These fucking people

are cancer...

twitter.com/ZachJay1207/status/925464160829181952

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gnavcUHC6zc
youtube.com/watch?v=jUy9_0M3bVk
youtube.com/watch?v=KlLMlJ2tDkg
dictionary.com/browse/terrorism
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/fbi-definition-of-terrorism/418722/
youtube.com/watch?v=0F8riu4ltyg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Just agree that paddock is a terrorist (((which he is)))

> He is not wrong.

>another Jewish false flag competing for your attention, Goy?

I still think Paddock was ISIS but I'm getting really sick of this "white" bullshit.

You're a terrorist depending on the motive.

For example, that Democrat who shot the republican senator was a terrorist. Paddock was not a terrorist.

Muslims are always terrorists for obvious reasons.

>implying he's wrong
White privelage in action OP

>people are not calling an obviously framed/planted 'gunman' a terrorist
>people are calling an obviously terrorist shitskin a terrorist


youtube.com/watch?v=gnavcUHC6zc

youtube.com/watch?v=jUy9_0M3bVk

youtube.com/watch?v=KlLMlJ2tDkg

or how about they show a clear motive and deduce whether paddock was a terrorist. there is a dictionary term for terrorism

truck ramming and allahu ackbar yelling already make the easy claim of terrorism

I think it has to be politically motivated for it to be terrorism.

I don't think there is a clear motivation for the vegas shooter.

>Paddock was not a terrorist.
What was he then?

But people WERE calling paddock a terrorist. Every time a white guy does something like that shitlib journalists and commentators make a point of coming out and saying stuff like "MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS IS A WHITE MALE TERRORIST."

>terrorist
>someone who uses violence to support a cause

What cause was Paddock promoting? Aside from suspected links to ISIS.

Like I said, I think terrorism needs to be done with regards to furthering a political/religious/ or ideological goal.

His motives are not clear, so you can't really say he is a terrorist or not......

We still have no political or cultural motivation, thus not a terrorist you fucking tapas nigger

But Paddock WAS a terrorist?

Do people really think what he did wasn't terrorism? The fucker shot up dozens of people enjoying a concert

This is a great opportunity for optics.

Paddock's motives are still unknown there can be no meaningful assignment of "terrorist" to him since he made no political demands.

>"waaah las vegas shooter was a terrorist"
>terrorism is politically motivated violence
>shot up a country music concert
Hmmm I wonder if it was a terrorist act what political ideology would a country music fan have and even more what political ideology would be against it.

Hes not wrong tho. Both are terrorists, user.

What was the Vegas shooters political motivation?

See this is what I don't get, what he did was terrorism, politically motivated or not, he massacred dozens of people in a public space

That is no different to me than any Allah Snackbar running over a bunch of biker fags

Fuck off, faggot.
We still don't know the motive behind Vegas.

Just killing a bunch of people is not terrorism.....it is a massacre.

You are conflating definitions.

Terrorism has a specific definition - i.e. violence or the threat of violence against a civilian population to attain a religious, political or otherwise ideological goal.

Without knowing Paddock's motives, we cannot say whether he was a terrorist or not.

>what he did was terrorism, politically motivated or not
terrorism must have a political motive, Columbine was not terrorist, Sandy Hook was not terrorism, etc.

>nobody calls the Vegas shooter a terrorist

Lol what fantasy world do you live in?

He is completely wrong. Terrorism involves killing for a political or religious motivation. Paddock had neither.

At any rate there were tons of lefties crowing about the "white male shooter" after Vegas, the same hypocritical assholes who claim that thousands of deaths at the hands of jihadis have nothing to do with Islam

>open mouth numale
>kid looks nothing like him
every time

Then what would you call massacring dozens of unarmed Americans in a public setting?

That is terrorism to me, peroid

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree, all of those events were terrorist in nature to me, it terrorized the public, the families involved, everyone

One of the biggest problems leftists have is their definitions of words. They make up their own definitions based on their feelings at the moment because they're cultural subversives and they can't help but pervert the meanings of words. The rest of us operate on established definitions of words so the rhetoric of the left comes off as asinine.

columbine did have a political motive tho

it was 2 lone men fighting against the femininst chadocracy

>open mouth NuMale
EVERY. FUCKING. TIME

a serial killer

>I win the argument if I redefine what words mean

Paddock did commit an act of terror but he isn't a jihadist. Jihad is political terror but to call it terror distracts from the truth and ignores the ideological motivation so as not to blame Islam. Don't be an apologist and use the correct words. There is wisdom in calling things by their true name.

You can be white and muslim

>That is terrorism to me

Unfortunately, you don't get to define what words mean.

yeah technically there is a world of fucking difference between a spree-killing (which is the correct term) and terrorism

what stephen paddock did was crazy shit but it was essentially just whitman in a clock tower shooting hippies, but with automatic weapons and a high-def background

victim of a false flag operation

Terrorism isnt defined by race specifically; its just the use of unlawful force / intimidation, generally on unarmed citizens. That can apply to anything really.

Look at this nonsense. Another thing about leftists is if you aren't agreeing with whatever they're saying that means you aren't listening to them.

How do you even find these jewbots, OP? Am I getting too old to catch up with tech?

