Stephen Paddock: Is he a terrorist? Why or why not?

[Pogo]

It's not about the amount of bodies (although the Vegas carnage is staggering), it's about the intent and motivation. Bill Ayers was a terrorist and he is only responsible for the deaths of four or five people (as far as we know). Let's hope there is enough of Paddock's brain left to determine if he was suffering from mental illness although it seems unlikely since the mass shooting was so well planned. It will be interesting to find out where the automatic weapon came from.

Actually it will be pointless. Given that such automatic weapons EXIST, those who seek them will find a way to get them.

What would on the other hand actually be interesting is to find out where his motivation came from. As if we don't already know.

And as far as that goes --- for the gun fetishist it actually IS about the number of bodies. That's what they're going for.

The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.

If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

The distinction is that this was the largest mass shooting in US history and the poster whittled that down to "mass murder".

The distinction matters. There's a distinct difference between "mass shooting" and "murder". Murder is actually a side effect and not the end goal in either of these cases. McVeigh was out to attack the government, via a symbol, not specifically to kill a list of people personally. The LV shooter, like all mass shooters, isn't out to murder someone personally. Their targets are random, whoever happens to be available. The latter are out specifically for carnage. For the feeling of power over helpless victims running for their lives. Doesn't matter who they are personally, that's not the point. The whole point is the power trip.

That's why mass shooters are virtually always male. It's both a gun culture issue and a masculinity issue. Deadly combination, and yesterday is the latest result.

That's why I point out that for such a shooter, it very much is about the body count. The more bodies you can take down, the more power you had in that final few minutes of your worthless life.

 

[Pogo]

Yes.

He was also a muslim, apparently.

I seriously doubt that.

He converted to Islam months ago and was in communication with ISIS according to them.

According to ISIS - a terrorist group with zero credibility on the matter.

Thus far there is zero evidence backing this up. Of course ISIS wants this accredited to them - it will dominate the news for months and is going to be repeated over and over again as the worst shooting ever.

It's mind-boggling how many Gullibles just line up to swallow discredible opportunist sources if it fits their message board agenda, whether it's DAESH, Adolf Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan ---- suddenly they become pure as the driven snow and would never sink to opportunistic dishonesty or false propaganda.

 

[Asclepias]

Was this an act of terror?

If it created terror and was intended to create terror among civilians for some political/ideological purpose then it is an act of terrorism IMO.

The shooting in Las Vegas seems to meet this criteria, IMO.

You can create terror without being a terrorist.

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

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

 

[Mac1958]

Seems to me that the term "terrorism" is as much about motive as it is method.

We don't know his motive yet. If it was meant to intimidate or influence in some direction, yes. If he was just a fucking nut, then no.

It seems to me that if a killer -- mass or individual -- has no means to repeat their actions or no organization that will reinforce them, then that killer is not a terrorist.

For example in the D.C. area we had the "D.C. Sniper" attacks. While the two shooters were at large, they pretty well had people all over the D.C. metro area terrified.

​

Those guys were shooting random people in all sorts of easy locations and there was no way to know whether one'd be the next random target. One of the shooter's motivations weren't political. The other one may have been, but the man penned delusional rantings that included Bin Laden, Saddam, and The Matrix. More likely, he was just crazy.

Repetition and organization are irrelevant. Terrorism is not a vague term even if its application to real world events is not always cut and dry. Terrorism requires a political or social goal that the perpetrator wishes to further through fear. Without that goal there is simply no logical means to declare this a terrorist action.

Well, tell me.

• How terrorized do you feel about a gunman who is dead and there's no apparent other individual who'll take up his cause?
• Why would anyone give a wet rat's ass about considering the political message(s) of such an individual?

Terrorism isn't about individuals, it's about ideology. The individuals are merely soldiers in that "war".

Jihadism, for example. A terrorist who blows himself up to kill dozens is dead, but advances an ideology of terror and intimidation.

Had Tim McVeigh had a bunch of anti-government, copy-cat mass murderers, that would be another example.

