Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 73

On September 27 2017 05:17 nolan wrote: Show nested quote + On September 26 2017 04:37 Baalim wrote: Also catalunia is about to have a referending seeking independence from Spain and Spain has been going absolutely authoritarian on them stealing ballots threatening dozens of governments officials with jail etc, I'm surprised how far they are willing to go to stop this referendum. I dont get why Cataluña wants its independence so badly for so long The Catalans seem to think that they will be ridiculously rich .

It's not a matter of thinking, its quite true, Catalonai makes up for around between 40 to 50% of the GDP of Spain, they're basically the one carrying the whole country on their back. Question is how do they expect to keep that rate if they go independent.

I thought Trump was a bad leader, but the prime minister of Spain was like "what would be the most retarded thing I could do" and did it.

The referendum had no weight, no sane person would've taken it seriously, yet he sends policemen to BAN it and beat people up? What are you doing... Now Catalonia will play the victim card and it ll be no wonder if Spain s pushed to premature vote for a new prime minister

yeah, suddenly pretty obvious why they want the referendum.

On October 01 2017 21:57 Spitfiree wrote: I thought Trump was a bad leader, but the prime minister of Spain was like "what would be the most retarded thing I could do" and did it. The referendum had no weight, no sane person would've taken it seriously, yet he sends policemen to BAN it and beat people up? What are you doing... Now Catalonia will play the victim card and it ll be no wonder if Spain s pushed to premature vote for a new prime minister

yeah absolutely moronic, after such a display of brutality the whole world now probably supports Catalunya independence

so lets discuss the topic of this Vegas thing, specifically is this terrorism or not?

depending on what dictionary you read you can say he is or he isnt, I think he isnt because to me terrorism is when the motive is religious/politically driven, for example isalmists cells or the ETA or IRA all of these groups or even individual strikes have a very specific reason to push a political agenda.


When a kid shoots up a school or a maniac shots people from his hotel his only intention is to kill people usually as many as they want, it is perhaps even more evil since there isnt even a machiavelic motive that justifies the mean in their heads, their objective is just to kill and to me that is not terrorism.

That's the thing though, not much to be discussed. It seems like he did it out of pure evilness. No real motive other than killing dozens of innocent people and spreading chaos. Obviously, ISIS tried to claim responsibility but I doubt even a 2yo would believe them

On October 03 2017 08:50 Spitfiree wrote: That's the thing though, not much to be discussed. It seems like he did it out of pure evilness. No real motive other than killing dozens of innocent people and spreading chaos. Obviously, ISIS tried to claim responsibility but I doubt even a 2yo would believe them

Well MANY people are claiming this is terrorism... actually most people by far I'd say.

different people have different definitions of a word so overused that it has lost it's communicative value, not surprising at all.
Like the usage of "pure evil" by Trump, he could have said we don't know why, but that's not useful as a political tool, so he offered some useless manichaeistic simplification (as presidents usually do) that essentially means nothing other than "I'm strongly against this"

Not that people choose the definitions of words randomly, it's obviously preferable to side with the ones that suit one's own political agenda, when words with negative connotations are involved

I generally agree that terrorism needs some type of political motivation. But I dunno if all islamic terrorism is that conscious about the whole 'create increased resentment to eventually spur civil war leading to muslims having to pick a side leading to them having to choose the muslim side leading to the establishment of kaliphate'. Like I get that IS leadership is there, but I think a lot of individual muslim terrorists in the west are just as motivated by plain old hatred. And as for this guy, we don't know what was his motivation or if there was motivation. Maybe he's some type of David Gale type of guy who had been diagnosed with alzheimer or a brain tumor and thought he was gonna kill a bunch of people to make a statement on american gun laws before committing the suicide he was going for. Targeting a country festival would make sense then as it hits the pro-gun base.

not really saying that is likely or whatever, and it's a little besides the point.

The problem is if you start saying that every time there's a white guy shooting up a theater or school or concert, he's just an insane rogue gone wild, but every time a muslim does the same thing he's ideologically or religiously motivated, it's somewhat demonizing of muslims in general. like it normalizes the behavior from the muslim, painting him as 'one of them', while the white guy is ostracized and not considered one of us. In that sense, I'm fine with considering this terrorism because otherwise you really skew the numbers, like almost every significant act of terrorism ends up being cased by muslims but the mass shootings where the culprit was 'just hateful and insane' don't count. If it was just a semantics thing, I wouldn't care, but this kind of stuff is politicized, and then it becomes a natural political battle ground.

