unusual about it and completely normal and sensible.

 

[Yossarian]

So if it ends up he was mentally sick ( brain tumor for instance) will it still qualify as terrorism.

A mentally sick person (eg due to a brain tumor) is able to meticulously plan mass murder that involved him buying/owning approx 60 guns, adding scopes to some whilst modifying many of them to turn them effectively into machine guns, hiring a hotel room at a perfect vantage point on the 32nd floor, taking 30 of the guns, plus thousands of rounds of ammunition to the room, hooking up cameras in the hallway outside the room, as well as in the bedroom door to see if anyone is approaching, and then meticulously proceed to start shooting? And you think it might all be because he's mentally sick?

 

[Gilly]

A mentally sick person (eg due to a brain tumor) is able to meticulously plan mass murder that involved him buying/owning approx 60 guns, adding scopes to some whilst modifying many of them to turn them effectively into machine guns, hiring a hotel room at a perfect vantage point on the 32nd floor, taking 30 of the guns, plus thousands of rounds of ammunition to the room, hooking up cameras in the hallway outside the room, as well as in the bedroom door to see if anyone is approaching, and then meticulously proceed to start shooting? And you think it might all be because he's mentally sick?

I wouldent have a clue, I have no expertise in mental sicknesses. I know mentally deranged people can plan complex crimes like taking hostages.

Why is there such a hurry to classify him as a terrorist, it changes nothing and what harm will be done?. Why do the FBI suddenly have to change their methodology.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You are being very ignorant, I'm not making excuses for this man not being a terrorist. The FBI are trying establish what his motives were and why he did this and at this moment they have no idea. When they are in a position to make determination they will classify his crime.

Just like when the police attend to a body found somewhere they have to gather all the available evidence to establish if it is a murder, suicide or death due to natural causes. Until they gather their evidence they keep an open mind.

That's all that is happening here they are gathering the evidence so they can make an informed judgement, nothing unusual about it and completely normal and sensible.

If this was a brown Muslim you'd be fine with labelling him a terrorist before any conclusion of any investigation. He's white so just like many others, it pains you to lable him a terrorist. You're not fooling anyone Gilly.

 

[Yossarian]

It's not my reasoning but the laws, which I have provided references too. But you carry on making excuses for this man not being a terrorist.

Remember the Kandahar massacre where soldier Staff Sergeant Robert Bales murdered sixteen civilians, including nine children, with eleven of the dead being from the same family, and some of the corpses being partially burned?

It is thought that Bales departed the base before midnight, committed the murders in Alkozai, then returned to the base around 1:30 a.m. Bales then departed the base at 2:30 a.m. and committed the murders in Najiban.

They also initially tried to claim that it was all due to stress, with one claim being that it was as a result of marital problems.

Even though he was eventually found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, his attorney stated "We won the case when we got the death penalty off the table".
Presumably because a mitigating factor of 'metal illness' must have partly accepted?

Defense attorneys had contended that Bales carried out the killings after suffering a breakdown under the pressure of the last of his four deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. They said he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury even before shipping off to Kandahar province.

“We won the case when we got the death penalty off the table,” John Henry Browne, one of Bales’ attorneys, said in a statement after the sentence was handed down, adding the defense would mount an automatic appeal.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ets-life-without-parole-idUSBRE97L0YV20130824

 

[Gilly]

If this was a brown Muslim you'd be fine with labelling him a terrorist before any conclusion of any investigation. He's white so just like many others, it pains you to lable him a terrorist. You're not fooling anyone Gilly.

What difference would it make to me if he called a terrorist, this is what I don't get, something in your mind is telling you I don't want him to be labelled a terrorist. Mate I'm 14,000km away and it has no impact on me whatsoever. Do you think that all us whites had a secret meeting and decided that we wont call anyone white a terrorist. Your paranoia about whites is glowing.

 

[Yossarian]

I wouldent have a clue, I have no expertise in mental sicknesses. I know mentally deranged people can plan complex crimes like taking hostages.

Why is there such a hurry to classify him as a terrorist, it changes nothing and what harm will be done?. Why do the FBI suddenly have to change their methodology.

