The Vegas tragedy

[Mark Dohle]

The Vegas tragedy

Where do we stand from?
A place for our souls to take root in?

Without faith of some sort, there is no real place for the soul, the living center of each human being to stand, and to be able to process what goes on in daily life. Without charity, it is every man and woman for themselves, and when things get rough when the center
does not hold, when the seams of society give way if we do not have a place to ponder
and think from, some faith and hope and charity, then there is only the
raw fight for personal survival, which in the end we all lose in any case.​

I often wonder about the future, even though I know it is a fool’s errand to do so. Life is both funny and tragic. Both sometimes so mixed together that the only way to deal with it is to both laugh and cry. That is where our use of humor comes in. We can laugh about anything if it is presented in a format that is a little removed from each of our lives, but close enough that we can also identify. For who knows what will happen to any of us in the future.

Of course, the shooting in Las Vegas is not something anyone can find humor in. If someone does, it would be best for them to keep it to themselves. Each life has its share of both painful and joyful moments, but there are times when the level of pain because of its scope really can’t be let in at all. True there is a lot of press, but some of that, or most of it is for ratings (I believe) and not based on real compassion. When we see something on the screen, even if we do not want to admit it, takes on a form of entertainment when watching. So watching a tragic event can go along well with pizza or popcorn and a beer or a soft drink. It is how we deal with the often overwhelming pain that is around us. Having so much technology that makes everything almost instant as it happens, can lead to depression that numbs the anger, fear and sorrow that is often repressed below our conscious awareness.

We seem to be in ‘free fall’, and the bottom is probably some way off, but one day this will lead to some form of landing, it could be a total crash landing, or perhaps things will crack but heal and maybe, just maybe we can learn from what we are going through at this time. I have my doubts, but there is always hope. However, hope without charity and faith is empty, hollow and creates a very large void that everything can fall into. Without faith of some sort, there is no real place for the soul, the living center of each human being to stand, and to be able to process what goes on in daily life. Without charity, it is every man and woman for themselves, and when things get rough, when the center does not hold, when the seams of society give way, if we do not have a place to ponder and think from, some faith and hope and charity, then there is only the raw fight for personal survival, which in the end we all lose in any case.

I do have faith and hope, and I pray for charity, every day. A good foundation can help one stand when the ground seems to be shaking and things falling down all around. It is now, at this time, where we need to seek to grow in charity for those who are different than us. Perhaps to pray for the grace of understanding and insight into those around us, so that we will see them as another self, or if a Christian, as Christ Jesus himself appealing to us to listen, to help and to heal if possible.

There is a great deal of give and take, on the web, about just about everything, but it does not seem there is very much listening. Many want to be heard, but turn a deaf ear to those who disagree with them. The only glue that can keep us together is love and charity of the most radical kind, the kind of love asked of us by Jesus Christ if a Christian. Yet all Scriptural paths seek to get its followers to find another way, one that is not based on the will to power, or hatred and violence. Though when religion and spirituality go bad, it is most likely the most dangerous energy in the world…..if God is on our side, we can pretty do whatever we want. Who cares if it goes against the central core of one’s religion. Hatred and fear make us pretty stupid and shortsighted. --BrMD

 

[Muslim-UK]

A change needs to be made to the Gun Laws otherwise tragedies and senseless loss of life will continue to plague the American people.

 

[Mark Dohle]

A change needs to be made to the Gun Laws otherwise tragedies and senseless loss of life will continue to plague the American people.

I agree, though he was rich, so he could get them illlegally if he wanted.

 

[Muslim-UK]

I agree, though he was rich, so he could get them illlegally if he wanted.

1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart

1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart

It's a shame those in power won't do anything to upset the powerful Gun Lobby.

 

[David1967]

1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart

1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart

It's a shame those in power won't do anything to upset the powerful Gun Lobby.

I'm not disagreeing necessarily with your last sentence, but the statement above it. We have not had that many mass shootings here. That being said, one mass shooting is one too many.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Here is my thing is why aren't they calling this guy a terrorist? Oh wait, never mind.

 

[Augustus]

Here is my thing is why aren't they calling this guy a terrorist? Oh wait, never mind.

Because there is no evidence that he was a terrorist?

 

[Mister Silver]

Because there is no evidence that he was a terrorist?

I'm certain he meant because the shooter was white. In this country, we only consider terrorist those of darker skin color, which in itself is racist and inaccurate.

 

[Augustus]

I'm certain he meant because the shooter was white. In this country, we only consider terrorist those of darker skin color, which in itself is racist and inaccurate.

I know what he meant, would have made more sense if the white man actually was a terrorist though.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Because there is no evidence that he was a terrorist?

"We have a double standard in the United States when it comes to talking about terrorism. The label is reserved almost exclusively for when we’re talking about Muslims.

