Still waiting for someone to substantiate the greater terrorist threat.
It tries to narrow the focus to this one person and dismiss the entire political media industry set up to instigate the feelings this guy acted on if not the actions themselves. So, yes. And also, 9/11.
What a putrid shithole and shithead of a people - beef munching vermin who think the earth is 6000 years old.
Must be those wonderful judeo-christian 'values!'
what are these idiots doing about their gun culture? No protests? Poor Abe, must be turning over in his grave - right Obama?
Like that Euro trash that murdered kids in his attack in Norway, this is another fine example of Christian Terrorism - bringing you mayhem, genocide, slavery, and zombie worship from the Religion of Love (RoL) - just like the Religion of Peace (RoP).
Sigh.. untouchables...
Why is a group affiliation required to be engaging in terrorism? The purpose of terrorism is to accomplish some goal, be it social, political, military, whatever, through inspiring fear in a group. To me it doesn't seem to be relevant how many other people are working with you at it.
I think a good example would be the beltway sniper attacks. I mean I guess there were two of them but they weren't affiliated with any group, they were just after (by varying accounts) money, to terrorize the population, etc. (although also potentially and bafflingly to kill his wife). Regardless I think they purposefully inspired real terror for the purpose of the accomplishment of their objectives. Sounds like terrorism to me.
I know you're probably being facetious, but ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups are killing, raping and torturing 9 people about every hour or so. If this is Christian terrorism, perhaps Islamic terrorists should follow its example.
Interesting, I don't think I've heard that before. To me it's the use of terror to promote ideology. In this case the ideology of white supremecy.
What a putrid shithole and shithead of a people - beef munching vermin who think the earth is 6000 years old.
Must be those wonderful judeo-christian 'values!'
what are these idiots doing about their gun culture? No protests? Poor Abe, must be turning over in his grave - right Obama?
Like that Euro trash that murdered kids in his attack in Norway, this is another fine example of Christian Terrorism - bringing you mayhem, genocide, slavery, and zombie worship from the Religion of Love (RoL) - just like the Religion of Peace (RoP).
Sigh.. untouchables...
You sound like a wacko. You planning any blazes of glory yourself in the near future?
I know you're probably being facetious, but ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups are killing, raping and torturing 9 people about every hour or so. If this is Christian terrorism, perhaps Islamic terrorists should follow its example.
Oh goody. It wasn't batshit stupid enough with Gonad's comments, you came to assist. Now the circle is complete.
To me, no, it isn't terrorism. There can certainly be different definitions of that term, but to me it requires an affiliation with an organization of some kind. I don't think an impromptu lynch mob qualifies. (That is not to say that someone who disagrees with me on this is wrong - I am just stating my view.)
Why is a group affiliation required to be engaging in terrorism? The purpose of terrorism is to accomplish some goal, be it social, political, military, whatever, through inspiring fear in a group. To me it doesn't seem to be relevant how many other people are working with you at it.
I think a good example would be the beltway sniper attacks. I mean I guess there were two of them but they weren't affiliated with any group, they were just after (by varying accounts) money, to terrorize the population, etc. (although also potentially and bafflingly to kill his wife). Regardless I think they purposefully inspired real terror for the purpose of the accomplishment of their objectives. Sounds like terrorism to me.
Why is a group affiliation required to be engaging in terrorism? The purpose of terrorism is to accomplish some goal, be it social, political, military, whatever, through inspiring fear in a group. To me it doesn't seem to be relevant how many other people are working with you at it.
I think a good example would be the beltway sniper attacks. I mean I guess there were two of them but they weren't affiliated with any group, they were just after (by varying accounts) money, to terrorize the population, etc. (although also potentially and bafflingly to kill his wife). Regardless I think they purposefully inspired real terror for the purpose of the accomplishment of their objectives. Sounds like terrorism to me.
Why is a group affiliation required to be engaging in terrorism? The purpose of terrorism is to accomplish some goal, be it social, political, military, whatever, through inspiring fear in a group. To me it doesn't seem to be relevant how many other people are working with you at it.
I think a good example would be the beltway sniper attacks. I mean I guess there were two of them but they weren't affiliated with any group, they were just after (by varying accounts) money, to terrorize the population, etc. (although also potentially and bafflingly to kill his wife). Regardless I think they purposefully inspired real terror for the purpose of the accomplishment of their objectives. Sounds like terrorism to me.