So on that basis, if, god forbid, another individual with a 'Muslim name' commits murder (In my book, he would not be a 'Muslim' if he deliberately killed innocents), you'd agree that no one should label it as terrorism until/unless facts are clearly established, and to automatically label it as 'suspected terrorism' before facts are established just because the killer happened to have a Muslim name would be wrong?

 

[Gilly]

So on that basis, if, god forbid, another individual with a 'Muslim name' commits murder (In my book, he would not be a 'Muslim' if he deliberately killed innocents), you'd agree that no one should label it as terrorism until/unless facts are clearly established, and to automatically label it as 'suspected terrorism' before facts are established just because the killer happened to have a Muslim name would be wrong?

Completely agree, nothing on a laptop, no manifestos, no indications of connection to a group, background clean, just seems logical to wait until something points to a reason.

 

[Yossarian]

What difference would it make to me if he called a terrorist, this is what I don't get, something in your mind is telling you I don't want him to be labelled a terrorist. Mate I'm 14,000km away and it has no impact on me whatsoever. Do you think that all us whites had a secret meeting and decided that we wont call anyone white a terrorist. Your paranoia about whites is glowing.

It wouldn't make any difference to you personally I agree.
However, if the authorities used the same criteria for those killers who happen to have a Muslim name before the facts are clearly established (note how each time its 'suspected terrorism' as soon as it looks as if the killer has a Muslim name or appears to be a Muslim according to some other way), then this would not be an issue. However, it's the double standards, and the drip drip effect of it all that results in Islamophobia spreading and affecting anyone and everyone with a Muslim name.

 

[www787]

It’s not about what authority says, it’s about how a colored skin man is labeled a terroris within minutes , a black person stopped by cop and killed is labeled immediately as a drug dealer, it is a norm in US. If you don’t live in US then please stop preaching. And if it offends you that a white person terrorized over 2200 people in one night then it is your problem but please do not tell anyone that “white privileged” does not exist in US. It is there and thriving and if you can’t see them you are “white”. Simple and plain, don’t need to get offended by the obvious facts.

 

[Gilly]

It wouldn't make any difference to you personally I agree.
However, if the authorities used the same criteria for those killers who happen to have a Muslim name before the facts are clearly established (note how each time its 'suspected terrorism' as soon as it looks as if the killer has a Muslim name or appears to be a Muslim according to some other way), then this would not be an issue. However, it's the double standards, and the drip drip effect of it all that results in Islamophobia spreading and affecting anyone and everyone with a Muslim name.

If the FBI were labelling muslims that are not terrorists as terrorists then I would agree with you, I personally have not come across this, maybe you can provide a link or inform me of instances where this has happened. Usually islamic terrorists dont hide their religion which of course makes it quicker for the FBI to identify their motives. Do you agree that terrorists like to make it known why they have committed a crime.

 

[Yossarian]

If the FBI were labelling muslims that are not terrorists as terrorists then I would agree with you,.....

They may subsequently have been confirmed as being terrorists once the full facts had been established, but so often it's a case of "Islamic terrorists" or "suspected Islamic terrorists" as an immediate reaction as soon as if it looks like someone with a Middle Easter name or Muslim name, before knowing for definite who it is and what their motives are.

And in case you're going to go just by the fact that the likes of Isis have claimed responsibility, well Isis have done the same in this instance, but dismissed.

...I personally have not come across this, maybe you can provide a link or inform me of instances where this has happened. Usually islamic terrorists dont hide their religion which of course makes it quicker for the FBI to identify their motives. Do you agree that terrorists like to make it known why they have committed a crime.

And there it is again. A perfect example. Exactly the point I'm making. "Usually islamic terrorists dont hide their religion". Well, more often than not, they're already dead before the authorities have clearly established their motives (as in this case), and yet straight away after any atrocity, as mentioned above, it's "suspected Islamic terrorist" or just "Islamic terrorist" before the full facts are established.


