Shooting in Charleston church

[Ron]

No, I am saying that allowing Roof to claim he killed those folks for a reason is to allow him some form of legitimacy, given that one mans freedom fighter etc etc.  Like it or not, throwing the term "terrorist" around for this kind of thing does make people think of PIRA, of the Irgun, of the Red Army Brigades, of Baader-Meinhof and the rest.  He isnt one of those.

Roof is a murdering scumbag who shot nine innocents in a church.  He really doesnt need any other label.  

He murdered a bunch of folks to incite race war, to provoke and terrorize the left wing racists.

He is a terrorist by definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorist

[Doggy Daddy]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/charleston-church-attacker-dylann-roofs-manifesto/

White people invented something called spell-check, so we could oppress all those ebonics-speaking people and such-like. It takes almost no time at all.

I knew it!  Spell check is racist.  Dammit, I KNEW it!

[Ben]

Wow, kudos to Charleston:

http://twitchy.com/2015/06/20/charleston-sc-adopts-gohomederay-hashtag-we-are-handling-it-with-grace-and-love-not-hatred/

[Perd Hapley]

No, I am saying that allowing Roof to claim he killed those folks for a reason is to allow him some form of legitimacy, given that one mans freedom fighter etc etc.  Like it or not, throwing the term "terrorist" around for this kind of thing does make people think of PIRA, of the Irgun, of the Red Army Brigades, of Baader-Meinhof and the rest.  He isnt one of those.

Roof is a murdering scumbag who shot nine innocents in a church.  He really doesnt need any other label. 

Roof earned "terrorist" through his heinous actions and motives. Terrorism is what he did, so a terrorist he is. It is not an honorific title. It does not legitimize or validate anyone. If it lumps him in with other terrorists, who were also murdering scumbags who killed innocents in churches, or elsewhere,* then the word has done its job. The point of labels is to label things, and he is correctly labeled a terrorist. (All this mania against labeling things is rather stupid, isn't it? Our ability to label things is called speech, and it is one of those things that makes us higher than the animals.)

Roof, being human, had a label for those he killed. He had a reason for killing them, and not killing some other bunch of people. In that way, he's like the humans that flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and not the Taj Mahal. That a man has unreasonable reasons does not mean he has no reasons.


*I'm talking about terrorists, not freedom-fighters.

[Ned Hamford]

Terrorists? Mentally Ill?

Why not both?

Looks like both. 

[Perd Hapley]

Terrorists? Mentally Ill?

Why not both?

Looks like both. 

True.

[Jamisjockey]

If his real and true aim is to enact political change through violence (race war) than yes, he is a terrorist.  McVeigh was a terroirst.  Malvo was a terrorist.
The real reason to fear the label is the fun and games that come when that label starts getting tossed around more freely.

[MillCreek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/us/dylann-storm-roof-photos-website-charleston-church-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

This sheds more light on Mr. Roof.

[lee n. field]

I read the manifesto, and that is a gross mischaracterization. The Zimmerman trial (and not to re-beat that dead horse, but what Roof saw as the railroading of Zimmerman) let to his researching of black on white crime which in turn led to a very dark corner of the internet.

A very pale white dark corner of the Internet.

[White Horseradish]

Terrorists? Mentally Ill?

Why not both?

Looks like both. 

The guy doesn't strike me as particularly crazy. Stupid and ignorant, sure. He looks like he knew full well what he was doing, nothing delusional here.

[Ned Hamford]

The guy doesn't strike me as particularly crazy. Stupid and ignorant, sure. He looks like he knew full well what he was doing, nothing delusional here.

Well, he did apparently believe his actions would kick off a race war; so I'd say there is some narcissism and delusion there. 

Crazy; but culpable.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, he did apparently believe his actions would kick off a race war; so I'd say there is some narcissism and delusion there. 

Crazy; but culpable.

A reverse John Brown?

[vaskidmark]

Michael Z. Williamson has some thoughts regarding the cisracials,

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=366

Well, really, he has one thought about the cisracials that he repeats several times.  But he does it very well.

stay safe.

[lupinus]

And our governor just went retard. Not quite full retard, but some windows at the capital just got a bit cleaner.

[Perd Hapley]

I thought the grievance against biracial couples usually came from black American women, or from immigrant parents who want their kids to marry one of their own.

[vaskidmark]

And our governor just went retard. Not quite full retard, but some windows at the capital just got a bit cleaner.