Mostly though I actually think we shouldn't politicize these events before we even know what's going on. Even though he seems not to have posted a manifesto or left notes or whatever, it might be the case that he had a motive that will be revealed in time.

kinda fun pic to illustrate the latter point

I had to look up the term "false flags." That forum increases my misanthrope. I don't want to go to miserable levels of misanthrope and nihilism. I have been there before and it is a dead end. Either kill myself or choose to make the best of a tragic life. I choose the ladder.

Anyways, I also believe that terrorism includes some religious or political aim. I don't think there is enough evidence in this case to just spout out terrorism! Terrorism!

I just had the idea to shoot up NRA conventions. Humans can have all sorts of dark thoughts. I think the most likely is that the guy was just increasingly deranged into old age or a brain tumor. It could happen to me too. I don't think I care enough about the 2nd amendment either way to shoot up an NRA convention and kill myself and I don't think I have it in me to just burn the world down but who knows.

On October 03 2017 13:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: kinda fun pic to illustrate the latter point

these guys are incredibly stupid. Antifa? rofl

According to The_Donald there is a note that they haven’t released, I think speculating without reading that note is kind of pointless!

On October 03 2017 16:57 RiKD wrote: I just had the idea to shoot up NRA conventions. Humans can have all sorts of dark thoughts. I think the most likely is that the guy was just increasingly deranged into old age or a brain tumor. It could happen to me too. I don't think I care enough about the 2nd amendment either way to shoot up an NRA convention and kill myself and I don't think I have it in me to just burn the world down but who knows.

This would lead to the ultimate rallying cry for the "this is why we need more guns to protect ourselves" narrative.

On October 03 2017 12:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: I generally agree that terrorism needs some type of political motivation. But I dunno if all islamic terrorism is that conscious about the whole 'create increased resentment to eventually spur civil war leading to muslims having to pick a side leading to them having to choose the muslim side leading to the establishment of kaliphate'. Like I get that IS leadership is there, but I think a lot of individual muslim terrorists in the west are just as motivated by plain old hatred. And as for this guy, we don't know what was his motivation or if there was motivation. Maybe he's some type of David Gale type of guy who had been diagnosed with alzheimer or a brain tumor and thought he was gonna kill a bunch of people to make a statement on american gun laws before committing the suicide he was going for. Targeting a country festival would make sense then as it hits the pro-gun base. not really saying that is likely or whatever, and it's a little besides the point. The problem is if you start saying that every time there's a white guy shooting up a theater or school or concert, he's just an insane rogue gone wild, but every time a muslim does the same thing he's ideologically or religiously motivated, it's somewhat demonizing of muslims in general. like it normalizes the behavior from the muslim, painting him as 'one of them', while the white guy is ostracized and not considered one of us. In that sense, I'm fine with considering this terrorism because otherwise you really skew the numbers, like almost every significant act of terrorism ends up being cased by muslims but the mass shootings where the culprit was 'just hateful and insane' don't count. If it was just a semantics thing, I wouldn't care, but this kind of stuff is politicized, and then it becomes a natural political battle ground. Mostly though I actually think we shouldn't politicize these events before we even know what's going on. Even though he seems not to have posted a manifesto or left notes or whatever, it might be the case that he had a motive that will be revealed in time.

I agree that there is a bias and if its done by muslims it will be "another one" where it could be some deranged man who really wasnt all that political, however given the amount of terrorism done by muslims I think while its obviously biased its not a so unreasonable one, also its not like abortion clinic bombers get a pass, that is clearly religious motivated and terrorism.

That being said I disagree that calling this terrorism is good, I think a disctintion between political and religious killing from just mass killing should be made, because the first ones are commited with an ideology behind that should be adressed and discussed, the other one is a different crime, an even worse one but with different talking points and if we dont differentitate the two, perhaps we take a small step forward in equality, but a big one backwards in actually solving these problems

I can see why people would quickly join the false flags wagon. I can also see why there would be people calling this a terrorist act. The former is due to 9/11, the latter is due to the definition of the term. I myself believe that terrorist acts are only associated with political or religious beliefs e.g. IRA, RAF, Carlos the Jackal, Al Quida etc.

What's more important though is that this will provoke yet another talk on guns control. Which to be fair, should be done. I absolutely agree that everyone should be able to purchase a gun, however only after a good background check and registry and there should be some kind of a limit on possession of guns and some fair requirements. Why would a normal person need 20 fucking rifles? Such massacres, which seem to will soon become a "standardized" issue for the US isn't only a result of lack of gun control measures though, there are so many social and financial factors that come into play. The country is supposed to serve as an example for power, yet their educational system sux, their medical system sux, and their social benefits seem to be absolutely ridiculous.

