View Full Version : Terrorist attack in South Carolina
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179019
My prayers go out to the families of the victims and to the survivors of this terrible attack.
Pretty sad but it does not say anything about a terrorist, just another sick individual with a gun.
Pretty sad but it does not say anything about a terrorist, just another sick individual with a gun.
That's the definition of a terrorist, isn't it?
ikalugin
06-18-15, 07:09 AM
I smell a gun control thread.
We already have a thread for that. This is a thread about the terrible attack on innocent civilians by a terrorist in South Carolina.
Betonov
06-18-15, 07:15 AM
Killing people with a different ideology/rase/religion for no other reason than hate and bigotry is an act of terrorism and I do not care if he had mental issues. A murderer is a murderer and should have a drone jammed up his rectum like al qaida
That's the definition of a terrorist, isn't it?
not in my book, is he doing it for a cause ? has he posted his views and reasons on some radical website ? posted a video of his crime ? threatened to cause more deaths in the name of some god ? i would believe him to be a racist or a hatist with mental problems but not a terrorist.
not in my book, is he doing it for a cause ? has he posted his views and reasons on some radical website ? posted a video of his crime ? threatened to cause more deaths in the name of some god ? i would believe him to be a racist or a hatist with mental problems but not a terrorist.
He must be doing it for some cause or he wouldn't have done it, right?
In regards to the views and reasons, I dare say the media will find that in due time.
The definition of a terrorist is:
A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims
And terrorism is defined as:
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims
Now, we don't know his motives just yet, but we will soon, but his targetting indicates either an anti-religious or anti-black motive, and as such, it is terrorism. He was a civilian, he used a gun against unarmed civilians for a particular reason, he is a terrorist.
From the same source
Quote
In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal-law definition.
I have my definition, you have yours.
From the same source
Quote
In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal-law definition.
This is true, but the domestic definition still stands. Otherwise then what were the Charlie Hebdo shooters charged with? Or Anders Brevik, or Timothy McVeigh? Domestic terrorism. :yep:
This is getting away from the original post and that should not happen with something so tragic, i will say no more.
ikalugin
06-18-15, 07:56 AM
It is indeed tragic, but all men must die.
Jimbuna
06-18-15, 08:02 AM
This is getting away from the original post and that should not happen with something so tragic, i will say no more.
Appreciated.
Terribly tragic incident.
Rockstar
06-18-15, 08:33 AM
That's the definition of a terrorist, isn't it?
NO IT IS NOT THE DEFINITION.
Terrorism here in the U.S. is ALREADY defined. How pathetic, turning a tragedy into a personal quest for political correctness.
Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).
-----------------
Hate crime.
Defining a Hate Crime
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
.
Wolferz
06-18-15, 09:23 AM
We don't know what to label this heinous act just yet, other than premeditated mass murder. There are plenty of laws governing the prosecution and punishment of this crime. The article linked in the OP didn't mention anything about terrorism, though I'm sure those folks were plenty terrified.:o:timeout::nope:
NO IT IS NOT THE DEFINITION.
Terrorism here in the U.S. is ALREADY defined. How pathetic, turning a tragedy into a personal quest for political correctness.
I just thought I'd get in there before the usual crowd who are quick to label a homicidal Muslim a terrorist, or a homicidal black guy a thug, but also quick to label a homicidal white guy 'mentally unstable' did.
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).
-----------------
Hate crime.
Defining a Hate Crime
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
.
Fair enough, that's a pretty good definition if I'm honest. A better one, in fact, than the dictionary definition. I'll concede that, in legal terms, this person is not a terrorist.
Coming on to hate crime, is another tricky subject, and there's plenty of it about.
In regards to the accusations of hijacking a tragedy for political correctness, perhaps I could be accused of that, but equally no more than people who use events like Ferguson to further their anti-black agenda or the Boston bombings to further their anti-Muslim agenda.
Dylann Roof, 21
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/06/18/charleston-suspect-is-dylann-roof.html
Pictured wearing Apartheid era South Africa flag, and Rhodesia flag patches, alledgedly told the people in the church "I have to do it. You're raping our women and taking over the country. You have to go."
Rockstar
06-18-15, 10:28 AM
http://chestnutstreet4square.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dig-deep.jpg
Betonov
06-18-15, 10:46 AM
Legal definitions never convinced me.
They're written by rich people in air conditioned offices that were either born into a complete failure to understand the world or became that way from all the years of living isolated from the dirt and grid of the real world.
What matters is the opinion of the people affected and I'm certain they were terrified.
Legal definitions never convinced me.
They're written by rich people in air conditioned offices that were either born into a complete failure to understand the world or became that way from all the years of living isolated from the dirt and grid of the real world.
What matters is the opinion of the people affected and I'm certain they were terrified.
The law may be an ass, but it is still the law.
But still, this is an interesting exercise in compare and contrast.
Quite insightful. :yep:
Just in, Roof has been arrested.
Good that they got him alive.
Rockstar
06-18-15, 11:32 AM
President Obama spoke touched upon various topics including American history, race and gun violence. But get this, no mention of terrorism.
Incident will be investigated as a hate crime and rightfully so.
But y'all you go ahead and keep digging your hole.
.
President Obama spoke touched upon various topics including American history, race and gun violence. But get this, no mention of terrorism.
Incident will be investigated as a hate crime and rightfully so.
But ya'all you go ahead and keep digging your hole.
I'm aiming for the 'All Muslims are Terrorists' hole, going to meet up with it and connect with the 'All Blacks are thugs' hole, start a subway system going. :yeah:
Obamas speech was good though, I noted in particular his pained expression at "I've had to make statements like this too many times."
He's not wrong.
Mr Quatro
06-18-15, 11:48 AM
That was quick enough on catching him ... another nut job that wants to be heard. The weak ones shoot themselves in the head at the scene this one is just plain crazy blaming the blacks for anything.
I'll say it out loud, "it's the devil stirring up the pot" for one big blow out for a race war in the making.
The young man was just 21 and for his birthday his dad gave him a gun.
Here go the gun rights debates again :yep:
I'll say it out loud, "it's the devil stirring up the pot" for one big blow out for a race war in the making.
The young man was just 21 and for his birthday his dad gave him a gun.
Here go the gun rights debates again :yep:
Sure seems like something stirring up the pot. Perhaps the internet, certainly it facilitates ease of access to radical media and thoughts, you couple that to a firearm or explosive and it's dangerously easy to kill people.
But yes, the gun rights debates will start again, and both sides will holler and shout and nothing will change and eventually people will stop talking about it, the media will stop giving it air time and life will return to normal, until the next mass killing. :dead:
Von Tonner
06-18-15, 12:01 PM
President Obama spoke touched upon various topics including American history, race and gun violence. But get this, no mention of terrorism.
Incident will be investigated as a hate crime and rightfully so.
But y'all you go ahead and keep digging your hole.
.
Gotta agree with you Rockstar - the pic of him on Facebook with the old SA flag and Rhodesian one is a give away together with his victims on his motives.
Another interesting thing that Obama said in his speech was is that he asked the question why does this type of incident happen so frequently in the States. Not, as he said, that it does not happen in other countries but it happens far too frequently in the States. A question to ponder.
I can think of many questions to ask in order to answer his question.
Are there more unstable people in the States per pop than other countries?
Are gun laws more relaxed in the States than other countries?
Are racial tensions higher in the States than other countries?
Do different race groups feel more threatened by other race groups in the States than other countries?
Is the States going under a faster social/political/economic change than other countries - bringing with it a sense of fear to some groups?
Many, many more questions can be asked and the answers sought in order to address Obama's prime question and hopefully the answer to his.
Betonov
06-18-15, 12:14 PM
Some people must be affraid that if this is called terrorism, the all muslims are terrorists argument goes out the window because today would mean that all whites are terrorists.
Is the States going under a faster social/political/economic change than other countries - bringing with it a sense of fear to some groups?
That's actually a really interesting question, and well put forward, I would echo it being one that needs to be asked.
Certainly the ethos of the United States has always been liberty, freedom and equality, the freedom of the people to be able to live their lives without heavy restriction from the state or government. That being said, those founding thoughts were brought about over two hundred years ago, based upon ideals brought forward many years before that (the French revolution, to name one).
The whole world has undergone massive social, economic and political change in the past one hundred years, and the rate of that change has only increased exponentially over the past five decades. It is scary, sometimes I look at the internet, in particular the way it can basically get into your real life and tear it apart if you should make one false step, and it does scare me. I'm grateful that I went to school when I did, in an era before smart phones and youtube meant that any mistake you made would be recorded for prosperity and kept forever to haunt you.
That being said, you cannot halt progress, some people might try to push back the tide, but eventually they find themselves in deep water and trying to make sense of this new world.
Coming back to this particular individual, I cannot help but find similarities between his words of "You're raping our women and taking over the country." and those people who have the conspiracy (http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690) theory (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/01/27/will-pew-muslim-birth-rate-study-finally-silence-the-eurabia-claim/) that Muslims are taking over Europe by breeding indiscriminately. It's that fear of being overtaken and losing dominance in your surrounding nation, the fear of invasion which is a classic fear which stretches back millenia, only usually it's been by another nation rather than by a particular ethnic group.
