Gaga on LV shooting - calls for unity and legal action

[Vicixs 3,465]

5 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Terrorism isn't defined by how "terrifying" something is unless YOU are using it that way. There's a reason the media and authorities aren't calling it that yet no matter what the public says. 

The media is, in fact, calling it a terrorist attack.

The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-nevada-terrorism-state-law-act-police-stephen-paddock-a7978456.html

National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452097/las-vegas-shooting-stephen-paddock-legally-terrorist

[Morphine Prince 105,626]

5 minutes ago, Cruzifix said:

It was an improper definition I looked up, my apologies.. However, through Vegas laws, this event is defined as a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks aren't specific to the Middle East. Terrorism has no face and can be caused by anyone.

No one is saying anything about the ME  

 

[Morphine Prince 105,626]

2 minutes ago, Cruzifix said:

The media is, in fact, calling it a terrorist attack.

The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-nevada-terrorism-state-law-act-police-stephen-paddock-a7978456.html

National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452097/las-vegas-shooting-stephen-paddock-legally-terrorist

Yeah by defining the state law. It's contrary to the normal definition, that is all. 

[Mikey Monster 1,561]

God this makes me so sick every ****ing shooting is worst than the last. Stuff like this makes me want to go to church and pray. I'm not even that religious but this stuff makes me desperately look for guidance for our country and world. Be safe u guys love u all ❤️❤️❤️🌎🌎😭😭😭

[Vicixs 3,465]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

No one is saying anything about the ME  

 

I was using an example as, generally, people define terrorism as a specific group trying to reek havoc on other countries. And defining what the "normal definition" is based on perspective on it's own. What you believe is the "normal definition" may be completely different from my own, or anyone on this thread, for that matter.

[JazzGa 14,620]

Good concise thoughts from Gaga with a clear call to action. Depending on her career choices in the next 20-30 years, I could see her running for public office one day. I like the sound of Senator Gaga better than Senator Germanotta though

[Quark 7,098]

24 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Terrorism isn't defined by how "terrifying" something is unless YOU are using it that way. There's a reason the media and authorities aren't calling it that yet no matter what the public says. 

I don't think arguing over the definition in this thread is important or relevant. Gaga obviously used the word in the sense that the gunman was terrorizing people. But the main message here is unification.

[Rifek 51,753]

 

[NewYorkCity 10,536]

She is right, of course. I don't know what Americans are waiting for to stop with that guns bullshit. 

The second tweet tho, I totally agree but it is a bit simplistic to say that blood is in Trump's hands (I hate trump btw, in case someone doubts it by what I am about to write), but Obama has been there for 8 years and still no gun control, same for every other president before. So... lots of hands with blood (including people defending guns). 

[drinkmytears 2,332]

1 hour ago, Morphine Prince said:

Terrorism isn't defined by how "terrifying" something is unless YOU are using it that way. There's a reason the media and authorities aren't calling it that yet no matter what the public says. 

The media aren't calling it terrorism because it's a white man they cannot tie to any political agenda 

[Morphine Prince 105,626]

1 hour ago, drinkmytears said:

The media aren't calling it terrorism because it's a white man they cannot tie to any political agenda 

Or because they're using the proper definition.... 

I'm not saying him being white isn't helping him but...

[Ziggy 11,744]

3 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

We do NOT know if it's terrorism yet. 

Excuse me no all you want. The media and authorities aren't using that word yet because: 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or 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.

 

I won't use that stupid reaction on you, but I will say that what we define as terrorism is actually very vague. Say what you want and quote the definition from the FBI, but the fact of the matter is that the word is used as a means of sensationalizing tragedy and building nationalism. Its actual definition has very little bearing with that in mind. It's been used to describe the killing of 12 and the killing of 20. It's been used as government-sanctioned propaganda to further a specific national agenda. At this point in American culture, the word "terrorism" has really lost all legitimate meaning. However, firing a gun into crowds of people in a calculated manner such as this? Wantonly injuring and murdering this many people? That is terrorism. You don't commit a crime of this magnitude without the forethought of how much hysteria and devastation you would cause as a result. This man sought to spread terror by the very definition you cite here. The word has lost much of its weight and meaning since the first World Trade Center attacks in the 90s (and arguably before), but even by classical definition what happened yesterday is terrorism and it doesn't help anyone to deny it.

[Morphine Prince 105,626]

1 minute ago, Ziggy said:

I won't use that stupid reaction on you, but I will say that what we define as terrorism is actually very vague. Say what you want and quote the definition from the FBI, but the fact of the matter is that the word is used as a means of sensationalizing tragedy and building nationalism. Its actual definition has very little bearing with that in mind. It's been used to describe the killing of 12 and the killing of 20. It's been used as government-sanctioned propaganda to further a specific national agenda. At this point in American culture, the word "terrorism" has really lost all legitimate meaning. However, firing a gun into crowds of people in a calculated manner such as this? Wantonly injuring and murdering this many people? That is terrorism. You don't commit a crime of this magnitude without the forethought of how much hysteria and devastation you would cause as a result. This man sought to spread terror by the very definition you cite here. The word has lost much of its weight and meaning since the first World Trade Center attacks in the 90s (and arguably before), but even by classical definition what happened yesterday is terrorism and it doesn't help anyone to deny it.

I disagree. I will call it terrorism when we know the motive. That is how the authorities define it every single time. 

The word terrorism gets thrown around too easily by people. 

This was a massacre, a horrible crime. Until I know details I will reserve from calling it a terrorist attack. 

[lego 44,165]

7 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

but the fact of the matter is that the word is used as a means of sensationalizing tragedy and building nationalism. Its actual definition has very little bearing with that in mind. It's been used to describe the killing of 12 and the killing of 20. It's been used as government-sanctioned propaganda to further a specific national agenda.

 

 

Very good point. 🤔

[Morphine Prince 105,626]

Basically what I mean: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/las-vegas-shooting-is-it-terrorist-attack-stephen-paddock/