Basically, if it doesn't appear as if Muslim's are involved, it's a case of "lets establish the facts first", whereas in the case of someone appearing to be a Muslim, it's a case of "lets assume they are Islamic terrorists until we can prove otherwise"

Surely even you can see that? Or maybe you can't because you're not at the receiving end of Islamophobia.

 

[Gilly]

They may subsequently have been confirmed as being terrorists once the full facts had been established, but so often it's a case of "Islamic terrorists" or "suspected Islamic terrorists" as an immediate reaction as soon as if it looks like someone with a Middle Easter name or Muslim name, before knowing for definite who it is and what their motives are.

And in case you're going to go just by the fact that the likes of Isis have claimed responsibility, well Isis have done the same in this instance, but dismissed.

And there it is again. A perfect example. Exactly the point I'm making. "Usually islamic terrorists dont hide their religion". Well, more often than not, they're already dead before the authorities have clearly established their motives (as in this case), and yet straight away after any atrocity, as mentioned above, it's "suspected Islamic terrorist" or just "Islamic terrorist" before the full facts are established.


Basically, if it doesn't appear as if Muslim's are involved, it's a case of "lets establish the facts first", whereas in the case of someone appearing to be a Muslim, it's a case of "lets assume they are Islamic terrorists until we can prove otherwise"

Surely even you can see that? Or maybe you can't because you're not at the receiving end of Islamophobia.

Do you think that when they found this man dead in his room he had white supremist books or other paraphernalia they would have immediately labelled him a terrorist.

Do you agree with me that terrorists often make it obvious that they are doing it for a cause.

No I have no been on the receiving end of islamophobia but I have been subjected to racial abuse many times.

 

[sjahmed23]

It's the media's fault. The media vindicates these shooters by giving them, their family and neighbors 24/7 coversge for 7 days straight (after that everyone forgets and moves on). Now the entire world cares about who steven paddock was and what he did. There should be a media gag on revealing identity of these mad murderers, they should not be in the front of news papers.

 

[Syed1]

Do you think that when they found this man dead in his room he had white supremist books or other paraphernalia they would have immediately labelled him a terrorist.

Do you agree with me that terrorists often make it obvious that they are doing it for a cause.

No I have no been on the receiving end of islamophobia but I have been subjected to racial abuse many times.

A white guy complaining about racial abuse... that's a first

 

[s28]

love white guys complaining about 'reverse racism'

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dw_mRaIHb-M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Yossarian]

Do you think that when they found this man dead in his room he had white supremist books or other paraphernalia they would have immediately labelled him a terrorist.

There you go again. Completely ignoring the point made. I said "before knowing for definite who it is and what their motives are". Sure, when they do find out who it is, where they live, search the premises and find the material you refer to, fair enough. But I'm referring to the immediate aftermath of an attack or incident, when other than perhaps the colour of the skin, or a Middle East looking appearance, there is no idea who it is or where they're from, but "Islamic terrorists" and "suspected Islamic terrorists" is the message that goes out.

Do you agree with me that terrorists often make it obvious that they are doing it for a cause.

Yes. Once the identity is known, and motives are fully established, as in this instance. But the same is not true if the individual has a Muslim sounding name or Middle Eastern appearance. And that is the point you appear not to see.

No I have no been on the receiving end of islamophobia but I have been subjected to racial abuse many times.

Please elaborate. Not saying you're not been subjected, but I'd like to hear what and from whom, and whether it's lurking somewhere in the background in everyday life as in the case of Islamophobia.

 

[s28]

Let's get this straight if you deny Stephen Paddock is a terrorist you can dress it up however you want with sophisticant language but you're basically saying 'White people can't be terrorists' and you're a White Supremacist

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I’ll just say it. Stephen Paddock was a terrorist. There, I said it. Anyone else’s care to cross over to reality?</p>— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo/status/915702536509820929?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 October 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Slog]

So on that basis, if, god forbid, another individual with a 'Muslim name' commits murder (In my book, he would not be a 'Muslim' if he deliberately killed innocents), you'd agree that no one should label it as terrorism until/unless facts are clearly established, and to automatically label it as 'suspected terrorism' before facts are established just because the killer happened to have a Muslim name would be wrong?

to be honest the orlando attacker was not deemed a terrorist until well after (maybe officially he wasnt ever)

talking about official agencies here.