Will it change? Can it change? I honestly don't know, for some people there's too much profit in the status quo for it to change (and this is for people on both sides here, Sharpton, I'm looking at you) but for others there is a real driving force, and a lot of frustration that things are moving as slow as they are. But move they are, and perhaps things will change, at one point people might have said that Apartheid would never end, and yet it did. So anything is possible. :yep:
Schroeder
06-18-15, 12:50 PM
Some people must be affraid that if this is called terrorism, the all muslims are terrorists argument goes out the window because today would mean that all whites are terrorists.
Over here we had a group killing mainly Turkish citizens. They called themselves NSU (Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund / National socialist Underground). They did mainly the same thing and they are officially called right wing terrorists here.:yep:
All y'all can quibble and fret about ultimately meaningless definitions 'til you're blue in the face, but the facts are this: as of now, 9 people are dead and more are wounded and none of the legalese, defining, or debate is going to make the dead any more alive or the wounded any more whole. The time is not to point fingers or quibble over nonsense, but to extend to those affected by this tragedy deepest sympathies and condolences. I extend mine to them and their loved ones and hope this never happens again...
<O>
Comment made by the shooter during this senseless act-
The survivor’s son “was trying to talk him out of doing the act of killing people,” Johnson said. “He just said ‘I have to do it.’ He said, ‘You rape our women, and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.’”
He didn't just start shooting from the back of the church, he actually walked up to each individual and shot them close range.:nope:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/victims-named-in-charleston-church-shooting/2015/06/18/3f9ba002-15ea-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html
Platapus
06-18-15, 05:03 PM
I am glad he got caught.
He needs to get a fair trial and if the evidence is clear, needs to be convicted and sentenced. South Carolina still has the death penalty so I figure that will be what the prosecution will go for.
Onkel Neal
06-18-15, 05:30 PM
I just thought I'd get in there before the usual crowd who are quick to label a homicidal Muslim a terrorist, or a homicidal black guy a thug, but also quick to label a homicidal white guy 'mentally unstable' did.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/41062451.jpg
I am glad he got caught.
He needs to get a fair trial and if the evidence is clear, needs to be convicted and sentenced. South Carolina still has the death penalty so I figure that will be what the prosecution will go for.
They should! Call him what you want, he's a murderer facing 9 counts of first degree murder! Signed, sealed and delivered to the needle in the arm, as far as I'm concerned!
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/41062451.jpg
http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/tommy-lee-jones-movies-list.jpg
Rockstar
06-18-15, 09:29 PM
You know how those Brits they love their titles. I guess it carries over to all situations in life. 9 people dead and they're worried about how the murderer(s) should be recognized.
Onkel Neal
06-18-15, 10:00 PM
http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/tommy-lee-jones-movies-list.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--wqtszL02--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/18wpgmzvvbiu3jpg.jpg
Torplexed
06-18-15, 10:09 PM
Too much face time
http://www.funvsfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/funny_male_faces-8.jpg
I'm sure this tragedy was racially motivated, but I also strongly suspect that the racism in this case is a by-product of severe mental illness.
And what it really should do is finally convince people to restrict gun ownership to the mentally ill.
Ironic it should be South Carolina. Too small to be a nation. Too large to be a mental institution.
Cybermat47
06-18-15, 10:42 PM
A lot of the posts in this thread make me sad :(
I say domestic terrorism. Interesting this comes a week after timothy mcveigh was executed for the Oklahoma City bombings years ago. At first thought it was an isis or Al Quaida calling but the oklahoma city bombings are still fresh in many people's minds today.
Torplexed
06-19-15, 02:03 AM
I say domestic terrorism.
Yup. That's an old-timey tradition here. :dead:
http://klipd.com/screenshots/2518fd60e8ec95c19ba17e94210a914c-0.jpg
HunterICX
06-19-15, 04:40 AM
It's sad that a lowlife scum had to go this way trying to press his believes that some group of people are a blight on his country. :nope:
My thoughts are out with the families of the victims of this tragic event.
Jon Stewart with a monologue on the subject pretty much summing it up :
Jon Stewart on Charleston Shooting: 'This Is a Terrorist Attack
Jon Stewart (http://variety.com/t/jon-stewart/) was not in the mood for political jokes or humor on Thursday’s “Daily Show.” The outgoing host, in addressing Wednesday’s deadly shooting in Charleston, South Carolina that left 9 people dead, including state senator Clementa Pinckney, said he felt nothing but “sadness” for the victims, and the racism that African Americans continue to endure in the United States.
“This is a terrorist attack,” he said. “Al Qaeda, ISIS, they’re not sh-t compared to the damage we can do to ourselves on a regular basis.”
“What blows my mind is the disparity of response,” Stewart added, visibly frustrated. “When we think people that are foreign are going to kill us and us killing ourselves…We invaded two countries and spent trillions of dollars and (lost) thousands of American lives and now fly unmanned death machines over like five or six different counties, all to keep Americans safe. We’ve got to do whatever we can—we’ll torture people. We’ve got to do whatever we can to keep Americans safe. (But) nine people shot in a church, ‘Hey, what are you going go to do?’…that’s the part I cannot for the life of me wrap my head around.”
VIDEO:
https://vid.me/45na
Jon Stewart on Charleston Shooting: 'This Is a Terrorist Attack
Jon hits it out of the park as usual, gonna miss him when he goes.
Jimbuna
06-19-15, 06:26 AM
They should! Call him what you want, he's a murderer facing 9 counts of first degree murder! Signed, sealed and delivered to the needle in the arm, as far as I'm concerned!
Yeah, that works for me :yep:
gregorm
06-19-15, 08:44 AM
Dylann Roof, 21
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/06/18/charleston-suspect-is-dylann-roof.html
Pictured wearing Apartheid era South Africa flag, and Rhodesia flag patches, alledgedly told the people in the church "I have to do it. You're raping our women and taking over the country. You have to go."
I hate this PC nonsense as much as the next guy and fully realize that people will use this tragedy to score political points but that doesn't change the fact that this was DOMTERR pure and simple.
Having people like Lindsey Graham claim that the kid's intentions was simply to hurt Christians is insane and only serves to further isolate right wing politics. Just like that politician throwing snowballs in congress. Embarrassing.
Which is a shame, because right wing politics has a lot to offer this nation.
Onkel Neal
06-19-15, 09:27 AM
This was a racially motivated crime, so it could easily be called domestic terrorism. No problem with that, but seeing the PC crowd get all wound up over the labels when they have nothing to say about the crime and killings elsewhere is sad.
And I'm sick of hearing pundits squeal about the racial divide etc in this country. That's BS, plain and simple. As a truck driver I work with a lot of people of color, every day I interact with black people. Probably half of the truck drivers I know are black. There's no issue with working people of all colors, as far as I can see.
Von Tonner
06-19-15, 10:12 AM
This was a racially motivated crime, so it could easily be called domestic terrorism. No problem with that, but seeing the PC crowd get all wound up over the labels when they have nothing to say about the crime and killings elsewhere is sad.
And I'm sick of hearing pundits squeal about the racial divide etc in this country. That's BS, plain and simple. As a truck driver I work with a lot of people of color, every day I interact with black people. Probably half of the truck drivers I know are black. There's no issue with working people of all colors, as far as I can see.
What you say is true Neal - for you and those blacks you come into contact with.
But, the reality is also true that there is a percentage of people - and it is not unique to only one race group - who do not want to "rub shoulders" with any group other than their own kind. And groups can be based on any number of types such as race, religion, gender, ability, profession, nationality, etc.
All systems - political, economic and social - are dynamic within all countries in the world. Some stagnate, some regress, and some advance at any given time. But whatever they do there will always be a certain sector within any community afraid of the change and feel that they are been marginalised and threatened. That the life they have grown up in, become accustomed to, and have felt safe in is shifting and changing under their feet.
This makes perfect breeding grounds for hatred and prejudice to grow within those communities who cannot cope and cannot adapt to change. Some individuals and collectives within those groups can become ticking time bombs.
We have had it in SA, Europe, America, Middle East - in fact all over the world. I do not have the answer.
What I do know, is one does not need aspirant politicians trying to garner support on these perceived fears. We have a lot of that here in South Africa.
And it troubles me for example, that in America, one has a lose canon like Trump spouting he will make America great again. What does he mean by that? In what way? America is a great country and will be so for the foreseeable future. It has its problems - but none are unique to it.
The problem lies in that they are happening too often. And that is the question Obama posed.
I'll admit, perhaps I jumped a little too quickly into this, but I call it as I see it, and domestic or not, it was still an act of terror, even if it doesn't count as such under US domestic law. Others won't see it that way, and that's how it is.