To me, no, it isn't terrorism. There can certainly be different definitions of that term, but to me it requires an affiliation with an organization of some kind. I don't think an impromptu lynch mob qualifies. (That is not to say that someone who disagrees with me on this is wrong - I am just stating my view.)
His goal was to terrorize black people, that is why he left someone alive; specifically so they could let others know what he was doing and why he was doing it. He then successfully escaped for a time where I am sure that other black people in the area were in fear of their lives because they had no idea if they were next or not. His goal was death and terror and he was successful at this until he was captured.
The contrasts in the conversations online regarding black shooters and white shooters is quite revealing.
White guy? Lone wolf, mental issues, medications, etc.
Black guy? Gang member, thug, criminal, etc.
You don't have to be in a club or a group to be a terrorist.
And where is this definition from?
Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: "The point is that terrorism is a definition-free, manipulated, malleable term of propaganda, not some fixed concept applied consistently."
Can't say I really disagree with Greenwald there.
It's interesting but oh so predictable.This crime is like a Rorschach test for posters. It's early on in the investigation, so we have imperfect information and people are filling in the gaps with their own biases.
The affiliation with a group was the way I was always trained on terrorism in the Air Force. This is why I don't consider, for example, the Fort Hood shootings to be an act of terrorism, because while Nidal Hasan was apparently acting out of Islamic extremism, he was not affiliated with any actual organization.
The Beltway Sniper case was also not terrorism (regardless of the fact that no group was involved) because it was not done in furtherance of any ideological, religious or philosophical position. Indeed I don't think the terror inspired by the Beltway Sniper was even among John Muhamed's objectives - as I understand it the whole thing was intended as subterfuge to allow him to kill his ex-wife to get custody of a child, with the appearance that she had been just one of many victims of a serial killer, rather than an individual target.
The guy was a nutjob. The only difference between this guy and someone like Holmes is this nutbag targeted blacks.
Sooner or later we're going to have to address America's gun issue. As Obama said earlier "no other civilized country has this many mass shootings like America." The frequency that we have these shootings is appalling. I wouldn't want to bring a new born into America today.
That's why I really dislike the word. It no longer has no objective meaning but generally serves to label and demonize violent actions by those in opposition to those in Power. Debates about conflicts would be more constructive if the word was gone all together.
Obama the vampire already using the dead politically before they are barley cold. Only when white kooks use guns does he hype crimes for gun control within hours. If this guy was a Muslim Brother killing Jews he wouldn't even say anything. Maybe he would even protect shooter and call crime "workplace violence". At least he didn't fake a tear like he did with Newton. Where's all the fuss over the dozens/hundreds of blacks killed in Baltimore/Chcago? Blacks lives don't really matter to Obama and this church crime is just another political opportunity for this creature
i'd rather address the poverty and mental health issues that are the root cause of crimes like these. This is not a gun issue, this is a social violence issue. But guns are easy to target for those who fear them.
And if you really would shy away from having kids because of american gun violence you only show your ignorance. All violent crime, including gun crime, is going down and has been going down for over 10 years nationally. These mass shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to what chicago suffers in a single month.
http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/
JUST POSTED ON DRUDGE
"Charleston shooter Dylann Storm Roof was reportedly taking a drug that has been linked with sudden outbursts of violence, fitting the pattern of innumerable other mass shooters who were on or had recently come off pharmaceutical drugs linked to aggression.
According to a CBS News report, earlier this year when cops searched Roof after he was acting suspiciously inside a Bath and Body Works store, they found “orange strips” that Roof told officers was suboxone, a narcotic that is used to treat opiate addiction.
Suboxone is a habit-forming drug that has been connected with sudden outbursts of aggression."
Nah, I'm not a Christian.
Not being facetious - Christian Terrorism is definitely an issue that is causing problems world over. The techniques are more subtle than its Islamic counterpart, however, it is still terrorism nonetheless. And, half the problem is denial that the problem exists.
Christian Terrorism was the main strategy to exterminate Native Americans (until the 1980s).
Sample 1: Link
Sample 2: Link
Also, ISIS is a really low bar - my point is not that Christian Terrorism is as bad as ISIS or Al-Qaeda - it's still terrorism because the terrorist who did this dastardly attack was motivated by ideological narratives that demonized another group and inculcated a severe persecution complex. This moron acted on the Christian Terrorist doctrine; most don't, just as in Islamic Terrorism (a lot more do but that doesn't negate the point).
Da troof hurfs?