Las Vegas Massacre - Open Letter to the...World!

originally posted by: MasterOfNonexistent
assasination, covered as mass shooting ..

2nd line

"Attempted"

The target was not killed or wounded 😎

a reply to: jimmyx

And you have the mentality of a yard toad.

C'mon man, can't you see there's way more to this story than just some right/left BS????

Is this how much CNN, and the MSM, programmed you???

The "Thought Police" will be after you any moment now, for "Mind Crimes", if you disagree!

a reply to: xuenchen

yup, sexy psyops

I'm pretty sure this was a CIA, NSA, something gone wrong.

There were so many holes and contradictions in the story.

No motive.

The plane he owned was an ex gov agency plane.

He had a crazy amount of guns and ammo.

Also.. I posted this the day after it happened..

But a close friend of mine at work, had a close friend in Vegas that day. She snapped a selfie on Las Vegas Blvd and he was in the photo and he was with a woman who was not his girlfriend.

There is so much more to this.

Frankly, I don't really need to hear that there was a motive or what it was. I can live with the explanation that "shxt happens". It always has and always will. The actual murder rate in the entire world as of right now is probably lower than it ever has been. Or at least lower than it has been for the better part of a century. Violent crime has been dropping like a rock for more than a decade and all we get is this scare mongering they've been bombarding us with because shxt still happens from time to time because it is the price we pay for freedom.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: visitedbythem

The truth lies with the government which doesn't know how to tell the truth.
I would love to really know what happened. Maybe some day someone will slip up.

I'm still waiting to find out who was behind JFK's death. Doubt I'll live long enough to find out what was behind this mass shooting.

I just wanna say, I absolutely LOVE the fact that people (90%+) simply ignored the 2 nonsensical lefty posts. That's how it Should be. Its a sign we are evolving. Don't even engage with someone if they arent interested in seeking truth. Theyre here to suck up our time and attention like a vacuum. If someone tells you fire isnt hot, are you honestly going to take the time to explain why it is? No. You will laugh or shrug and go about your day. I used to think "well, maybe i better refute their point anyways just in case some other, more naive, person falls for it" but honestly the best thing for some normie to see is that we all just ignored it. Arguing just gives their BS the legitimacy they so desperately crave.

I'm NOT talking down to anyone who Does/Did engage. I just like the fact that very few did.

originally posted by: madmac5150
If you look at the venue that he shot up... a country music concert...

I'm guessing he was a radical leftist, that wanted to kill a lot of conservatives.

If that is the case, it would be politically devastating... for the leftist deep state.

What better motive would the feds have, to cover up the shooters true motive?

If I remember correctly he was actually a right wing country and western fan himself. He had booked a hotel overlooking a rock/metal concert too but didn't act on that occasion, or didn't honour his booking, I can't quite remember...

a reply to: djz3ro

He had booked a hotel overlooking a rock/metal concert too but didn't act on that occasion...

Not sure I'm following your point here, this would only further support what madmac was stating. And, it disagrees with your opening sentence. Are you agreeing with him?

I mean, why would he wave off on a rock/metal concert (where there would likely be a majority of liberals) and choose instead a C&W concert (where there would likely be a majority of conservatives) if he was a 'right wing C&W fan' himself?

Just one of the many things which makes absolutely no sense with the narrative which has been laid out by authorities so far. In fact, it makes so little sense so as to be unprecedented in mass shooting type incidents.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: MasterOfNonexistent
assasination, covered as mass shooting ..

2nd line

"Attempted"

The target was not killed or wounded 😎

You have a theory on who the intended target was? Do tell...

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I've no idea why he did that. What I wrote there were the facts I remember from the time this was unfolding. I don't care about the Left/Right thing, not putting any spin on it, merely stating what I remember. I'm a scottish lefty which puts me fairly central in US Political terms...

Just days before the massacre, at least two people told police that a man they believed to be Paddock ranted to them about federal government efforts to impose gun control measures. Another witness recounted how a man thought to be Paddock shared his belief that a “camp” set up by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was in fact “a dry run for law enforcement and military to start kickin’ down doors and … confiscating guns.”
The widespread seizure of guns by the federal government — specifically through FEMA — is a popular conspiracy theory amongst extremist gun nuts, and one that was heavily promoted by the National Rifle Association.

from thinkprogress.org

This, I don't get, if he was so scared of a government gun grab why would he then go on to commit a terrorist act that would potentially help strip back firearm legislation? Yet another part that makes no sense.

I can't remember who mentioned black magic (magic which is done for evil or selfish reasons) and given that it was the Harvest Festival, the shooter was Stephen Paddock and then there was the Campos fella who was part of the hotel security who discovered Paddock. In English Campos means "Fields," highly coincidental don't ya think?