However, pundits or no pundits, there certainly does seem to be a problem even if it's not visible at the local level. If there was not a problem then we wouldn't be in this situation, would we? With a white kid with a gun convinced that black people are 'raping' and 'taking over' the country. Something has gotten into that kids head that has made him think that way, most likely it is, yes, coupled with a mental illness, but hate is not born, hate is taught. No-one is born hating anyone else (except perhaps whatever being just forced you out of that nice warm liquid cocoon into a harsh bright cold room) but along the line we are taught discrimination through both society and family. Does that mean that it is inevitable that people will hate? Not always, it can be unlearnt, it can be removed but never usually totally.
To be fair to America, this is not a purely Americo-centric problem, it may seem that way, and the ease of access to firearms may perhaps be a part of making a bad situation worse, but it's a problem that affects the whole western world. In America it's Blacks, in Europe it's Muslims and Eastern Europeans, it's all the same thing, fear of the unknown, fear of something that isn't the same as you. Fear of change. I think that social-economic situations also come into it, with the whole wealth gap, but that's a whole kettle of fish for another thread.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH0mBaeUwAAvW_3.jpg:large
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/joaquin-phoenix-shock-signs.gif
That moment when you and Bill O'Reilly agree on something...
I'm going for a lie down now... :dead:
Von Tonner
06-19-15, 11:09 AM
I'll admit, perhaps I jumped a little too quickly into this, but I call it as I see it, and domestic or not, it was still an act of terror, even if it doesn't count as such under US domestic law. Others won't see it that way, and that's how it is.
However, pundits or no pundits, there certainly does seem to be a problem even if it's not visible at the local level. If there was not a problem then we wouldn't be in this situation, would we? With a white kid with a gun convinced that black people are 'raping' and 'taking over' the country. Something has gotten into that kids head that has made him think that way, most likely it is, yes, coupled with a mental illness, but hate is not born, hate is taught. No-one is born hating anyone else (except perhaps whatever being just forced you out of that nice warm liquid cocoon into a harsh bright cold room) but along the line we are taught discrimination through both society and family. Does that mean that it is inevitable that people will hate? Not always, it can be unlearnt, it can be removed but never usually totally.
To be fair to America, this is not a purely Americo-centric problem, it may seem that way, and the ease of access to firearms may perhaps be a part of making a bad situation worse, but it's a problem that affects the whole western world. In America it's Blacks, in Europe it's Muslims and Eastern Europeans, it's all the same thing, fear of the unknown, fear of something that isn't the same as you. Fear of change. I think that social-economic situations also come into it, with the whole wealth gap, but that's a whole kettle of fish for another thread.
Ditto:agree:
Leaving race aside for a second too, let's also compare this to Tsarnaev who was widely called a terrorist from the very start, although aside from his brother, no link has been proven between him and any organized terror - just some twisted ideas. I don't remember there being much public debate on whether Tsarnaev was a terrorist or not - only his lawyers seemed to be seriously convinced that he wasn't. That said, I doubt this guy's fate will be much different from Tsarnaev's - and given that it's SC and not MA, the death penalty will likely be brought out with far less hesitation, too.
Wolferz
06-19-15, 03:38 PM
Maybe if they hadn't been dragging their feet on Cosby...:-?
Tchocky
06-19-15, 04:00 PM
Leaving race aside for a second too, let's also compare this to Tsarnaev who was widely called a terrorist from the very start, although aside from his brother, no link has been proven between him and any organized terror - just some twisted ideas. I don't remember there being much public debate on whether Tsarnaev was a terrorist or not - only his lawyers seemed to be seriously convinced that he wasn't. That said, I doubt this guy's fate will be much different from Tsarnaev's - and given that it's SC and not MA, the death penalty will likely be brought out with far less hesitation, too.
Theory on how this works vis a vis Tsarnaev.
If mass shootings are to be considered terrorism, they are then so common in the US so that no politician can make a case for keeping people safe.
If they are not terrorism, then we haven't failed to prevent terrorism.
Ergo this.
Not that I sign up to that logic, quite the opposite.
Leaving race aside for a second too, let's also compare this to Tsarnaev who was widely called a terrorist from the very start, although aside from his brother, no link has been proven between him and any organized terror - just some twisted ideas. I don't remember there being much public debate on whether Tsarnaev was a terrorist or not - only his lawyers seemed to be seriously convinced that he wasn't. That said, I doubt this guy's fate will be much different from Tsarnaev's - and given that it's SC and not MA, the death penalty will likely be brought out with far less hesitation, too.
There's not much public debate about this new guy being a terrorist either except for a couple of guys here on the forum and Oberons anonymous crowd of homicidal maniac labelers.
FWIW the justice department has already opened investigations over civil rights violations and terrorism.
http://news.yahoo.com/charleston-shooting-investigated-act-domestic-terrorism-doj-185304724.html
Have only one thing to say about this
It makes me so sad, there's so much hate in this world
Oberons anonymous crowd of homicidal maniac labelers.
Such anonymous people as:
Jon Stewart
Bill O'Reilly
Abraham H. Foxman (Director of the Anti-Defamation League and Lawyer)
Daryl Johnson (former team leader at the DHS)
Bernie Sanders
The Justice Department (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-us-justice-department-will-investigate-the-charleston-shooting-as-an-act-of-domestic-terrorism-10333270.html)
And numerous online media outlets, and some offline ones too, if Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly are anything to go by.
I mean, for gods sake, I'm as left wing as they come and Bill O'flipping REILLY and I are in agreement...
https://paradefieldrejects.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screen-shot-2013-02-07-at-11-24-44-pm.png
But yes, my Anonymous crowd of homicidal maniac labellers, my PC police, we brave few, we band of happy brothers. :yeah:
And let's just recap here, before I get called the PC Police again.
I started this thread labelled the perpetrator of this attack a terrorist. Domestic or otherwise, I called him a terrorist and sent my prayers to the families of the victims and to the survivors. Ok?
Then I get taken to task for calling it a terrorist attack, by no less than two people. I get called 'Pathetic' for calling it a terrorist attack. Do I have an agenda? My only agenda is to call this what it is, if it had been a black guy shooting up a white church, I would still consider it an act of domestic terrorism, akin to the Black Panthers (who I'm surprised we've not heard more from in recent months).
Because I want to make sure that it doesn't matter what ethnicity, religion, sex or age this person is, if he sets out to cause terror, then he is by my definition and that of the dictionary, a terrorist, and for this I am 'Pathetic'. In Rockstars counter-arguement he states that he was not a regular terrorist nor likely a domestic terrorist. I concede that legally this was likely the case, however since then it has been announced that the Department of Justice is going to be looking at this as an act of Domestic terrorism.
I have labelled this...person...from the start as a terrorist, and his actions as an act of terror. I am not alone in this labelling, and far from there being little discussion about it, if one were to look at social media regarding the event, one would find quite a significant amount of discussion about it, with a great majority labelling it an act of terror.
If there has been any labelling going on here, it's been by people wanting to find excuses not to name this psychopath a terrorist.
But, by all means, dismiss me as the PC police as always, stick two fingers up at me, it's your decision, but ultimately we will see what the Department of Justice says, and until then I will reiterate my initial post which put forward my thoughts and prayers to the victims families and to the survivors of this terrorist attack on America.
But yes, my Anonymous crowd of homicidal maniac labellers, my PC police, we brave few, we band of happy brothers. :yeah:
What I was referring to was:
I just thought I'd get in there before the usual crowd who are quick to label a homicidal Muslim a terrorist, or a homicidal black guy a thug, but also quick to label a homicidal white guy 'mentally unstable' did. So aside from the fact that none of the people you listed actually post here it seems that they were just as quick to label a white guy as a terrorist as they would any other individual or group that commits such a heinous crime.
Also since you include the Justice Department in your list it should be noted that they have been far far quicker to call this white guy a terrorist than they were with the Arab Ft. Hood killer which as I recall took months and months and finally did so only after considerable public pressure.
What I was referring to was:
So aside from the fact that none of the people you listed actually post here it seems that they were just as quick to label a white guy as a terrorist as they would any other individual or group that commits such a heinous crime.
Also since you include the Justice Department in your list it should be noted that they have been far far quicker to call this white guy a terrorist than they were with the Arab Ft. Hood killer which as I recall took months and months and finally did so only after considerable public pressure.
But wasn't the first page of this thread people refruting my initial statement that this was an act of terror? Two people, in fact, and my response that you quoted was in response to being called pathetic for calling this an act of terror because I had an agenda.
I don't think I had any more or less of an agenda than the people who derailed the Australian hostage situation thread into a rant/gloat on Gun Control, in the fifth posting on the thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=217294).
But wasn't the first page of this thread people refruting my initial statement that this was an act of terror? Two people, in fact, and my response that you quoted was in response to being called pathetic for calling this an act of terror because I had an agenda.
I don't think I had any more or less of an agenda than the people who derailed the Australian hostage situation thread into a rant/gloat on Gun Control, in the fifth posting on the thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=217294).
Well maybe he did have an agenda and maybe he didn't but regardless it was just two people who disagreed and only one of them actually insulted you so I still don't see how that makes a crowd.
Onkel Neal
06-19-15, 08:36 PM
Also since you include the Justice Department in your list it should be noted that they have been far far quicker to call this white guy a terrorist than they were with the Arab Ft. Hood killer which as I recall took months and months and finally did so only after considerable public pressure.
