Hmm, maybe you should read more than one line at a time
So-called Islamic State later claimed to be behind the attack, saying that Paddock had converted to Islam some months ago.
But the group provided no evidence for this and has made unsubstantiated claims in the past
How did they report it then? By tonto smoke signals?
The BBC originally said it was simply one person and later stated he was a member of ISIS? Are you now saying we canāt assume at all until the court case is in motion with the charges known? Do I think he is a member of ISIS? Do I fuck, do I think he is a nutter? Yes.
What do you think he is SOS?
Just for clarity and transparency in this?
Enough of your musical tastes, answer the question.
Once again, The BBC didnāt state that he was a member of ISIS, they reported, as did the rest of the media that ISIS had claimed he was a member.Surely you can see the difference? Of course i suspect you can, and you are on a wind up. More fool me for having a nibble and allowing you to reel me in! 
.
Youāre the only person who believes they said that.
Are you now saying we canāt assume at all until the court case is in motion with the charges known?
Assume away, but donāt try to present it as fact.
Do I think he is a member of ISIS? Do I fuck, do I think he is a nutter? Yes.
Agree(iām assuming, as i have no evidence).
Ok then they reported it, do I believe it? No but I used it as an example of how an opinion can be nurtured via media, my opinion hasnāt changed that he is a nutter, SOS and SOG want him to be a lone wolf Christian right winger to extend their agendas, my reaction was why did SOG feel the need to mention Muslim in this? Ironic later that the BBC āreportā he was a member of ISIS, again I think that is bollocks.
I hope this clears things up.
See my last reply to yourself.
Good, thats cleared up lets move on.
The wording initially was Muslim terrorist not Muslim which I later then just said terrorist. The purpose was to show the difference between an internal act and an external act. What agenda is this exactly? Do you not agree that if this had been an ISIS attack (as you seemed to believe at first) it would be viewed very differenty. I didnt want it to be a lone wolf attack. I didnt want it to be any attack.
Yeah just your average white Christian right wing nut job
Could well be.
Fuck me! A first time for everythingā¦let joy be unconfined. 
Death toll now at 58.
From the BBC
ISās claim of responsibility for the Las Vegas attack is very unusual in that the perpetratorās profile does not fit that of supporters or āsoldiersā that the group has claimed in the past.
Unlike the mainly young men in previous claims of attacks in the West, the suspect is a 64-year-old white man, identified as Stephen Paddock.
Police say Mr Paddock killed himself as officers stormed his hotel room. If true, his suicide would be deemed wholly āun-Islamicā.
Jihadist suicides involve the assailant blowing himself up in order to kill those around him.
Mr Paddockās anomalous background was not lost on IS, who rushed to explain that he had āconverted to Islam a few months agoā.
But the jihadist group has yet to offer any evidence to support this assertion, just as with many similar attacks in the West that the group has claimed seemingly opportunistically.
It does sound like some IS bullshit, the silly fuckers. The suicide aspect is interesting as initial reports were that the police had shot him which they later changed to he had committed suiicde by the time they got into the room. Thereās one for the conspiracy theorists.
anyway, Iād be surprised if that figure of 58 doesnāt increase given how many are in hospital. What a fucking bonkers and depressing world it is.
Not sure I can add anything useful to this thread or particularly want to to be honest.
Sad beyond belief.
No tin foil needed here, just confusion in the reporting.