Las Vegas: Worst Mass Shooting in US History

[Jinglin Joe]

Why the **** does it matter whether it is "terrorism" or not? The people who were killed aren't any more or less dead either way.

The only difference I can see is when a "terrorist" attack occurs our government enacts policies to try to counteract it, and when it is not we throw our arms in the air and claim nothing can be done.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

Exactly.

The word "terrorism" has been used as a political tool more than anything else.
Intuitively, it makes sense that anything that causes terror is terrorism. Simple.
Putting a religious or political qualifier to it is clearly by design. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[Zombie]

I mean, in general having more information on why people do things is beneficial. It can help you prevent things in the future.

Mass murders being terrorism or not is pretty inconsequential when it comes to gun reform though. Gun reform is needed either way.

And I just find it annoying when people try to change the definitions of words to the point where everyone has their own unique definition and it becomes this completely subjective/meaningless thing. I think the label of terrorist/terrorism is pretty cut and dry and not all that subjective.

I hear what you're saying here and I agree with you in the sense that the profile of a religious or political terrorist would be different than a mass shooter.

But we're not the ****ing FBI, we are not going to be tracking these **** heads down. It seems to me that drawing this kind of distinction in public discourse only serves to minimize what we can do in one instance and heighten the need to do something in the other. It drives me ****ing nuts.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Exactly.

The word "terrorism" has been used as a political tool more than anything else.
Intuitively, it makes sense that anything that causes terror is terrorism. Simple.
Putting a religious or political qualifier to it is clearly by design. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

So because people have misused the word, then it's OK for everyone to misuse it and assign their own definitions how they see fit?

This makes no sense.

 

[Zombie]

I hear what you're saying here and I agree with you in the sense that the profile of a religious or political terrorist would be different than a mass shooter.

But we're not the ****ing FBI, we are not going to be tracking these **** heads down. It seems to me that drawing this kind of distinction in public discourse only serves to minimize what we can do in one instance and heighten the need to do something in the other. It drives me ****ing nuts.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

I want to be clear, that's not what I think you are doing here.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[♪alt13]

that's exactly what i'm saying. so let's quit changing it and stick to the most basic definition - something which causes terror.

No.

First the basic definition of terrorism is

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Second

Terrorism is responded to very differently than say a "lone wolf" mass shooter, and for good reason. Think about it. You aren't going to stop the next lone wolf mass shooter by embedding an undercover agent with this guy's contacts. With a terrorist you just might. Some mass killings are terrorism and some aren't. Not calling a mass murder terrorism doesn't make it less horrific.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I hear what you're saying here and I agree with you in the sense that the profile of a religious or political terrorist would be different than a mass shooter.

But we're not the ****ing FBI, we are not going to be tracking these **** heads down. It seems to me that drawing this kind of distinction in public discourse only serves to minimize what we can do in one instance and heighten the need to do something in the other. It drives me ****ing nuts.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

How? By asking people to use the correct terminology and to think through things? By asking people not to jump to conclusions until information comes out?

And yes, making distinctions is important. Being an informed society is important.

 

[Jinglin Joe]

So because people have misused the word, then it's OK for everyone to misuse it and assign their own definitions how they see fit?

Sure, I guess if you want. Personally I don't use it at all, aside from discussion like this.
Due to the misuse, it's become kinda like this generation's N word and it applies to brown people instead of black people.
An act of 'terrorism' is grounds for government action, discrimination, racial profiling, selective monitoring, torture, etc.
TBH i'm surprised we haven't come to a "3/5ths compromise" or somethin yet for Americans with middle eastern ancestry yet.

 

[Jinglin Joe]

No.

First the basic definition of terrorism is

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Second

Terrorism is responded to very differently than say a "lone wolf" mass shooter, and for good reason. Think about it. You aren't going to stop the next lone wolf mass shooter by embedding an undercover agent with this guy's contacts. With a terrorist you just might. Some mass killings are terrorism and some aren't. Not calling a mass murder terrorism doesn't make it less horrific.

so according to this definition, the US military/armed forces commits terrorism. gotcha.
that awkward moment when u realize #SupportOurTroops turns into #SupportOurTerrorists

 

[Zombie]

How? By asking people to use the correct terminology and to think through things? By asking people not to jump to conclusions until information comes out?

And yes, making distinctions is important. Being an informed society is important.

Sure. In theory I agree with you. In practice though, in modern American politics this is not how it works at all.

After a terrorist tries to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb we all take our shoes off before boarding a plane, when a terrorist immigrates from Uzbekistan and drives into some people in NYC the president calls for banning all immigrants from that country. When a white guy shoots up a church NOTHING ****ING HAPPENS.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Sure, I guess if you want. Personally I don't use it at all, aside from discussion like this.
Due to the misuse, it's become kinda like this generation's N word and it applies to brown people instead of black people.
An act of 'terrorism' is grounds for government action, discrimination, racial profiling, selective monitoring, torture, etc.
TBH i'm surprised we haven't come to a "3/5ths compromise" or somethin yet for Americans with middle eastern ancestry yet.