Yeah, exactly. Politically Correct people are deadset against labeling someone like the Ft. Hood shooter a "terrorist" but are falling all over themselves to get someone like this Charleston shooter labeled a terrorist. I think we all agree that the guy who shot up the Charleston church is a murderer, a criminal. From what I read, he was motivated to kill because of racist views. He's a racist mass murderer. Terrorist? Yeah, sure, like Timothy McVeigh. He's widely seen as a terrorist.
Back during the Waco biker shootout, someone here complained "why are these guys not called "thugs"". Why are only black saggy-pants inner-city hood rats called thugs? :hmmm: Me personally, I think of biker types who commit criminal acts as brutes. I would never call a gang-banger a brute, that's a thug.
Bruce Jenner is now a woman, so I have to refer to him as her.... if I see rioters I have to use a PC correct term for them, etc...
I'm tired of people telling me what to think, what I have to call this and that.:shifty:
Oby, you have to admit, you labeled this a terrorist attack in the original post, before we even knew much about the guy. For all we knew from the first few hours, this guy could have stopped by the church and had a mental breakdown. Or maybe the pastor owed him money. True, now we know a lot more about this crime, and why he did it.
One other thing, re: Roof, I'm hearing people around him say he was boasting how he would do something like this. Sounds a lot like the Colorado shooter. And that squirrelly kid who was ticked at women. Man, when will people take these nuts seriously? If someone makes these kind of statements, lock them up in the nuthouse. *
.
.
.
.*Can I call it the "nuthouse"? Maybe I better use "asylum"... or to be safe, I'll say "Mental Health Facility....
Oby, you have to admit, you labeled this a terrorist attack in the original post, before we even knew much about the guy. For all we knew from the first few hours, this guy could have stopped by the church and had a mental breakdown. Or maybe the pastor owed him money. True, now we know a lot more about this crime, and why he did it.
Nothing excuses going into a church, with a gun, and shooting innocent bystanders. No motive, no reasoning, no medical disorder, nothing.
It is, to me, an act of mass murder and an act of terror.
Does this mean that school shooters are terrorists? Damn straight it does. They should be treated as Domestic terrorists just the same as McVeigh. The Fort. Hood shooter? Same stick. If you go out with the aim to kill as many people as possible then you are a domestic terrorist, and deserve treatment as such. Not therapy, not rehab, but either the injection, or preferably a solo supermax cell for the rest of your natural life, with the media expressly ordered to report just the minimal facts about your existence. One picture, the mugshot, and just the basic facts, no long winded testiments, no in-depth examination, no mentioning the prepetrators name on television day in and day out for weeks afterwards. Instead, focus on the victims, the dead people, the good they did and the fact that their lives were cut short so viciously for no reason other than a psychopath had a gun and the mentality to use it.
Maybe then, maybe people will stop seeing such actions as viable, but I doubt it.
One other thing, re: Roof, I'm hearing people around him say he was boasting how he would do something like this. Sounds a lot like the Colorado shooter. And that squirrelly kid who was ticked at women. Man, when will people take these nuts seriously? If someone makes these kind of statements, lock them up in the nuthouse. *A fair point, the downside is until we get The Minority Report, we can't accurately predict peoples actions based upon their personal statements.
And even if we did take their statements to heart and investigated people for it, there will still be those who slip under the radar, or who don't say anything and then snap.
*Can I call it the "nuthouse"? Maybe I better use "asylum"... or to be safe, I'll say "Mental Health Facility....I prefer the term 'General Topics' myself. :yep:
I think the confusion comes from the fact that when folks talk about a terrorist he is almost always a member or associate of some organization who commits his crimes in support of the organizations causes.
Unlike (as we know so far) the SC shooter the Tsarnaev brothers, at least the older one, was suspected of having been recruited and maybe even trained by terrorist organizations when he went back to visit the old country. "Radicalized" I believe is the term they used.
It'll be interesting to find out where this nut got his motivation. I think it's certainly possible that someone put him up to it to some degree. Good, i hate nazis and will be glad to see some light shined on those cockroaches.
Yeah, exactly. Politically Correct people are deadset against labeling someone like the Ft. Hood shooter a "terrorist" but are falling all over themselves to get someone like this Charleston shooter labeled a terrorist. I think we all agree that the guy who shot up the Charleston church is a murderer, a criminal. From what I read, he was motivated to kill because of racist views. He's a racist mass murderer. Terrorist? Yeah, sure, like Timothy McVeigh. He's widely seen as a terrorist.
Back during the Waco biker shootout, someone here complained "why are these guys not called "thugs"". Why are only black saggy-pants inner-city hood rats called thugs? :hmmm: Me personally, I think of biker types who commit criminal acts as brutes. I would never call a gang-banger a brute, that's a thug.
Bruce Jenner is now a woman, so I have to refer to him as her.... if I see rioters I have to use a PC correct term for them, etc...
I'm tired of people telling me what to think, what I have to call this and that.:shifty:
I think the thing that ticks me off the most, really, is over-generalisation. The assumption that just because someone is x, they are therefore y. (Muslim - Terrorist, Black guy - Thug, German - Nazi, etc).
In regards to Bruce Jenner being a woman now and the whole gender fluidity situation, that's something that your and even my generation is never going to click with. The next generation or two will gradually accept it as the norm, but we will struggle with the changes. It's like the novel 'The Forever War', Mandella struggles to fit in with the new Earth he has returned to after dealing with time dilation on his way home from the frontlines.
I'm not as PC as people seem to think I am (just ask HunterICX), I would say that I'm a PC Special Constable rather than a PC Policeman, but one must also remember that I am a generation different to a fair few people here. I was brought up in a more liberal society (despite living through the Thatcher years) than my predecessors were, and they in turn were born into a more liberal society than their predecessors. Alvin Toffer wrote a book which became a term to describe this fear of rapid change, 'Future shock' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock), and I think that it's something that people of the generation born between the 1940s and 1970s are probably dealing with. Even I, born in the 1980s, suffer a degree of it, you should see the mess I make trying to operate a smart phone, and the whole way that people can track you down online and hound you into submission through cyber-bullying terrifies me.
Sometimes though, people with good intentions do go a tad overboard, sometimes this is because they're preparing for a fight and when one doesn't happen they kind of go off anyway. I have in the past reacted over-defensively on a subject, primarily since I've expected more people to disagree with me than actually did. A form of turtling perhaps. :haha:
But well, that is how it goes, times do change, and everyone will always have their particular era that they will think of when 'times were better' and 'summers were long', and so forth.
In short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7qQ6_RV4VQ
Does this mean that school shooters are terrorists? Damn straight it does. They should be treated as Domestic terrorists just the same as McVeigh. The Fort. Hood shooter? Same stick. If you go out with the aim to kill as many people as possible then you are a domestic terrorist, and deserve treatment as such. Not therapy, not rehab, but either the injection, or preferably a solo supermax cell for the rest of your natural life, with the media expressly ordered to report just the minimal facts about your existence. One picture, the mugshot, and just the basic facts, no long winded testiments, no in-depth examination, no mentioning the prepetrators name on television day in and day out for weeks afterwards. Instead, focus on the victims, the dead people, the good they did and the fact that their lives were cut short so viciously for no reason other than a psychopath had a gun and the mentality to use it.
Maybe then, maybe people will stop seeing such actions as viable, but I doubt it.
Agree 100% although I think shackling the media would not be very popular or successful and ultimately unnecessary since that's what happens over the course of time anyways as they move on to the next ratings getter. Besides as we have discussed elsewhere the media will not be likely where you'll find the discussion of this animal in the future once the story is off the front page of the news.
I think the confusion comes from the fact that when folks talk about a terrorist he is almost always a member or associate of some organization who commits his crimes in support of the organizations causes.
Unlike (as we know so far) the SC shooter the Tsarnaev brothers, at least the older one, was suspected of having been recruited and maybe even trained by terrorist organizations when he went back to visit the old country. "Radicalized" I believe is the term they used.
It'll be interesting to find out where this nut got his motivation. I think it's certainly possible that someone put him up to it to some degree. Good, i hate nazis and will be glad to see some light shined on those cockroaches.
This is a point well made and I fully agree. The trouble these days is that a lot of these people who radicalise others hide behind their keyboards online, posting their bile out on either public forums or through websites dedicated to their cause. They gather like minded people of all walks of life around them, and somewhere in those people there is a risk that there will be a person like this one, who will soak it all in, believe every word and then actually go out and act on it, rather than continue to post on the forum and complain about the status quo like others do.
I think now that online hate preachers or radicalisers are becoming as big a problem as any offline recruiters, simply because of their wider reach and ease of access. It is, after all, the downside of a non-regulated internet (and no, I'm not calling for internet regulation here, just pointing it out) and something that I think we're only going to see more of.
Would be nice if they could track down, through his internet history, the people who post the sort of stuff that radicalised him and put them away in a supermax prison, but these people could be anywhere.