So yeah, people like that can terrify because there's probably more on the way. That's the point.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Was this an act of terror?

If it created terror and was intended to create terror among civilians for some political/ideological purpose then it is an act of terrorism IMO.

The shooting in Las Vegas seems to meet this criteria, IMO.

What was this guy's political point?

 

[Crixus]

Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.

Well, I am thinking that folks going to concerts will at some point have to have some hood rat TSA type agent ram a thumb up their ass's when they enter a Garth Brooks concert due to a terrifying act so the perpetrator is by definition a terriorist so yeah he is a terriorist , religion aside, and a successful one at that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Was this an act of terror?

If it created terror and was intended to create terror among civilians for some political/ideological purpose then it is an act of terrorism IMO.

The shooting in Las Vegas seems to meet this criteria, IMO.

What was this guy's political point?

He was apparently a jihadist if ISIS is not lying.

 

[Pogo]

Was this an act of terror?

If it created terror and was intended to create terror among civilians for some political/ideological purpose then it is an act of terrorism IMO.

The shooting in Las Vegas seems to meet this criteria, IMO.

What was this guy's political point?

He was apparently a jihadist if ISIS is not lying.

And DAESH would never do that, right?

Just because they can read the news and figure here's an easy way to get under the Gullibles' skin, just declare "oh --yeah, we did that, that's the ticket".

Apparently to at least some degree they're right.

Dumbass....

 

[Pogo]

Was this an act of terror?

If it created terror and was intended to create terror among civilians for some political/ideological purpose then it is an act of terrorism IMO.

The shooting in Las Vegas seems to meet this criteria, IMO.

You can create terror without being a terrorist.

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

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

Exactly. "Creating terror" is exactly what a mass shooter is doing in the moment, but it's entirely for his own internal fucked-up psychological reasons, not for some external cause.

 

[Moonglow]

Yes.

He was also a muslim, apparently.

I seriously doubt that.

He converted to Islam months ago and was in communication with ISIS according to them.

According to ISIS - a terrorist group with zero credibility on the matter.

Thus far there is zero evidence backing this up. Of course ISIS wants this accredited to them - it will dominate the news for months and is going to be repeated over and over again as the worst shooting ever.

It's mind-boggling how many Gullibles just line up to swallow discredible opportunist sources if it fits their message board agenda, whether it's DAESH, Adolf Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan ---- suddenly they become pure as the driven snow and would never sink to opportunistic dishonesty or false propaganda.

It's all because they get an adrenaline rush when they I spy it, and want to share the high..

 

[Moonglow]

Was this an act of terror?

If it created terror and was intended to create terror among civilians for some political/ideological purpose then it is an act of terrorism IMO.

The shooting in Las Vegas seems to meet this criteria, IMO.

What was this guy's political point?

He was apparently a jihadist if ISIS is not lying.

Just think of Baghdad Bob and think about it...

 

[Richard-H]

It's not about the amount of bodies (although the Vegas carnage is staggering), it's about the intent and motivation. Bill Ayers was a terrorist and he is only responsible for the deaths of four or five people (as far as we know). Let's hope there is enough of Paddock's brain left to determine if he was suffering from mental illness although it seems unlikely since the mass shooting was so well planned. It will be interesting to find out where the automatic weapon came from.

Actually it will be pointless. Given that such automatic weapons EXIST, those who seek them will find a way to get them.

What would on the other hand actually be interesting is to find out where his motivation came from. As if we don't already know.

And as far as that goes --- for the gun fetishist it actually IS about the number of bodies. That's what they're going for.

The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.

If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

Security has evolved since the Oklahoma bombings. It's almost impossible to drive a truck full of explosives into a concert nowadays.

 

[Moonglow]

Actually it will be pointless. Given that such automatic weapons EXIST, those who seek them will find a way to get them.

What would on the other hand actually be interesting is to find out where his motivation came from. As if we don't already know.

And as far as that goes --- for the gun fetishist it actually IS about the number of bodies. That's what they're going for.

The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.