Terrorism isn't just the act of terrorizing people. Terrorism is just an easy word to specifically identify that a crime was done for political reasons. If terrorism was just changed to lump in every time a victim is terrified by a crime done onto them it just becomes a meaningless word since a lot of crimes make victims scared. A store clerk caught in a robbery would be terrorism because the clerk is scared for his life. If you don't like the word's definition you might as well just complain that the word literally doesn't actually mean figuratively.

it's the lust for cock

We don't know if Paddock was motivated based on political or religious grounds, so its not terrorism.

We don't know if Paddock was a terrorist or not. We don't know what his motive was.

No, that's being a mass murderer.
You can be a terrorist without killing anyone.

he was an hero

user, go look up the definition of terrorism.

It reads as following;
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

You got part of the definition right. You also have to get into motive - i.e. that use of force has to come with the intent of achieving a religions, political or otherwise ideological goal.

You'd think people would know this, having spent trillions of dollars on the war on terror since 9/11/2001.

>See this is what I don't get, what he did was terrorism
You're simply asserting a different definition of the word "terrorism," than that's in common usage. There's no argument here. You are wrong.

well I kind of share the same opinion
I'm just pointing out that shooting a fuckbunch of people for no fucking reason isn't necessarily terrorism

The phrase you want to use is mass murderer. This is why you retards get dismissed so often, you don't know what words mean and you don't care, because your feelings are overriding your thinkings.

you're wrong twice.
everyone calls paddock a terrorist.
paddock is by all definitions not a terrorist.

Take it further: You can be a terrorist without even injuring anyone.

Fuck you potato nigger

Oh, look, now we know who is real racist.

Go be a satanic piece of shit somewhere else, Zach

Basically the left's opinion on Vegas can be summarized as "b-b-but I want the white man to be a "terrorist" so I can deflect attention away from Muslim terrorism! So what if I have to change the definition of "terror" in order to do it?"

Depends on what definition you wanna cite.

dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Just threats and intimidation for political purposes can be considered terrorism. Although, I think it depends on how credible the threat is.

...

by the official narrative, he was a mass murderer and a crazy person.

Not surprising they're at this level of neuroticism. They're on the right side of history after all.

Why else would someone start shooting into a crowd of people? Ofcourse he's a terrorist! You just proved the guy in OP's pick right!

No proof of that at all.

define terrorism

They seem to not understand that the FBI defines terrorism as: theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/fbi-definition-of-terrorism/418722/

>be in Kansas
>Manhattan terror attack
>holy fuck wat
>oh yeah there's a big Manhattan far away

The morning of, Charlie Rose made the point that it isn't terrorism because he's white.
>oops the left equated terrorism to being a muzzie

he is right you know.

ISIS has no interest in attacking America like this

...

What was his goal then? What was he trying to achieve? He could be a terrorist, but until LEOs release his true motives, we don't know.

Paddock didn't shoot people in the name of Allah or religious purposes

The guy in Vegas WAS a terrorist - a left-wing terrorist - and that's why they didn't call him a terrorist.

its mass murderer if their is no known motive

The definition of terrorism is violence in pursuit of a political goal.
Paddock had no motive so he is not a terrorist.

This Halloween nonsense is making it hard to keep up with this happening but it's special so idk. Anyone turned it off?

Modern terrorism is backed by ideology. Paddock's ideology is still unknown, so you can't just call him a terrorist. It may come out that he in fact is a terrorist. Meanwhile every time a muslim kills white people they yell allah akbar. See the difference?

And thats exactly why they are trying to misconstrue and deflect. Can you imagine if that was made public?
It would be the second terror attack the left has committed.

You guys do realize that the FBI records acts of terrorism as stats. You can't just label something to fit your narrative. If that was no issue, Chicago could drop their homicide count by labeling 20-30% of their homicides as suicides. This is all recorded information that directly effects tourism.

This is par for the course whenever there's a white, christian terrorist. This happened last month, a white terrorist attempted to bomb a NC airport and it was brushed under the rug by the media.

youtube.com/watch?v=0F8riu4ltyg

terrorism requires a political motivation. no one know why the vegas guy did it but the NYC guy yelled allaha akbar after he left teh car

He is wrong because terrorism is when you commit an attack for a political or religious reason. They haven't even told us what the Vegas shooters motive is among all the other fishy bullshit about the investigation

>it was brushed under the rug by the media.

Because nobody got hurt. Blood sells.

A CIA/mossad agent if he even existed at all

Fuck outta here, shill

Then tell me, why do you know exactly who Richard Reid is without using google?

Terrorism requires a motivating ideology. As of right now, we don't know of any on Paddock's part. McVeigh had one and that's why he is rightly called a terrorist

Nigger buy a fucking dictionary

Terrorism requires a motivating ideology. As of right now, we don't know of any on Paddock's part. McVeigh had one and that's why he is rightly called a terrorist

>Basically the left's opinion on Vegas can be summarized as "b-b-but I want the white man to be a "terrorist"

Truth.

terrorism is a violent crime with a clear political motive

So are serial killers terrorists for killing a lot of people too?

Paddock still has no motive, thus he’s not a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who uses violence to make a political or religious statement or to coerce people into doing something.

>one shouts allahu ackbar during the act
>the other has motive concealed still a month after the fact

Gee if only there was a way to determine his motive and assign the appropriate label

>it's *possible* he wanted to cause death
What did Gov. Cummo mean by this?

that terrorist attack came conveniently to cover the Manafort affair, that's a false flag

Exactly

RARE