Still, like you say August, always good to see a Nazi go down, radicalist tendencies of any sort rarely turn out to be good things.
Agree 100% although I think shackling the media would not be very popular or successful and ultimately unnecessary since that's what happens over the course of time anyways as they move on to the next ratings getter. Besides as we have discussed elsewhere the media will not be likely where you'll find the discussion of this animal in the future once the story is off the front page of the news.
Aye, sadly true, I don't think shackling the media would be a good route to go down really, but encouraging them and perhaps pointing out the damage that their coverage can cause might just get the people to turn against the media and the media to try to tow a line that the people want them to...buuuuuuuuuuut, I doubt that strongly would work either because ratings show that they love a good psychological thriller, or perhaps, more likely, it's a form of evaluation. How did this happen? Why did this person do this? What, as society, could we have done? These are good questions to ask, but equally in doing so they keep the killers name on peoples lips and minds for a lot longer. Catch-22 like so many things in life.
Rockstar
06-19-15, 09:32 PM
Nothing excuses going into a church, with a gun, and shooting innocent bystanders. No motive, no reasoning, no medical disorder, nothing.
It is, to me, an act of mass murder and an act of terror.
Does this mean that school shooters are terrorists? Damn straight it does. They should be treated as Domestic terrorists just the same as McVeigh. The Fort. Hood shooter? Same stick. If you go out with the aim to kill as many people as possible then you are a domestic terrorist, and deserve treatment as such. Not therapy, not rehab, but either the injection, or preferably a solo supermax cell for the rest of your natural life, with the media expressly ordered to report just the minimal facts about your existence. One picture, the mugshot, and just the basic facts, no long winded testiments, no in-depth examination, no mentioning the prepetrators name on television day in and day out for weeks afterwards. Instead, focus on the victims, the dead people, the good they did and the fact that their lives were cut short so viciously for no reason other than a psychopath had a gun and the mentality to use it.
Maybe then, maybe people will stop seeing such actions as viable, but I doubt it.
A fair point, the downside is until we get The Minority Report, we can't accurately predict peoples actions based upon their personal statements.
And even if we did take their statements to heart and investigated people for it, there will still be those who slip under the radar, or who don't say anything and then snap.
I prefer the term 'General Topics' myself. :yep:
Still banging on the terrorism/terrorist drum?
Its your opinion you are entitlled to it, but in the eyes of the law it means absolutely zero, nada, nothing. Unfortunetaly for you the shooter has not at this time met the criteria for domestic terrorism. Again, to the best of my knowledge and as well as having been acknowledge and reported by media outlets this mass murder is being investigated as a hate crime.
Thank God we have people in authority who know better than to allow the opinions of the mob to determine what is and what isn't.
Still banging on the terrorism/terrorist drum?
Its your opinion you are entitlled to it, but in the eyes of the law it means absolutely zero, nada, nothing. Unfortunetaly for you the shooter has not at this time met the criteria for domestic terrorism. Again, to the best of my knowledge and as well as having been acknowledge and reported by media outlets this mass murder is being investigated as a hate crime.
Thank God we have people in authority who know better than to allow the opinions of the mob to determine what is and what isn't.
Like the Department of Justice? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-us-justice-department-will-investigate-the-charleston-shooting-as-an-act-of-domestic-terrorism-10333270.html)
Well maybe he did have an agenda and maybe he didn't but regardless it was just two people who disagreed and only one of them actually insulted you so I still don't see how that makes a crowd.
This is true, I think I put the cart before the horse really there, I expected more people to disagree with me than just Rockstar and Harvs, if I'm honest. :yep:
Still banging on the terrorism/terrorist drum?
Its your opinion you are entitlled to it, but in the eyes of the law it means absolutely zero, nada, nothing. Unfortunetaly for you the shooter has not at this time met the criteria for domestic terrorism. Again, to the best of my knowledge and as well as having been acknowledge and reported by media outlets this mass murder is being investigated as a hate crime.
Thank God we have people in authority who know better than to allow the opinions of the mob to determine what is and what isn't.
Opinions of the mob? As far as I know Oberon is one guy speaking for nobody but himself so stop trolling him.
Rockstar
06-19-15, 10:16 PM
Like the Department of Justice? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-us-justice-department-will-investigate-the-charleston-shooting-as-an-act-of-domestic-terrorism-10333270.html)
Yes, like the Department of Justice.
Big difference between investigating and making a determination before the finding out the facts of the case.
Still no guarantee he will be charged with domestic terrorism. But Id bet dollars to donuts he will be charged with a hate crime.
As far as the other comment. Get a grip the title of the topic is a baseless troll. Meant to get a rise out of this forum and nothing more.
Mr Quatro
06-19-15, 10:25 PM
This shooter was checking out a local major shopping center, got kicked out, returned to the same shopping center charged with trespassing.
He was looking for targets then.
His best friend said he was talking trash about taking out people at a local college, but security was too tight there.
He chose a defenseless black AME church instead.
Now he is quoted as saying he wanted to start a race war.
He probably will get his wish when someone does him in while in jail. Probably a black man will do the honors one that is in for life anyway.
Hillary Clinton and Obama both calling for gun control. Seems the father didn't give him the 45. for his birthday.
I see a day, and a good scfi movie too, where anyone buying coffee at Starbucks or 7-11 or buying anything will have to look into a camera like they have to test your eyes at the DMV and ask you one simple question.
Are you a terrorist?
Twenty years maybe :yep:
As far as the other comment. Get a grip the title of the topic is a baseless troll. Meant to get a rise out of this forum and nothing more.
The only one who sees it as a troll is you.
Schroeder
06-20-15, 04:09 AM
As far as the other comment. Get a grip the title of the topic is a baseless troll.
So when Oberon comes to the same conclusion as the department of justice and some others then he's just baselessly trolling? Makes sense....not.:nope:
Rockstar, if I wanted to troll I'd have made a derogatory remark about the Second Amendment in my opening statement, or gloated about how we don't get mass shootings as frequently in Europe or something like that.
Calling this action what it is, a terrorist attack, is hardly trolling. :nope:
Jimbuna
06-20-15, 07:46 AM
I'm seeing no evidence of trolling, simply a forum member creating a forum post stating what in their opinion the subject matter is identifiable as.
To each their own.....everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Rockstar
06-20-15, 02:00 PM
Rockstar, if I wanted to troll I'd have made a derogatory remark about the Second Amendment in my opening statement, or gloated about how we don't get mass shootings as frequently in Europe or something like that.
Calling this action what it is, a terrorist attack, is hardly trolling. :nope:
Your comment and opinion has nothing to do with the current laws or facts. You identified an action based on a personal knee jerk emotional reaction.
Its no different than the mobs knee jerk reaction calling a cop a racist without knowing any facts of the case either IMO.
IF you want to come here and say someone is this or someone os that atleast wait until ALL facts of the case are in and those in authority have determined what the crimminal should be charged with.
If you were right then yippee you win the cookie. Otherwise IMO you are just trolling and being divisive and gossiping.
However even though I could care less what the mob thinks, you are entiled to an opinion. If you want to call the criminal a domestic terrorist without having any facts go right ahead. Its only your opinion, as for me I'll call him Santa Claus. Both opinions serve absolutley no purpose and IMO are about as useless as teets on a boar hog.
gregorm
06-20-15, 02:32 PM
White nationalist shoots nine black people in a church. How can that not be terrorism?
Ft. Hood shooting and all of the black on white violence aside, this was DOMTERR.
I understand that many people are very upset about the ongoing black on white violence that is totally ignored by the mainstream media. I get that. It makes me furious as well.
But what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Mr Quatro
06-20-15, 02:53 PM
White nationalist shoots nine black people in a church. How can that not be terrorism?
Ft. Hood shooting and all of the black on white violence aside, this was DOMTERR.
I understand that many people are very upset about the ongoing black on white violence that is totally ignored by the mainstream media. I get that. It makes me furious as well.
But what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
about 8 an 1/2 to 9 cents per pound :O:
Why are two long time members even discussing the threads title
We the people needed to discuss this tragedy so where's the problem?
Forgive already even the FBI is investigating the terrorist seed thought.
You identified an action based on a personal knee jerk emotional reaction.
I identified the action with a man killing nine people in a church.
Does that mean I consider the Sandy Hook murderer a terrorist too? Yes, yes it does. Mental illness does not excuse murder. If anything it gives those people who have mental illnesses and haven't shot up schools or churchs a bad name. I know people who suffer with depression, but they haven't shot anyone or flown an aircraft into a mountain or indeed hurt anyone other than themselves.
Why are two long time members even discussing the threads title
I really do not know. :hmm2:
OK, some is convinced its terrorism and find article that support their standpoint.
Some say its not and do the same as persons who say its terrorism
Some say something different.
I don't know what it is..maybe it is terror, maybe it ain't and maybe it is some kind of terror.
Markus
OK, some is convinced its terrorism and find article that support their standpoint.
Some say its not and do the same as persons who say its terrorism
Some say something different.
I don't know what it is..maybe it is terror, maybe it ain't and maybe it is some kind of terror.