Consider Stephen Craig Paddock, the shooter in Sunday’s massacre in Las Vegas. Is he a terrorist? Well, the authorities aren’t calling him one, at least not yet.

This is all the more remarkable because Paddock’s actions clearly fit the statutory definition of terrorism in Nevada. That state’s law defines terrorism as “any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population.

Stephen Craig Paddock shot and killed at least 59 people and injured more than 500 others. If that doesn’t qualify as a textbook definition of Nevada’s terrorism law, I don’t know what does.

Yet, when asked at a press conference in Las Vegas if the shooting was an act of terrorism, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo replied: “No. Not at this point. We believe it’s a local individual. He resides here locally,” suggesting that all terrorism is foreign in nature.

Lombardo didn’t call Paddock a terrorist, but he did label him a “lone wolf”, which in our lexicon is that special name we use for “white-guy terrorist”.

See: What's a 'lone wolf'? It's the special name we give white terrorists | Moustafa Bayoumi

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I know what he meant, would have made more sense if the white man actually was a terrorist though.

It makes a lot of sense. His actions caused terror in the sense he cause panic and actually killed people. A Muslim man in the United Kingdom can drive a fan and kill a large swath of people, and die at the hands of cops media automatically questions whether it was terrorist related.

One must consider the social distinctions in acts caused by individuals of different backgrounds and the labels that are given. If you do not think there are biased labels given between white individuals and individuals of middle eastern or African origin or Muslim origin you are foolish.

 

[Jumi]

Here is my thing is why aren't they calling this guy a terrorist? Oh wait, never mind.

If you think it's terrorism you need a motive. Religious, political or some kind of change this guy wanted.

Then do you know his motivation? Because no one so far does. Do we have to invent a new term "real terrorism" for events where groups like ISIS attack civilians thinking they are advancing their cause and "terrorism" where a new standard will be used that doesn't match the old terrorism word.

If he killed people because he wanted to stop country music, it would be terrorism.

 

[Valjean]

"We have a double standard in the United States when it comes to talking about terrorism. The label is reserved almost exclusively for when we’re talking about Muslims.

Consider Stephen Craig Paddock, the shooter in Sunday’s massacre in Las Vegas. Is he a terrorist? Well, the authorities aren’t calling him one, at least not yet.

This is all the more remarkable because Paddock’s actions clearly fit the statutory definition of terrorism in Nevada. That state’s law defines terrorism as “any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population.

Stephen Craig Paddock shot and killed at least 59 people and injured more than 500 others. If that doesn’t qualify as a textbook definition of Nevada’s terrorism law, I don’t know what does.

Yet, when asked at a press conference in Las Vegas if the shooting was an act of terrorism, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo replied: “No. Not at this point. We believe it’s a local individual. He resides here locally,” suggesting that all terrorism is foreign in nature.

Lombardo didn’t call Paddock a terrorist, but he did label him a “lone wolf”, which in our lexicon is that special name we use for “white-guy terrorist”.

See: What's a 'lone wolf'? It's the special name we give white terrorists | Moustafa Bayoumi

Terrorism has nothing to do with race or religion. Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to coerce political concession..
Paddock made no political demands.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

If you think it's terrorism you need a motive. Religious, political or some kind of change this guy wanted.

Then do you know his motivation? Because no one so far does. Do we have to invent a new term "real terrorism" for events where groups like ISIS attack civilians thinking they are advancing their cause and "terrorism" where a new standard will be used that doesn't match the old terrorism word.

If he killed people because he wanted to stop country music, it would be terrorism.

You're missing the point....

 

[Jumi]

You're missing the point....

Then what is your point?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Terrorism has nothing to do with race or religion. Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to coerce political concession..
Paddock made no political demands.

You know, whenever I type and mention things and share links and posts like this come up, it is very frustrating because clearly, my position here is there is a double standard when it comes to labeling these kinds of incidents. So, let's go back to my sources. If you wish to reject them and defend your views do so with the sources I share:

When Shooter Is White Male, Note Critics, Label of 'Terrorist' Put on Hold


"Everyone knows (even if won't admit it) that in the early stages of mass shooting, "no signs of terrorism" means: "shooter isn't Muslim." https://t.co/zFWDySMrET

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 2, 2017

Furthermore in my source:


"Omar Mateen, the shooter in the June 2016 shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was by definition a "local" as well, living 120 miles from the attack site. The attack was classified as an act of terrorism by President Barack Obama within 12 hours of it taking place, due to Mateen's pledge of allegiance to ISIS during the shooting.

Though the Associated Press reported Monday morning that ISIS had claimed responsibility for the Las Vegas attack, as of 12:00pm the FBI was reporting that it had found "no connection with an international terrorist group" after searching Paddock's home."