Why are countries like Switzerland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden not known for mass murder? Because they're something rare, I actually took the time to google the topic @ Switzerland, and they've had two - one 105 years ago, and one in 2001. Apart from that I only remember a single instance in Sweden, with the madman that killed around 70 people in a Mall and actually managed to sue the country for "Terrible living conditions in prison" - and won. He is a sociopath though. Guns are almost as easily obtainable there as in the USA, the difference is that the standard of living & education is simply incomparable. If you allow a bunch of idiots to easily buy guns, its no wonder that they will eventually start killing people.

Finland actually has had a few school shootings, I think they look pretty bad from a per capita perspective. And Norway had one of the worst mass shootings/terror attacks of any western country.

On October 04 2017 11:30 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On October 03 2017 12:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: I generally agree that terrorism needs some type of political motivation. But I dunno if all islamic terrorism is that conscious about the whole 'create increased resentment to eventually spur civil war leading to muslims having to pick a side leading to them having to choose the muslim side leading to the establishment of kaliphate'. Like I get that IS leadership is there, but I think a lot of individual muslim terrorists in the west are just as motivated by plain old hatred. And as for this guy, we don't know what was his motivation or if there was motivation. Maybe he's some type of David Gale type of guy who had been diagnosed with alzheimer or a brain tumor and thought he was gonna kill a bunch of people to make a statement on american gun laws before committing the suicide he was going for. Targeting a country festival would make sense then as it hits the pro-gun base. not really saying that is likely or whatever, and it's a little besides the point. The problem is if you start saying that every time there's a white guy shooting up a theater or school or concert, he's just an insane rogue gone wild, but every time a muslim does the same thing he's ideologically or religiously motivated, it's somewhat demonizing of muslims in general. like it normalizes the behavior from the muslim, painting him as 'one of them', while the white guy is ostracized and not considered one of us. In that sense, I'm fine with considering this terrorism because otherwise you really skew the numbers, like almost every significant act of terrorism ends up being cased by muslims but the mass shootings where the culprit was 'just hateful and insane' don't count. If it was just a semantics thing, I wouldn't care, but this kind of stuff is politicized, and then it becomes a natural political battle ground. Mostly though I actually think we shouldn't politicize these events before we even know what's going on. Even though he seems not to have posted a manifesto or left notes or whatever, it might be the case that he had a motive that will be revealed in time. I agree that there is a bias and if its done by muslims it will be "another one" where it could be some deranged man who really wasnt all that political, however given the amount of terrorism done by muslims I think while its obviously biased its not a so unreasonable one, also its not like abortion clinic bombers get a pass, that is clearly religious motivated and terrorism. That being said I disagree that calling this terrorism is good, I think a disctintion between political and religious killing from just mass killing should be made, because the first ones are commited with an ideology behind that should be adressed and discussed, the other one is a different crime, an even worse one but with different talking points and if we dont differentitate the two, perhaps we take a small step forward in equality, but a big one backwards in actually solving these problems

I'm totally on board with like
Columbine massacre = not terrorism
Dylann Roof charleston church shooting = terrorism. Then I think this event is too early to tell because we have no idea what his motivation was.

Probably not terrorism but this whole incident is really bizarre.

Couple thoughts:

1) Given he checked in 3 or 4 days before the shooting, and he chose Mandalay Bay for a spree shooting, it leads me to believe that the target (country music concert) was 100% intentional. If he just wanted to spray a random crowd down there would be a lot better locations than Mandalay. That side of the strip is pretty dead with regard to foot traffic normally. So, why a country music concert?

2) I had assumed he was a busto who went insane, but if it's true he wired 100k to the Phillipines and still owned planes + rental properties I'm not so sure anymore that he was motivated by busto-ing.

3) Still possible he was 100% mentally ill like the University of Texas shooter who appeared to have no real motive.

4) And I hesitate to write this, but it's a little strange that ISIS is so adamant this guy was in contact with them. They've only ever lied about that once before (ironically when a guy shot up a Casino in Phillipines). For example, ISIS put out a press release saying the Canadian stabber just last week who was carrying an ISIS flag had no contact with them. Contrary to popular belief they don't claim 100% of terrorist attacks worldwide, so it's bizarre that they keep re-affirming they had a hand in this one.

I'm mildly surprised that some type of manifesto or writing hasn't been leaked out yet to the press. Everything about this screams someone who had some kind of ideological motive but usually guys who do that leave a lot behind to let it be known (Elliot Rogers, Breivik, most Jihadis, etc)