Markus
https://poststatus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/rumsfeld-unknown-unknowns-752x284.jpg
Armistead
06-20-15, 08:51 PM
The US is much different than any other nation, our melting pot includes many races, beliefs and religions...........and it often runs over.
Not sure if the man is connected heavily to a hate group, but long as he acted alone and they weren't part of it in any way, not much you can do.
Course politicians stacking on for as many brownie points as they can.
Von Tonner
06-20-15, 11:38 PM
The US is much different than any other nation, our melting pot includes many races, beliefs and religions...........and it often runs over.
Not sure I would agree with you there Armistead. I can think of many countries far more diverse than the USA with regards race, beliefs, religion etc.
Platapus
06-21-15, 06:30 AM
One of the issues in determining whether an act is or ain't terrorism is the motivation behind the act. Sometimes motivation is easy to determine, sometimes it is hard. This is especially true with the mentally ill.
I would rather focus on the act itself and not the motivation.
This jerk went into a church and shot and killed some people. I really don't care whether he is a terrorist, freedom fighter, demented superhero, concerned citizen, righteous defender of freedom, or even just a dumbass from the South. He unlawfully, deliberately, and with malice aforethought committed multiple murders.
Let's just focus on that.
Why focus on whether he is or ain't a terrorist? If he is a terrorist will he be executed twice or receive 20 life sentences?
Is the prosecutor going to do his job extra extra well if the defendant is a terrorist than if he was a multi-murderer?
It is not like we really need the federal government to step in and find evidence that the state can't find. Should the federal government conduct their own investigation independently of the state? Sure, I think it is a good idea for the federal government to determine if this jerk acted alone or perhaps was involved in terrorist organization. But the state has a multi-murder case to investigate.
I am also against the designation of "hate crime". It really should not make any difference if someone kills a little old lady because
1. She was there
2. She had money
3. She was of a particular race
4. She was of a particular culture
The crime was in the killing... not in the motivation behind the killing
"Mr. Jones, since this court has determined that the little old lady's race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or any other protective status was not involved in the motivation of why you hacked her to death, this court will be a little more lenient with you. We are only giving you the death penalty. Consider yourself fortunate that your motivation was not based on a protected class or the court would be forced to deal a much more harsh penalty."
:doh:
u crank
06-21-15, 06:59 AM
The crime was in the killing... not in the motivation behind the killing
"Mr. Jones, since this court has determined that the little old lady's race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or any other protective status was not involved in the motivation of why you hacked her to death, this court will be a little more lenient with you. We are only giving you the death penalty. Consider yourself fortunate that your motivation was not based on a protected class or the court would be forced to deal a much more harsh penalty."
Yea. That pretty well sums it up. :up:
:haha:
It's a fair point Platapus, and terrorist or no terrorist the guy is a homicidal nutjob and should rot in a supermax for the rest of his natural (I say this rather than the needle since the punishment is longer lasting, rather than a quick and relatively painless death).
It is important though that we don't (and when I say we, I don't just mean people here, but everywhere) use mental illness as an excuse for these sorts of actions, or indeed come to associate mental illness with radical actions just as some associate Islam with terrorism.
It is important to help people with mental illness, just as it is important to help people avoid Islamic extremism, and so on. Hopefully in that way we will help to reduce the number of domestic terrorist incidents.
Is that me with an agenda? Perhaps, but it's an agenda to try to stop more shootings like this from happening.
Why focus on whether he is or ain't a terrorist? If he is a terrorist will he be executed twice or receive 20 life sentences?
Been wondering that myself. Well said.
Mr Quatro
06-21-15, 01:15 PM
:haha:
It is important though that we don't (and when I say we, I don't just mean people here, but everywhere) use mental illness as an excuse for these sorts of actions, or indeed come to associate mental illness with radical actions just as some associate Islam with terrorism.
It is important to help people with mental illness, just as it is important to help people avoid Islamic extremism, and so on. Hopefully in that way we will help to reduce the number of domestic terrorist incidents.
The numbers are sobering ...
http://www.thekimfoundation.org/html/about_mental_ill/statistics.html
Mental Disorders in America
Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older or about one in four adults suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/8/mental-illness-prison.html
There are 10 times more mentally ill Americans in prisons and jails than in state psychiatric hospitals, a report published Tuesday April 8, 2014
The problem is getting worse not better ... the sanity of the law makers is to take away guns or to legislate gun laws so a mental patient can do no harm to society using a gun.
Dynamite, hammers, saws, knives, swords, rocks are yes, but guns are on the list to eliminate the legal right to obtain a gun.
The click of an empty gun is a pleasant sound to the one being shot at, but what caused the click in the mind of the person doing the shooting?
A judge in Houston, Texas, at a man's sentencing for shooting for killing his best friend, asked the young man why he did it.
The answer: "Because it looked so easy on TV"
330 million people in the USA need help from it's elected law makers, not just this mentally ill shooter named Roof.
em2nought
06-21-15, 02:02 PM
Not sure why so many have their panties in a bunch, surely Obama's henchmen will send some mercs out to off some so called white trash bikers and the scales will balance once again. :up:
Onkel Neal
06-22-15, 12:52 PM
This shooter was checking out a local major shopping center, got kicked out, returned to the same shopping center charged with trespassing.
He was looking for targets then.
His best friend said he was talking trash about taking out people at a local college, but security was too tight there.
He chose a defenseless black AME church instead.
Now he is quoted as saying he wanted to start a race war.
He probably will get his wish when someone does him in while in jail. Probably a black man will do the honors one that is in for life anyway.
Hillary Clinton and Obama both calling for gun control. Seems the father didn't give him the 45. for his birthday.
I hope they lock him in a cell with a black man. Can you imagine what he has to look forward to now? :woot:
Yah, madame Clinton is roaring about gun control, as usual. Exactly what gun control law would have stopped this?
soopaman2
06-22-15, 01:41 PM
I hope they lock him in a cell with a black man. Can you imagine what he has to look forward to now? :woot:
Yah, madame Clinton is roaring about gun control, as usual. Exactly what gun control law would have stopped this?
He will have to be in protective custody, there is alot of black dudes in prison. alot more than whites.
That rotten lying wench Clinton can go suck on turnips!:03:
She reminds me of water, she fits whatever container you pour her into. I could go on a multi page rant on that shyster, but the language is not kosher here.:O:
By the way I identify with the Dems, but she is bad news for everyone. I would rather vote for Trump.
Onkel Neal
06-22-15, 05:08 PM
He will have to be in protective custody, there is alot of black dudes in prison. alot more than whites.
Well, I'm sure there are some prison guards who will see it that some brothers get a shot at him.
Alvin Toffer wrote a book which became a term to describe this fear of rapid change, 'Future shock' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock), and I think that it's something that people of the generation born between the 1940s and 1970s are probably dealing with. Even I, born in the 1980s, suffer a degree of it, you should see the mess I make trying to operate a smart phone, and the whole way that people can track you down online and hound you into submission through cyber-bullying terrifies me.
Sometimes though, people with good intentions do go a tad overboard, sometimes this is because they're preparing for a fight and when one doesn't happen they kind of go off anyway. I have in the past reacted over-defensively on a subject, primarily since I've expected more people to disagree with me than actually did. A form of turtling perhaps. :haha:
But well, that is how it goes, times do change, and everyone will always have their particular era that they will think of when 'times were better' and 'summers were long', and so forth.
In short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7qQ6_RV4VQ
I'm slightly dismayed that you wouldn't have assumed I read Future Shock (which I did about 30 years ago :), along with the Late, Great Planet Earth.) Although I am quite sure it did not contain a chapter where society makes celebrities of people with mental disorders. You can imagine that's a shock.
Yes, you're right, every generation has to deal with the changes in technology and society. I've tried to resist the cliche that mature men dish out "what's the matter with kids today", but after my short stint in the classroom, I'm not optimistic.
I'm sure you knew some would disagree with you when you posted this subject. I've done that, too. Sometimes a topic just seems right for contentious discussion. I know you wanted to make the point that white people who commit mass murder should be called terrorists just like Arabs. I just think you jumped the gun a little, posting the thread before this guy and his motivations were established.:hmm2:
After the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australian firearm laws were changed for the better, we still have deaths from shootings but its nowhere as bad as it could have been had the law not changed. Have a read of this and then ask how will gun control work.
http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php
ave a read of this and then ask how will gun control work.
It won't work because we Americans have a right to keep and bear arms therefore we don't need to ask permission from our government to possess one.
d@rk51d3
06-22-15, 07:03 PM
After the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australian firearm laws were changed for the better, we still have deaths from shootings but its nowhere as bad as it could have been had the law not changed. Have a read of this and then ask how will gun control work.
http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php
Most of the outlawed firearms are still out there. And there are more firearms in general than there were before the "buyback". The laws haven't really done anything other than give people raised on Hollywood fantasy, a perceived sense of security.
Do you have the right to bear arms because its in your constitution ?
Onkel Neal
06-22-15, 07:45 PM
....the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.
Ah, well, screw that. Self defense is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. I'm not keen on being defenseless.