 

[Gayle_Force]

I think it is unfortunate that rather than focusing on the core issues the discussion has been diverted to petty things like what the killer should be labeled.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

I think it is unfortunate that rather than focusing on the core issues the discussion has been diverted to petty things like what the killer should be labeled.

It is america's core issue, the south asians have their own set of problems to worry about rather than discussing america's core issue, we'll discuss it from our perspective and things that matter more to us. The label of killer is surely of more importance to us than what and why the people were killed. Americans can worry about that

 

[Gayle_Force]

It is america's core issue, the south asians have their own set of problems to worry about rather than discussing america's core issue, we'll discuss it from our perspective and things that matter more to us. The label of killer is surely of more importance to us than what and why the people were killed. Americans can worry about that

So as a South Asian Muslim (which i am also btw), you will be fully satisfied If tomorrow the American media and government come out and label this guy a terrorist?

 

[ToeCrusher2]

So as a South Asian Muslim (which i am also btw), you will be fully satisfied If tomorrow the American media and government come out and label this guy a terrorist?

I don't really care tbh, since I am not a muslim, but if I was a muslim, I would definitely be satisfied with that, people getting killed in america by an american nutter are none of my concern but yeah if I was a muslim I would want him to be labelled as a terrorist as that part definitely would affect me.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So as a South Asian Muslim (which i am also btw), you will be fully satisfied If tomorrow the American media and government come out and label this guy a terrorist?

I don't think the poster you are addressing is a South Asian Muslim.

 

[Gayle_Force]

I don't really care tbh, since I am not a muslim, but if I was a muslim, I would definitely be satisfied with that, people getting killed in america by an american nutter are none of my concern but yeah if I was a muslim I would want him to be labelled as a terrorist as that part definitely would affect me.

That's fine, IMHO the Muslim community(including myself) will benefit more by showing support to those hurt in this incident rather than getting into a petty debate about what this guy should be labeled.

 

[www787]

So as a South Asian Muslim (which i am also btw), you will be fully satisfied If tomorrow the American media and government come out and label this guy a terrorist?

What i gather from your post is that you are underestimating the influence Media has on people's daily lives, especially western world.

Media is the most powerful weapon for unjust war and for spreading the peace. And, the narrative on media by government, anchor, and pundits matter to the point it molds the view of their audience towards those who they have never met.

Do not underestimate the power of the "narrative" by the President or any government official and the Media.

 

[Gayle_Force]

What i gather from your post is that you are underestimating the influence Media has on people's daily lives, especially western world.

Media is the most powerful weapon for unjust war and for spreading the peace. And, the narrative on media by government, anchor, and pundits matter to the point it molds the view of their audience towards those who they have never met.

Do not underestimate the power of the "narrative" by the President or any government official and the Media.

I am not underestimating the power of the media but I just don't understand the fascination some people here have with putting a label on this guy. I don't understand what the muslim community gains If the the American media labels this guy a terrorist?

However, I do think that during this time engaging in a debate about what to call this guy rather than showing support for the victims actually hurts our image considerably.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I am not underestimating the power of the media but I just don't understand the fascination some people here have with putting a label on this guy. I don't understand what the muslim community gains If the the American media labels this guy a terrorist?

However, I do think that during this time engaging in a debate about what to call this guy rather than showing support for the victims actually hurts our image considerably.

It only takes a moment o pass your condonlences, not sure what else you want Muslims do? Go on a month of mourning?

It's important every time to point out these double standards, as when some who claims to be a Muslim kills people he/she is labelled a terrorist by the media almost immediately. This then has a backlash where Muslims are attacked in response. This is demonisation for Geo-political agendas not caring about how ordinary Muslims will be affected.

 

[Gayle_Force]

It only takes a moment o pass your condonlences, not sure what else you want Muslims do? Go on a month of mourning?