Now, I'm not a psychologist, but from what I understand terrorists (which Paddock most definitely was) generally try to avoid targeting people with the same or similar belief systems. It's like a core underpinning in their philosophy and flawed moral compass. They will generally direct their destruction at the opposing belief system or its supporters. This has been borne out many, many, times in these types of events.

Some may argue the Pulse shooting in Orlando is an example to the contrary, but I disagree. There was never any proof Mateem was gay, despite the rumors, and there very much is proof Mateem was a Muslim who identified with the beliefs of ISIL which is openly anti-homosexual. So, there is far more evidence supporting the theme that Mateem unleashed his terror on people of an opposing ideology.

The same holds true for the Ft. Hood shootings in 2009. The terrorist Hasan wasn't shooting like-minded military personnel as much as he believed he was shooting enemy combatants who he believed were members of a military machine which opposed his ideology.

Paddock is reported to have been 'conversant' in 2nd Amendment discussions. Clearly he legally purchased large quantities of firearms and ammunition over a long period of time which further supports this ideology. He is also said to have been paranoid about government conspiracies. Here again, both of these themes fly directly in the face of motive to kill like-minded, non-government, persons for no apparent reason.

a reply to: djz3ro

No worries, I just didn't understand your point.

I too am not wanting to bias myself with a left / right slant (yet), but I just want to be quick to point out the discrepancies with these themes when they come up.

a reply to: djz3ro

This, I don't get, if he was so scared of a government gun grab why would he then go on to commit a terrorist act that would potentially help strip back firearm legislation? Yet another part that makes no sense.

Totally agree!! And this is what I was saying also in my post above the last one.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Well, I didn't, but my excuse is, it's my OP.

In any case, I agree with you and probably should have just let it go myself.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Now, I'm not a psychologist, but from what I understand terrorists (which Paddock most definitely was) generally try to avoid targeting people with the same or similar belief systems. It's like a core underpinning in their philosophy and flawed moral compass. They will generally direct their destruction at the opposing belief system or its supporters. This has been borne out many, many, times in these types of events.

Some may argue the Pulse shooting in Orlando is an example to the contrary, but I disagree. There was never any proof Mateem was gay, despite the rumors, and there very much is proof Mateem was a Muslim who identified with the beliefs of ISIL which is openly anti-homosexual. So, there is far more evidence supporting the theme that Mateem unleashed his terror on people of an opposing ideology.

The same holds true for the Ft. Hood shootings in 2009. The terrorist Hasan wasn't shooting like-minded military personnel as much as he believed he was shooting enemy combatants who he believed were members of a military machine which opposed his ideology.

Paddock is reported to have been 'conversant' in 2nd Amendment discussions. Clearly he legally purchased large quantities of firearms and ammunition over a long period of time which further supports this ideology. He is also said to have been paranoid about government conspiracies. Here again, both of these themes fly directly in the face of motive to kill like-minded, non-government, persons for no apparent reason.

This is a little bit like reasoning that it makes sense for someone to murder their spouse for infidelity. It never makes sense to murder someone. It's always a depraved act that doesn't make any sense. If he killed one person, no one would be talking about it. It just so happened that he made the news everywhere. I see it the same way as I'd see it if he killed one person with a tire iron. There doesn't have to be a different "motive" for it. People have been murdered simply because the murderer had a bad day or didn't like the way they looked at him.

Generally, I never understood the whole pleading not guilty by reason of insanity thing in a murder case. To me, there has to be something wrong with a person who murders someone. They just wouldn't do it if there wasn't something wrong with them. So that turns the whole idea of prison and punishment into kind of a strange thing. What is the point of punishing someone who clearly does not really understand why what they've done is wrong? In the mind of a murderer, what they're doing is right as they're doing it. Obviously. If it didn't make sense to them they wouldn't do it. So all murderers are crazy if you ask me.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Please don't misunderstand my point; I was in no way suggesting his reasoning was 'okay' in any sense of the definition. The point is, he must have had a reason, a motivation or motive, and it's important to understand what this motive was (twisted as it may be) so we as a society can deal with other individuals who might be similarly motivated.

It is equally not 'okay', on the other hand, for authorities to just throw up their hands and say..."We dunno why he did it, just crazy I guess." That is NOT okay either.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I don't even think Paddock was the dead guy in the hotel room; we never saw his face. The whole event is so rift with inconsistencies and lies from the authorities; how can you believe anything in a 1984 atmosphere that has become America.

a reply to: olaru12

Sadly, you are correct.

You can't.