Sent this to All Senators and All Representatives:

I encourage you to resist the emotionalism currently swirling about regarding the tragic killings in Charleston and the racist bent of the alleged killer.  Neither the flag in question nor the sociopolitical entity it represents are representative of the demented mindset of the killer.  The current furor is not about anything but an attempt to gain traction by professional  agents provocateur.

Mourn the victims and honor their memory.  But do not think that you are doing that by surrendering to mob hysteria.

I might sleep better telling myself I tried.

stay safe.

[Scout26]

As usual the liberals can't figure it out.   Let's go after something that is only vaguely, tangentially connected to the tragedy.   I sincerely doubt that he saw the Stars and Bars and decided to be a racist and go shoot up a historically black church.   Banning it, removing it, etc. will do absolutely nothing to change hearts and minds.  Mr. Bowl-Cut would have done it no matter what there is...

At least they have somewhat figured out that existing laws, nor any of the other laws they have proposed would have stopped Mr. Whackadoodle from his bloody rampage.

[Jocassee]

I thought the grievance against biracial couples usually came from black American women, or from immigrant parents who want their kids to marry one of their own.

Fistful, preaching against miscegenation has long been a staple of white supremacists and certain religious fundamentalists...up to and including dear Bob Jones Jr and Bob Jones III.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/53.0.html

[zxcvbob]

Roof is a murdering scumbag who shot nine innocents in a church.  He really doesnt need any other label. 

Same thing that I told my wife when we were discussing it yesterday. 

The media also should not publish his name or picture; just refer to him anonymously (when they can't avoid referring to him at all; the story really is newsworthy) using phrases like "the pathetic loser".

[cordex]

Fistful, preaching against miscegenation has long been a staple of white supremacists and certain religious fundamentalists...

True, however the underlying issue is that tribalists of all types often encourage marriage within their group, whether that group is defined by race, religion or political ideology.  When someone's self-identity is predominately defined by a particular characteristic, they tend to prioritize that characteristic.  There may even be some practical benefit to such pairings over their alternatives.  Perhaps in some cases shared cultural, religious or ideological backgrounds may provide some benefit to marital stability or avoid contention.  Or maybe not, I don't really know. 

All that to say both you and fistful are right: there are some white racists who denounce black/white couples and there are some black racists who denounce black/white couples.

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful, preaching against miscegenation has long been a staple of white supremacists and certain religious fundamentalists...up to and including dear Bob Jones Jr and Bob Jones III.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/53.0.html

I thought that went without saying. I was talking about the people one is most likely (I think) to actually find pitching a fit about it today. For every white social justice warrior that nerd-rages over it (or skinhead, or Biblically-challenged fundie), I would imagine there's a dozen non-whites of the type I mentioned.

The following proves nothing one way or another, but is somewhat related. Some time ago, I remember a mostly white/part-Native American friend of mine saying that her dad thought that black/white couplings were probably ill-advised, given the trouble it might put the kids through. Twenty years later, Dad went with her to India, to meet her new, dark-skinned, internet boyfriend (dot, not feather). Her whole family went thither for the wedding. Both families were deeply involved in Christian ministry, though obviously not of the Bob Jones variety. As it turned out, the guy was a bum, and left her after only a few years of marriage. There were no children.

[zxcvbob]

I thought that went without saying. I was talking about the people one is most likely (I think) to actually find pitching a fit about it today. For every white social justice warrior that nerd-rages over it (or skinhead, or Biblically-challenged fundie), I would imagine there's a dozen non-whites of the type I mentioned.

The following proves nothing one way or another, but is somewhat related. Some time ago, I remember a mostly white/part-Native American friend of mine saying that her dad thought that black/white couplings were probably ill-advised, given the trouble it might put the kids through. Twenty years later, Dad went with her to India, to meet her new, dark-skinned, internet boyfriend (dot, not feather). Her whole family went thither for the wedding. Both families were deeply involved in Christian ministry, though obviously not of the Bob Jones variety. As it turned out, the guy was a bum, and left her after only a few years of marriage. There were no children.

That's kind of my philosophy; mixed-race marriages are a really bad idea.  They are also none of my business.  I wish the young couple well; they're gonna need all the well-wishing they can get.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

A mixed couple should be aware that their kids will pay a price

[wmenorr67]

And one might wonder if keeping marriage within family might be a better idea.

[De Selby]

That's kind of my philosophy; mixed-race marriages are a really bad idea.  They are also none of my business.  I wish the young couple well; they're gonna need all the well-wishing they can get.

Wtf?  Mixed race marriages are a bad idea why?

My view is that part of the problem with marriage is that it's become an institution - if people focused on ongoing commitment rather than mostly faux obligations they'd be better of