If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

Security has evolved since the Oklahoma bombings. It's almost impossible to drive a truck full of explosives into a concert nowadays.

Don't need to drive the truck into the concert area really, just blast the walls down from a safe distance...

 

[BrokeLoser]

Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.

Of course he is. He's a white guy and they are the biggest terrorists in the US.

Word play aside...that's make one thing crystal clear; no group "TERRORIZES" this nation and Americans more than Blacks....FACT!

I know. Educated Black men that know who they are frighten white people to death. However, we are talking about "terrorists" which is a different word than "terrorize". You can be terrorized by anything you fear and your case you fear Black men. Thanks for admitting to that.

ter·ror·ize
ˈterəˌrīz/
verb

1. create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror.

Haha...you said "educated black men" funny shit...are you referring to all twenty of them natiionwide?

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually it will be pointless. Given that such automatic weapons EXIST, those who seek them will find a way to get them.

What would on the other hand actually be interesting is to find out where his motivation came from. As if we don't already know.

And as far as that goes --- for the gun fetishist it actually IS about the number of bodies. That's what they're going for.

The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.

If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

Security has evolved since the Oklahoma bombings. It's almost impossible to drive a truck full of explosives into a concert nowadays.

Since when? Have you been to a concert recently? I have not been to a single event like this one that I would say would be difficult to drive a truck into it.

 

[Moonglow]

Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.

Of course he is. He's a white guy and they are the biggest terrorists in the US.

Word play aside...that's make one thing crystal clear; no group "TERRORIZES" this nation and Americans more than Blacks....FACT!

I know. Educated Black men that know who they are frighten white people to death. However, we are talking about "terrorists" which is a different word than "terrorize". You can be terrorized by anything you fear and your case you fear Black men. Thanks for admitting to that.

ter·ror·ize
ˈterəˌrīz/
verb

1. create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror.

Haha...you said "educated black men" funny shit...are you referring to all twenty of them natiionwide?

Those twenty that got yer last twenty jobs?

 

[Asclepias]

Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.

Of course he is. He's a white guy and they are the biggest terrorists in the US.

Word play aside...that's make one thing crystal clear; no group "TERRORIZES" this nation and Americans more than Blacks....FACT!

I know. Educated Black men that know who they are frighten white people to death. However, we are talking about "terrorists" which is a different word than "terrorize". You can be terrorized by anything you fear and your case you fear Black men. Thanks for admitting to that.

ter·ror·ize
ˈterəˌrīz/
verb

1. create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror.

Haha...you said "educated black men" funny shit...are you referring to all twenty of them natiionwide?

They probably have 100 educated Black men within half a block of you. No wonder youre on welfare.

 

[deanrd]

So far, they know he's rich, white, supposedly straight, like to play hundred dollar hands in Vegas and was never in the military.

Stephen Paddock: What we know about the Las Vegas shooter - CNN

He is sounding more and more like an elite Republican. In fact, if he had 10 billion, it would sound like they are describing Trump.

Eventually, they will figure it out.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually it will be pointless. Given that such automatic weapons EXIST, those who seek them will find a way to get them.

What would on the other hand actually be interesting is to find out where his motivation came from. As if we don't already know.

And as far as that goes --- for the gun fetishist it actually IS about the number of bodies. That's what they're going for.

The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.

If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

The distinction is that this was the largest mass shooting in US history and the poster whittled that down to "mass murder".

The distinction matters. There's a distinct difference between "mass shooting" and "murder". Murder is actually a side effect and not the end goal in either of these cases. McVeigh was out to attack the government, via a symbol, not specifically to kill a list of people personally. The LV shooter, like all mass shooters, isn't out to murder someone personally. Their targets are random, whoever happens to be available. The latter are out specifically for carnage. For the feeling of power over helpless victims running for their lives. Doesn't matter who they are personally, that's not the point. The whole point is the power trip.

That's why mass shooters are virtually always male. It's both a gun culture issue and a masculinity issue. Deadly combination, and yesterday is the latest result.

That's why I point out that for such a shooter, it very much is about the body count. The more bodies you can take down, the more power you had in that final few minutes of your worthless life.

