On Sunday, a 64-year-old opened fire on a crowd of 22,000 people during a Las Vegas festival, in what has been described as the worst mass shooting in modern American history.
The shooting - which was carried out by U.S. citizen Stephen Paddock - left at least 58 people dead and more than 500 others injured, according to the BBC.
Paddock killed himself after police stormed his hotel room where 23 guns were found. 19 other firearms and explosives were also discovered in his home in Nevada.
The shooter's motive has not yet been identified. Investigators have suggested that Paddock suffered from psychological issues - a piece of information that has not yet been confirmed, according to the BBC.
Investigators have found no link to international terrorism, despite a claim from the so-called Islamic State (Daesh), who also said that Paddock converted to Islam a few months ago.
Whether this claim is true or not, Paddock fits the profile of a "terrorist" ... except in our Islamophobic world, the fact that he is a non-Muslim blindly rules out such a description.
In the aftermath of the horrific attack, the media has described Paddock as a "lone wolf," "gunman" and "local shooter" ... but not "terrorist." Perhaps, maybe because terrorism is only terrorism when a Muslim and media biases are involved.
If Paddock's act of violence is not terrorism, then it's time we give the word a new definition. Muslims on Twitter agree.
You don't kill "unless you have an agenda. That makes you a terrorist"
"How did authorities rule out terrorism?"
Messages of solidarity ensued
"No words"
If Paddock were Muslim ... this is how things would've unfolded
"Call it what it is: TERRORISM"
Everything but terrorist ... because "whiteness"
"Only talk policy when a Muslim shooter" is involved
"Can you imagine a Muslim shooter being so quickly humanized like this?"
Shades of terrorism?
Responses to Trump's tweet came forth