It's important every time to point out these double standards, as when some who claims to be a Muslim kills people he/she is labelled a terrorist by the media almost immediately. This then has a backlash where Muslims are attacked in response. This is demonisation for Geo-political agendas not caring about how ordinary Muslims will be affected.

So labelling this guy as a terrorist would result in Muslims not receiving any backlash when some radical group using the Muslim name carries out an attack?

Muslims, specially American Muslims, can certainly do alot more than offer condolences. Creating such a debate not even fa few days after the incident makes it look like that we as Muslims are cashing in on an opportunity rather than offering genuine condolences (this thread is a great example of that).

 

[KingKhanWC]

So labelling this guy as a terrorist would result in Muslims not receiving any backlash when some radical group using the Muslim name carries out an attack?

Muslims, specially American Muslims, can certainly do alot more than offer condolences. Creating such a debate not even fa few days after the incident makes it look like that we as Muslims are cashing in on an opportunity rather than offering genuine condolences (this thread is a great example of that).

No it wouldn't but over time if every act of mass murder against innocent civliians was to be called an act of terrorism, the governments couldn't then easily justify bombing and invading to root out terrorism as people would suggest there are plenty within the borders. Deal with them too in such harsh terms but since the governments wont, the people would hopefully wake up and reaslise this is just to further imperial agendas.

Nothing wrong with using this to create a debate. I dont know why you think it is wrong.

 

[Specialisttailender]

If this was a brown Muslim you'd be fine with labelling him a terrorist before any conclusion of any investigation. He's white so just like many others, it pains you to lable him a terrorist. You're not fooling anyone Gilly.

Gay Night club shooting is being seen as a mass shooting, brown, Muslim man committed the crime. While it is disgusting that the media forgot about then US' biggest terrorist act since they were all gays. It is not seen as a "terrorist" act.

 

[Abdullah719]

Las Vegas hotel sues mass shooting victims

New York: The owner of the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas has filed federal lawsuits against more than 1000 victims of the mass shooting that killed 58 people last year.

Casino giant MGM Resorts International, which owns the Mandalay Bay and the Route 91 Harvest festival venue, does not seek any money from the victims but has asked a court to find that the company has "no liability of any kind".

The case has been labelled "outrageous" and "verging on unethical" by a lawyer for some of the victims.

Gunman Stephen Paddock opened fire on the Route 91 festival crowd from his room at the Mandalay Bay hotel on October 1, killing 58 people and injuring dozens in the worst mass shooting in US history.

In complaints filed in Nevada and California, MGM cites a 2002 federal act that extends liability protection to any company that uses "anti-terrorism" technology or services that can "help prevent and respond to mass violence", the Las Vegas Review Journal reported.

The act was introduced after September 11 as part of efforts to provide incentives for development and deployment of anti-terrorism technology.

In the complaints, MGM has asked that a judge decide if the 2002 act is applicable, and if so, determine that it is exempt from any civil lawsuits.

The company argues that the security vendor MGM hired for Route 91, Contemporary Services Corporation, was protected from liability because its services had been certified by the Department of Homeland Security for "protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction".

Debra DeShong, a spokeswoman for MGM Resorts, defended the case.

"Years of drawn out litigation and hearings are not in the best interest of victims, the community and those still healing," she said in a statement.

However, Las Vegas lawyer Robert Eglet, who has represented several victims, said the case "verges on unethical".

He said the grounds of the litigation are "obscure" and MGM's decision to use the 2002 federal law, and therefore file the case in a federal court, is a "blatant display of judge shopping".

"I’ve never seen a more outrageous thing, where they sue the victims in an effort to find a judge they like," he told the Las Vegas Review Journal. "It’s just really sad that they would stoop to this level."

Lawsuits have been filed by victims' groups against both MGM and concert promoter Live Nation.

The FBI has not been able to ascertain Paddock's motive for the mass shooting and therefore haven't labelled it a terrorist act.

However, the 2002 act uses a broad definition of terrorist acts that includes mass shootings.

Paddock killed himself before police arrived on scene.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...es-mass-shooting-victims-20180718-p4zs22.html