That is about the draw to such weapons but really was not my point. He made a statement that I see over and over again that is, IMHO, terribly incorrect:

"If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people."

Aside from the virtually impossible task of making such weapons impossible for someone like this shooter to acquire, they are also not the most effective means of death. An individual like this will find a way - there are just so many out there. As you touched on earlier, the real problem is what created this individual and his motives. It seems insane that someone would want to create death on this scale without a real reason. The worst part about this would be that even though he had to be insane, he was clearly in control of all his faculties.

 

[Pogo]

I'm talking about ambiguity. Write clearly so that a phrase doesn't look like its own opposite.

Learn to read!

Actually I am an editor/proofreader, and ambiguities like this jump off the page. So I go for clarity.

It isn't your quote anyway so learn to mind your own business.

Then you are not totally up to snuff as one because there is only one meaning for the term "but for" and insofar as their is only one meaning for that term, it is not ambiguously defined and thus is not usable ambiguously.

HOLY SHIT. Really???

but
bət/
conjunction
conjunction: but

1. 1.
   used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.
   synonyms: yet, nevertheless, nonetheless, even so, however, still, notwithstanding, despite that, in spite of that, for all that, all the same, just the same; More
   though, although
   "he stumbled but didn't fall"
   • nevertheless; however.
     "he stumbled but didn't fall"
   • on the contrary; in contrast.
     "I am clean but you are dirty"
     synonyms: whereas, conversely, but then, then again, on the other hand, by/in contrast, on the contrary
     "this one's expensive, but this one isn't"
2. 2.
   used to indicate the impossibility of anything other than what is being stated.
   "one cannot but sympathize"
3. 3.
   used to introduce a response expressing a feeling such as surprise or anger.
   "but that's an incredible saving!"
4. 4.
   used after an expression of apology for what one is about to say.
   "I'm sorry, but I can't pay you"
5. 5.
   archaic
   without its being the case that.
   "it never rains but it pours"

preposition
preposition: but

1. 1.
   except; apart from; other than.
   "in Texas, we were never anything but poor"
   synonyms: except (for), apart from, other than, besides, aside from, with the exception of, bar, excepting, excluding, leaving out, save (for), saving
   "everyone but him"
   • used with repetition of certain words to give emphasis.
     "nobody, but nobody, was going to stop her"

adverb
adverb: but

1. 1.
   no more than; only.
   "he is but a shadow of his former self"
   synonyms: only, just, simply, merely, no more than, nothing but;
   a mere
   "he is but a shadow of his former self"

noun
noun: but; plural noun: buts

1. 1.
   an argument against something; an objection.
   "no buts —just get out of here"

Origin
​

What's the first entry there??

Just say "except" if you mean "except", and eschew the ambiguity. Ain't frickin' rocket surgery.

DJT for Life said: ↑

News organizations have their own agendas/narratives.

To which you replied:

But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates, news organizations these days have one primary agenda: profit.

What it looks like:
"Yes (agreeing news orgs have their own agendas), however, for PBS and NPR and their affiliates, that agenda is profit".

What you meant to say:
"Outside of PBS, NPR and their affiliates, the agenda of those news orgs is profit".

Two different and opposite things. The eye has to convert to Shakespearean-era English to infer the second.

"But" is ambiguous meaning. "Outside of" or "with the exception of" would not have been. That's all I'm saying -- write with clarity.

You contemptibly insufferable intransigent fucking dipshit!!

The phrase I used is "but for." "But" alone means one thing. "But for" means something else.

Now you can sit your sorry ass there and make like a dumbfuck and pretend that I didn't write "but for," and keep referring to the matter as though I wrote only "but;" however the fact of the matter is that I did, and everyone, including your sorry ass, can see as much.

My, you don't take being corrected real well do ya.
Best thing to do now is double down on your own ignorance.

Check.


I've often said, anyone who thinks political debates are the most passionate battles has never been to a newspaper editorial meeting.

Some take it with class, others....... not so much.