There lies the problem, everyone has to have a gun to protect yourself from people with guns, your constitution was written in 1787 when there were no automatic or semiautomatic weapons, pretty hard to have a mass shooting with a flintlock dont you think? There is no reason on earth to justify civilians owning military type weapons and handguns should only be issued for sporting purposes, its a sad reality that you will have plenty more mass shootings until the law changes.
Buddahaid
06-22-15, 08:19 PM
I have them and self defense isn't a reason I even consider. I own them simply because I can and want to.
I'm slightly dismayed that you wouldn't have assumed I read Future Shock (which I did about 30 years ago :), along with the Late, Great Planet Earth.) Although I am quite sure it did not contain a chapter where society makes celebrities of people with mental disorders. You can imagine that's a shock.
Yes, you're right, every generation has to deal with the changes in technology and society. I've tried to resist the cliche that mature men dish out "what's the matter with kids today", but after my short stint in the classroom, I'm not optimistic.
I'm sure you knew some would disagree with you when you posted this subject. I've done that, too. Sometimes a topic just seems right for contentious discussion. I know you wanted to make the point that white people who commit mass murder should be called terrorists just like Arabs. I just think you jumped the gun a little, posting the thread before this guy and his motivations were established.:hmm2:
TBH I didn't even know the book existed until I was looking at the wiki for The Forever War. :doh: So you've got the drop on me there.
I must admit, I'm in a situation where I'm quite removed from the lower end of society living in the countryside where most of the populace are retired wealthy Londoners, so I'm a bit out of touch with the youth of today, in particular the inner city youth. However, there's good and bad in all of us, and some of the youth of today will become the great people of tomorrow whilst others will become the villains.
I think I may have jumped it a smidge too, I was going to make that direct phrase a few posts ago but figured that in the situation it was probably better to say 'put the cart before the horse'. :03:
Still, it's got people talking and it's not been swept under the rug as 'just another shooting' which is good.
The biggest problem though is the solution, and I don't think that there actually is one that will work. :dead:
Do you have the right to bear arms because its in your constitution ?
Well no, our constitution, specifically the first 10 Amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights which lists RKBA, just enumerates the rights of free men.
Preamble to the BoR:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
In other words there are certain human rights that the founding fathers specifically wanted set down in writing because they didn't trust future governments from trying to take them away which they constantly attempt to do.
There lies the problem, everyone has to have a gun to protect yourself from people with guns, your constitution was written in 1787 when there were no automatic or semiautomatic weapons, pretty hard to have a mass shooting with a flintlock dont you think?
We had a talk about this a while ago, in regards to the purposes of the Second Amendment and its relevance in the modern age. Give me a moment and I'll dig it up.
I think it starts from about here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106
Sailor Steve
06-22-15, 09:09 PM
Do you have the right to bear arms because its in your constitution ?
No. We consider it to be an inherent right. The Constitution proper is the guidebook for running the government. The Bill Of Rights is there to guarantee things the government is not allowed to touch.
Not that it always works that way.
There lies the problem, everyone has to have a gun to protect yourself from people with guns...
Not really. That's not what that Bill of Rights was about.
...your constitution was written in 1787 when there were no automatic or semiautomatic weapons, pretty hard to have a mass shooting with a flintlock dont you think?
But the Second Amendment isn't about protecting individuals from mass shootings. It's about protecting ourselves from the government. I know it doesn't seem likely these days, but did you know that our Revolution actually started when the Colonial Governor sent troops to confiscate an armory full of privately owned cannons?
There is no reason on earth to justify civilians owning military type weapons...
Actually that's exactly what the Second Amendment is about. Did you know that during the Revolution and the War of 1812 the government gave Letters of Marque, and thus official military status, to privately owned ships armed with those same cannons? The government at that time relied on private citizens armed with the best modern weapons money could buy.
...and handguns should only be issued for sporting purposes...
Actually neither of those was considered a factor in 1791 (the year the Bill of Rights was introduced). The sole purpose for owning a gun was considered to be national defense. We can have that argument if you like, but your points so far have little to do with our reasons for things being the way we are.
...its a sad reality that you will have plenty more mass shootings until the law changes.
You're probably right. In fact despite what some here claim, it's true that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996, an in your case changing the law really did make a difference.
A part of the problem here is that it looks to us like for the sake of safety you're willing to go along with whatever the government says, while many of us consider the government to be the problem, not the solution. If a law like that were passed here, a large majority would just say "No" and become criminals themselves. Win or lose, it could lead to another Revolution. A lot of elected official know this, which is why getting such a law passed here would be a lot more difficult.
The more likely situation would be that many congressmen would try to get such a law passed, fail, and find themselves out of a job come the next election.
No, I don't pretend to have an answer. I'm just making observations.
A part of the problem here is that it looks to us like for the sake of safety you're willing to go along with whatever the government says, while many of us consider the government to be the problem, not the solution. If a law like that were passed here, a large majority would just say "No" and become criminals themselves. Win or lose, it could lead to another Revolution. A lot of elected official know this, which is why getting such a law passed here would be a lot more difficult.
The more likely situation would be that many congressmen would try to get such a law passed, fail, and find themselves out of a job come the next election.
No, I don't pretend to have an answer. I'm just making observations.
I think this is where between America and the rest of the world there is the vital disconnect. There's not many other countries out there that have such a fear of government, bordering in some cases on paranoia.
This is often classified by Americans as blind obedience to governments, whereas others would classify it as a form of trust.
I would ponder though, since 1787, how many times the US government has legitimately earned that distrust? Not just in a way that would upset those of a particular political leaning, but an active lurch into an area that the populace did not want it to go.
Many times people in the US will state that gun control is the first step into a tyrannical, dictatorial government (in particular a favourite copy-paste image is that one of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler saying 'These dictators agree, gun control works!' completely ignoring the relaxation of gun control in Nazi Germany (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/). ) and this is logical, but one could argue that there are plenty of other ways to curb a peoples freedom than removing firearms, and in that respects there are some nations that it could be argued have greater freedoms in areas than the US has but who practice firearm regulation in a stricter manner than the US.
However, one cannot simply take over 200 years of culture and throw it in the dustbin, and I think that's something that people outside of the US don't realise just how entrenched in the culture of the US the firearm is, and how little trust towards government there is in the US.
It's something that's going to come to a head there at some point in the future, and it could, legitimately, lead to civil strife. All we, as non-Americans, can do is to a) try to understand the US viewpoint if we're able to, and b) lend our support where possible.
There lies the problem, everyone has to have a gun to protect yourself from people with guns, your constitution was written in 1787 when there were no automatic or semiautomatic weapons, pretty hard to have a mass shooting with a flintlock don't you think?
A mass shooting maybe but certainly not a mass killing. The worst school massacre in us history was committed with dynamite. The worst massacre box cutters and airliners.
There is no reason on earth to justify civilians owning military type weapons and handguns should only be issued for sporting purposes, its a sad reality that you will have plenty more mass shootings until the law changes.
I don't need to justify my rights and I resent your implication that my military "type" weapons would ever be involved in mass shootings.
Our constitution was written when free speech was limited to those within earshot or those who could afford to have their words laboriously hand printed in small numbers and distributed to the public by nailing a copy to a local tree. Does that mean to you the government should have the right to prevent us from posting our uncensored opinions on the internet because terrorist organizations like ISIS also use that medium to incite people to commit murder? What's your justification for being able to voice your opinion instantaneously around the world? Given the amount of trouble being caused by this freedom maybe one might consider no reason on earth to extend this right to you. See how that works?
Tyrants have always used contemporary emergencies to justify seizing power from the people which is exactly what this is about. And tyranny is exactly what will have to occur to make Americans give up their firearms in numbers sufficient to have the effect you wish.
Besides the biggest domestic terrorist attacks in us history were not carried out with firearms. Not even the largest school massacre. Those with such evil on their minds will always find a way regardless of the law. All government can do is take away the means for someone to stop them. There is a reason these massacres always happen in gun free zones.
em2nought
06-22-15, 11:17 PM
Guns aren't the problem, the wacko new world we are having dictated to us is. Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner is a hero, not a murderer! Companies have the rights of individuals! Everybody can go to college and get a white collar job! White people can be black if they identify that way, everyone is a winner, running a huge deficit won't hurt anything, free trade is good, import tariffs are bad, income taxes are good, pitbulls are nice dogs and the folks that own them are too, people don't need to integrate into society if they want to come here, bowl haircuts look good :D, and on and on.
Actually a pitbull can be a nice dog, but the huge percentage of their owners are pure crap so... :up:
Sailor Steve
06-22-15, 11:28 PM
Since this has wandered into yet another gun control debate, rather than let the threads be merged I've continued my argument in the Gun Control Thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106&page=86#post2323351)
Please let's keep this on-topic.