In the Washington Post, Aaron Blake wrote that "the vast majority of members of Congress" have not used the words "terror" or "terrorist" in relation to the shooting. "Perhaps they don't want to get ahead of the evidence, but some argue that this is giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt in a way that simply isn't afforded to Muslims who commit such acts," he wrote.

Because America still don't know what domestic terrorism -- which has killed more Americans than international terrorism -- is.

Because the shooter isn't of color they get to be called "local individual" because white people, even when violent, still is granted their humanity. https://t.co/znW2CM2VfA

— Ernest Owens (@MrErnestOwens) October 2, 2017

Source: When Shooter Is White Male, Note Critics, Label of 'Terrorist' Put on Hold

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Then what is your point?

Point is the psychological labels society place on people of color who commit mass attacks versus individuals of Caucasian descent, one is quickly labeled as a terrorist, the other is held off being labeled and most likely will be labeled as someone with a mental illness. In other words, white men who commit mass shootings are more given "the benefit of doubt" by the media and are looked at as being mentally deranged as opposed to committing acts of terror. Look at Dylan Roof for example. He had a motive to start a race war by killing 9 people in a church.

"If government officials consistently refer to all ideologically motivated


killings as terrorism, including those by white supremacists and anti-government

groups, this will likely influence the media to give greater attention to

these crimes. This would result in a greater balance in terrorism coverage, so

that jihadi and other forms of terrorism are given more equal coverage. As

noted above, white supremacist and anti-government attackers are less likely


to be labeled as terrorists in the media, and are less likely to be covered by

national news outlets. As briefly described in the Introduction, there is a case

to be made for treating ideologically motivated crimes quietly and avoiding

the use of the term terrorism altogether, thus avoiding unreasonable fears

and denying violent ideologues the publicity and fear they desire."

See Source:http://harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/54.1-HLL105.pdf

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Why The Government Can't Bring Terrorism Charges In Charlottesville

"The Charlottesville case has again spurred a discussion about describing far-right violence as terrorism. After the al-Qaida attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism was associated primarily with radical Islamist groups based abroad. Consider this hypothetical: If the Charlottesville attacker emerged from the car and said he was acting on behalf of the Islamic State, he could be charged with international terrorism, according to Katyal.........

Back in 1995, when Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a truck bomb at a federal building in Oklahoma City, it was widely described as the worst act of domestic terrorism to that point.
Yet he was charged with, convicted of and executed for killing federal agents and other crimes — but not terrorism.

The government has historically used the term "terrorism" as a general description for a range of violent acts, including those by right-wing extremists, as well as environmental, anti-abortion and far-left groups. But the specific criminal charge is never domestic terrorism.
Another case came to light Monday, when the Justice Department announced it had arrested a man for allegedly attempting to set off a truck bomb in front of a bank in Oklahoma City on Saturday.

The bomb didn't detonate, the department said. But its description of the case is similar to McVeigh's attack, claiming the suspect, Jerry Varnell, 23, was angry with the government.

The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is leading what's being described as a "domestic terrorism investigation." Yet the formal charge against Varnell is "attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce."

Not terrorism.

Source:Why The Government Can't Bring Terrorism Charges In Charlottesville

 

[Augustus]

It makes a lot of sense. His actions caused terror in the sense he cause panic and actually killed people.

So do street gangs, we don't call them terrorists.

A Muslim man in the United Kingdom can drive a fan and kill a large swath of people, and die at the hands of cops media automatically questions whether it was terrorist related.

Because there is a high chance that it is terror related.

When a white man drove a van into people outside a mosque it was quickly named a terrorist incident.

 

[Jumi]

Point is the psychological labels society place on people of color who commit mass attacks versus individuals of Caucasian descent, one is quickly labeled as a terrorist, the other is held off being labeled and most likely will be labeled as someone with a mental illness. In other words, white men who commit mass shootings are more given "the benefit of doubt" by the media and are looked at as being mentally deranged as opposed to committing acts of terror. Look at Dylan Roof for example. He had a motive to start a race war by killing 9 people in a church.

Dylan Roof was clearly a terrorist from the facts. Stephen Paddock we don't know if he was, he so far has left no clue to that. Unless one accepts that this was an ISIS attack, who claimed responsibility, we don't have any other reason to believe it was a terrorist attack so far. Some right wing US people on the internet were calling it left-wing terrorism from the start, without any proof of that either.

I don't know what kind of "benefit of doubt" your country's media has, at least this is not apparent on CNN which is the one I mostly access for your country's news as they posted opinion pieces that seemed to want to call this Las Vegas "terrorism" without proof for it. But do you think should we call it terrorism anyway?

In my country we had a man kill two women and injure many more with a knife attack. The media and government sources here didn't want to call it terrorism even though at the start he had called on "Allah" before stabbing and had prayed at a Mosque shortly before the knifing spree. The attacker was a refugee. Until it emerged he had a manifesto for his attack, he was inspired by ISIS, some medias changed to calling it terrorism.