Viral Photo Destroys Leftist Narrative About "All White" Mass Shooters

CPO (Join to see) - What kind of dipshit are you? I damn well know the definition of white. Fictitious headline my ass, and this aint a college class where I have to cite some forum that suits you, who evidently have stablished yourself as all knowing repository of what is or isn't good data. I believe you are what the young folks refer to as a troll and us older folks simply refer to as a dumb ass.

CSM Richard StCyr - Name calling and personal attacks. Very well. How about this. "Put up or shut up" sergeant. I challenge you to back your assertion that any main stream source is pushing a narrative of "All White" mass shooters. It's not happening! You're swallowing lies. There are people who believe the world is flat too.

There are extremists in every direction and you *might* be able to find a fringe site (or false flag site) that supports your alt right conspiracy of a "leftist narrative about "All White" mass shooters", but I doubt even that. As evident in your Mother Jones article, the mainstream left claims that *most* mass shooters are White. And that seems to be a push back reaction on the right's generic narrative that Blacks are criminals and Muslims are terrorists. Even liberal extremists like Harriet and Charlotte Childress do not go so far as to proclaim the "all white" stupidity.

There are idiots on the left and idiots on the right. Listening to those idiots and believing their BS is not going to help the situation. People are getting themselves worked up over nothing by people who are: () nut job fringe elements talking crazy () click-bait-capitalists generating page hits () foreign trolls seeking to divide and conquer () jack offs pushing warped agendas

NRS 202.4415  “Act of terrorism” defined. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec4415

As an example, read NV law defining terrorist act. It fits perfectly with the Vegas shooting. That debunks the Conservative Tribune's (CT) irrelevant dictionary definition and adds support to some of the Common Dreams (CD) argument and no where does CD say "all white". The CT's story is crap and plays on feelings, beliefs, and alternative facts.

Don't be their puppet. Fact check the story before you swallow what they're feeding you.

CPO (Join to see) - You are very entertaining, and I have nothing to prove to you. I don't divide sources into right or left I look at numbers over several sources and if they fall within 2 or three points of each other then I consider them OK as I said these are general conversations and not college term papers. Occasionally I do grab a screen shot of info for when I'm dealing with a nuisance so they can see something other than opinion.
Also do you not see how asinine this is. The article states "all" not many, not most. There clearly isn't an "all" in this case which is what my point was. You are defending a statement that is absurd by any reported statistical data and have picked a fight with someone that has zero fucks to give. Have a great day

CSM Richard StCyr - <heavy sigh> The article from the extreme right website says "Viral Photo Destroys Leftist Narrative About “All White” Mass Shooters". The extreme right website invented the fictitious "All White" claim and then showed that their invented "All White" claim was false. Yes, the extreme right won the fake straw man argument that the extreme right invented. Not all mass shooters are white.

The fact that you are saying things like "The article states "all" not many, not most." clearly indicates you do not understand my point. By continuing to think that there is actually a "Leftist Narrative About “All White” Mass Shooters" you are defending a statement that is absurd. Look up what a "straw man argument" is. My point is that the article is BS and no such leftist narrative exists.

To quote you and your source, the strongly left leaning Mother Jones: "white people -- almost exclusively white men -- committed some 64% of the shootings." That is the so called "Leftist Narrative". The left says most mass shooters are white; not all are white. CT has distorted the left's position to create a straw man argument that you fell for. That is why my challenge to you was to find any main stream source pushing a "narrative of "All White" mass shooters" because that is a lie.

It is accurate that mass shooters are *not* "all white" but it is complete BS to claim that is a liberal/leftist narrative. CT did not inject facts into the narrative; they distorted the narrative to hype their BS and even then there are multiple factual errors in their "evidence" to refute their distorted narrative. If you are supporting the validity of CT's phony straw man argument, then you've been suckered by their extreme ring wing propaganda intended to malign the left.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Not quite that clear cut and simple. The Army originally ruled that MAJ Hasan acted alone and was not directed by an outside terrorist group, as required for the classification. The Webster Commission report stated that, besides the communication with Al-Awlaki, MAJ Hasan "had no known contact and no known relationships with criminal elements, agents of foreign powers or potential terrorists", which also failed to meet the standard. The Military Order of the Purple Heart supported the Army's decision. Ft Hood was not declared a terrorist attack until Congress added an amendment to the FY15 military budget. Even then the DoD balked at providing full benefits until mid-2015 after more political pressure was applied.

CPO (Join to see) - as an anti terrorism instructor I can tell you it was an act of terrorism. We called it Terrorism from the get go. It meat all the requirements of a terrorist act. The reason they did not want to call it terrorism but work place violence was because of political and financial ramifications.

SSG (Join to see) As a SME, would you mind providing the legal definition and the regulatory criteria needed to declare an event to be terrorism? Unfortunately it is not unheard of for officials in power to white wash reports and bend the facts to their desires, but I'm curious if you can point out the legal reasons that event qualifies as a terrorist attack as opposed to workplace violence? (Even if it is terrorism it still qualifies as workplace violence.) I tend to support your conclusion but can you articulate the Army's legal errors or misapplication of the criteria? Most the arguments I've heard about the event are solely opinion based utilizing layman's definitions.