The misuse has led to the word terrorist being linked, in the mind of the average American, with Muslim but it's not the reason that stuff happened. All that stuff happened because a giant terrorist attack happened and people got real scared. Then the American government used that fear to strip back rights of all American citizens and engage in never ending war.

 

[Archie Moses]

When a white guy shoots up a church NOTHING ****ING HAPPENS.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

Curious as to what you think should happen?
Btw, this is the second church shooting to happen in 3 months.

 

[Jinglin Joe]

The misuse has led to the word terrorist being linked, in the mind of the average American, with Muslim but it's not the reason that stuff happened. All that stuff happened because a giant terrorist attack happened and people got real scared. Then the American government used that fear to strip back rights of all American citizens and engage in never ending war.

your timeline here starts with a "giant terrorist attack" when in reality, it goes back way further than 2001.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Sure. In theory I agree with you. In practice though, in modern American politics this is not how it works at all.

After a terrorist tries to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb we all take our shoes off before boarding a plane, when a terrorist immigrates from Uzbekistan and drives into some people in NYC the president calls for banning all immigrants from that country. When a white guy shoots up a church NOTHING ****ING HAPPENS.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

Because the NRA is very strong. Do you really think if a Muslim committed a mass shooting with a gun (this may have already happened at some point, idk, there are so many of these things now) then all the sudden sweeping gun reform would happen?

And even on the immigration ban, the biggest importer of terrorist, Saudia Arabia, isn't even on the ban list. All of this stuff is very corrupt in nature. These people aren't actually concerned for the American people, they just want to look good (appease to Americans fear of Islamic terrorism) but they arent going to do **** that ****s with their pockets (going against Saudia Arabia).

It's the same thing with gun control. Just go look at how many politicians the NRA pays off.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

your timeline here starts with a "giant terrorist attack" when in reality, it goes back way further than 2001.

What misuses of the term where there pre-9/11?

Were people giving Timothy McVeigh a pass because he was white? Pretty sure it was unanimous in agreement he was a terrorist.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

And for the record, I really don't know much about the media's use of "terrorism" pre-9/11. I know it was used much less frequently and there wasnt as much controversy over it as there is now. But I'm pretty sure before 9/11 the thing that was most synonymous with terrorism was the OKC bombing, though I may be wrong on that.

 

[Zombie]

Because the NRA is very strong. Do you really think if a Muslim committed a mass shooting with a gun (this may have already happened at some point, idk, there are so many of these things now) then all the sudden sweeping gun reform would happen?

And even on the immigration ban, the biggest importer of terrorist, Saudia Arabia, isn't even on the ban list. All of this stuff is very corrupt in nature. These people aren't actually concerned for the American people, they just want to look good (appease to Americans fear of Islamic terrorism) but they arent going to do **** that ****s with their pockets (going against Saudia Arabia).

It's the same thing with gun control. Just go look at how many politicians the NRA pays off.

Yeah I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree here. Moneyed interests are at the root of why real change has not, and likely will not occur with regard to the seemingly weekly violence that breaks out in this country.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Jinglin Joe]

And for the record, I really don't know much about the media's use of "terrorism" pre-9/11. I know it was used much less frequently and there wasnt as much controversy over it as there is now. But I'm pretty sure before 9/11 the thing that was most synonymous with terrorism was the OKC bombing, though I may be wrong on that.

Well yeah. It's pretty complicated and ugly. You have to go back quite some time and think about the very first time when the US gover-lskjfsedjaaahahhahhh waitgsdfsdddfs[ [REDACTED]

---

This account has now been seized by the NSA.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Yeah I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree here. Moneyed interests are at the root of why real change has not, and likely will not occur with regard to the seemingly weekly violence that breaks out in this country.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

I remembered now, the terrorist attack that happened a few years back in California. A Muslim couple gunned and bombed a place, and still there were no gun reforms.

So yeah, I'm pretty confident the NRA would stand pat in their ways through any kind of attack. I mean, hell, Sandy Hook happened and they didnt do anything. I don't think it can get anymore ****ed up than that.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Well yeah. It's pretty complicated and ugly. You have to go back quite some time and think about the very first time when the US gover-lskjfsedjaaahahhahhh waitgsdfsdddfs[ [REDACTED]

---

This account has now been seized by the NSA.

So you don't know of any misuse in the media in that time period is what you are saying...

 

[Zombie]

I remembered now, the terrorist attack that happened a few years back in California. A Muslim couple gunned and bombed a place, and still there were no gun reforms.

So yeah, I'm pretty confident the NRA would stand pat in their ways through any kind of attack. I mean, hell, Sandy Hook happened and they didnt do anything. I don't think it can get anymore ****ed up than that.

Yeah, San Bernardino. I think the story there was that the couple was radicalized online, although they had no direct contact with any terrorist orgs (like the Orlando attack). I'm not sure how much I buy that, but there it is.

It's hard not to have a defeatist attitude after Sandy Hook, I mean, if a bunch of dead elementary kids didn't change things it's hard to imagine what could.
On the other hand, the only way to ensure nothing will really change is to give up the fight.



Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app