Onkel Neal
06-23-15, 08:32 AM
Good move, Steve
Torplexed
06-23-15, 10:33 PM
Rather stunning at how fast the momentum seems to be building on finally withdrawing the Confederate battle flag for official use. A nice memorial to the Charleston victims if it follows through.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/south-carolina-nikki-haley-confederate-flag.html?_r=0
What began as scattered calls for removing the Confederate battle flag from a single state capitol intensified with striking speed and scope on Tuesday into an emotional, nationwide movement to strip symbols of the Confederacy from public parks and buildings, license plates, Internet shopping sites and retail stores.
The South Carolina legislature, less than a week after nine parishioners were shot to death in a black church in Charleston, voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to debate removing the Confederate flag from its State House grounds.
In Charleston, the board that governs the Citadel, the state’s 173-year-old military academy, voted, 9 to 3, to remove the Confederate Naval Jack from the campus chapel, saying that a Citadel graduate and the relatives of six employees were killed in the attack on the church.
Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, ordered that the Confederate flag no longer appear on license plates, and political leaders in Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee vowed to do the same.
"Don't let dem colors hit the ground." Actually they look pretty good there.
http://pyxis.homestead.com/rebel-flag-22-top-03-bottom-l.jpg
em2nought
06-23-15, 11:19 PM
I doubt taking away his little flag would have made this less likely to happen. He would have probably reacted better to cutting off welfare for mothers who have more than four children. If we're gonna start knee jerk fixes there's one that would lessen the hate.
What will all the drug addict rednecks in Florida do for blankets and curtains without a cheap supply of adulterated confederate flags? lol
I must admit I'm pretty torn about the flag, I mean for one thing it's not the proper Confederate national flag, just the battle flag, so there's that...and on the other hand, well...it's a flag, just like the swastika in the white circle and red background. It's the sentiments that people give such a thing that is the problem.
I can't help but think that the whole 'Lost Cause of the Confederacy' bears some resemblance to the Dolchstoßlegende of post-WWI Germany, a legend brought about by the losing side.
Still, it does seem rather daft to have state government buildings flying it, all things considered, and a tad insensitive to not lower it to half-mast in the aftermath of the attack, or take it down completely for a week or so.
Still, an object is an object is an object, I have an item in my possession with a swastika on it, it doesn't make me a Nazi.
EDIT: Torplexed, that must be one of those Southern Belles I was promised....which reminds me, I need to continue that AAR at some point...
Torplexed
06-23-15, 11:33 PM
What will all the drug addict rednecks in Florida do for blankets and curtains without a cheap supply of adulterated confederate flags? lol
I have no objection if some Son of the South wants the flag of Dixie on his tailgate, lampshade, or boxer shorts. The flag can stand for a kind of regional patriotism and pride in Southern culture, without necessarily indicating support for white supremacy. However, I do think the Confederate battle flag/memorial banner should be removed from public institutions and government works. It's been used by extremists to symbolize hatred and the desire to oppress, which is a damn shame. I always found it oddly ironic that what some true latter-day Johnny Rebs seem to want is official endorsement by the government for their "rebel" flag by displaying it in a government venue. :88)
Torplexed
06-24-15, 12:01 AM
EDIT: Torplexed, that must be one of those Southern Belles I was promised....which reminds me, I need to continue that AAR at some point...
You're lucky I didn't go with the other Southern Belle idea....the one I tastefully abandoned on the drawing board. :O:
http://pyxis.homestead.com/The-Union-Restored.jpg
Jimbuna
06-24-15, 05:59 AM
^ I like that :)
Schroeder
06-24-15, 08:50 AM
^ I like that :)
Just because of the alcohol she's holding.:O:
Jimbuna
06-24-15, 08:59 AM
Just because of the alcohol she's holding.:O:
Of course :)
Aktungbby
06-24-15, 10:55 AM
You're lucky I didn't go with the other Southern Belle idea....the one I tastefully abandoned on the drawing board. :O:
http://pyxis.homestead.com/The-Union-Restored.jpg
Just because of the alcohol she's holding.:O:Finish that and send it to Armistead!:D He nose his art BBY! and needs an upgrade! It'll 'ring his Belle!' :woot:http://www.usaf.com/bomberart/MoonshineRaiders.jpeg
I have no objection if some Son of the South wants the flag of Dixie on his tailgate, lampshade, or boxer shorts. The flag can stand for a kind of regional patriotism and pride in Southern culture, without necessarily indicating support for white supremacy. However, I do think the Confederate battle flag/memorial banner should be removed from public institutions and government works. It's been used by extremists to symbolize hatred and the desire to oppress, which is a damn shame. I always found it oddly ironic that what some true latter-day Johnny Rebs seem to want is official endorsement by the government for their "rebel" flag by displaying it in a government venue. :88)
Unfortunately, some of those extremists also flagrantly display the US Stars and Stripes along side the Stars and Bars as a means of adding a cachet of "patriotism" to their bilious ranting and raving. It is an equal shame and embarrassment our national flag, a symbol of unity and democratic equality is used by those who so plainly have no use for either unity or equality...
It has long been a common practice that once an enemy has been defeated, their flags and/or symbols are circumscribed as a part of their defeat. The Confederacy fought and lost their war; it was only due to the generous mercies extended by Lincoln, until the time of his death, at the hands of a Confederate 'patriot', that the Confederacy was not raked with more Draconian retribution. Considering the Confederacy, and its leadership, were guilty of treason, armed rebellion, and other crimes against the US, it is indeed a miracle they were not literally taken out and shot out of hand...
It is not the function of government to endorse, either openly or tacitly, the causes of those who are anathema to the tenets by which they govern. If some redneck wants to plaster the Stars and Bars all over themselves and their own property, we have freedom of expression, granted by the same Constitution their ancestors rebelled against, to protect them as individuals. The state, however, should not be displaying the symbols of those who acted in such a treasonous and shameful manner, historically. This is not really a matter of race; it is a matter of a common practice as it relates to how the ornaments of hatred, division, and civil rebellion used by a defeated foe are treated after said defeat. It makes about as much sense to mandate the flying of Confederate flag on state, county, and municipal grounds as it would to mandate the flying of the British Union Jack on Federal grounds simply because there are a very large number of British descendants in the US...
<O>
Onkel Neal
06-26-15, 06:14 AM
I have no objection if some Son of the South wants the flag of Dixie on his tailgate, lampshade, or boxer shorts. The flag can stand for a kind of regional patriotism and pride in Southern culture, without necessarily indicating support for white supremacy. However, I do think the Confederate battle flag/memorial banner should be removed from public institutions and government works. It's been used by extremists to symbolize hatred and the desire to oppress, which is a damn shame. I always found it oddly ironic that what some true latter-day Johnny Rebs seem to want is official endorsement by the government for their "rebel" flag by displaying it in a government venue. :88)
Now the Civil War monuments are under fire. (http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Vandals-target-Confederate-monuments-in-6350659.php#photo-8216760)
http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/37/26/02/8216757/3/622x350.jpg
Now the Civil War monuments are under fire. (http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Vandals-target-Confederate-monuments-in-6350659.php#photo-8216760)
Stupidity does not limit itself to race. :/\\!!
Onkel Neal
06-26-15, 06:22 AM
Well, if people are going to use civil disobedience, this makes a lot more sense than rioting and looting.
Well, if people are going to use civil disobedience, this makes a lot more sense than rioting and looting.
True, admittedly, but frustration (and opportunism) finds its way out in multiple forms.
I should, for the sake of fairness and parity, point out that we in the UK have also recently had what would under my initial definition count as an attempted terrorist incident.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-33252264
Jimbuna
06-26-15, 07:44 AM
True, admittedly, but frustration (and opportunism) finds its way out in multiple forms.
I should, for the sake of fairness and parity, point out that we in the UK have also recently had what would under my initial definition count as an attempted terrorist incident.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-33252264
I'm pleased you pointed this out...saved me the bother :yep:
I'm pleased you pointed this out...saved me the bother :yep:
I do my best to be equal to both sides, things like these are rarely problems in just one part of the world.
Torplexed
06-26-15, 08:27 PM
Now the Civil War monuments are under fire. (http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Vandals-target-Confederate-monuments-in-6350659.php#photo-8216760)
http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/37/26/02/8216757/3/622x350.jpg
Sad. I draw the line at trying to erase or bury history. While I still think there's something very odd about flying a rebel flag from a government building, so it seems to make sense to me to take it down from an official display, but it's hard for me to get worked up over a coffee cup with a Confederate battle flag on it, or a privately sponsored Confederate monument. I feel even more nervous about efforts to purge unpopular symbols than I feel about the symbols themselves. They're part of history. The men who fought for the Confederacy fought for slavery, sort of, but for the most part they fought because it was their state. It was their home town, or maybe as was quoted in the movie, Gettysburg because they were bored at home and it looked like fun.
Come to think of it, I wonder if someone have to go through the CDs at the Gettysburg Battlefield gift shop and get rid of "Dixie" or "The Bonnie Blue Flag". And what about "Marching Through Georgia? It seems like we always go to far in the other direction in this country when we make a course change.
Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Let the band play Dixie". In somewhat the same spirit, I say let Southerners put that flag on a coffee cup. It just isn't as big a deal as getting it off a government building.
em2nought
06-27-15, 01:28 AM
Thailand or Ecuador is looking better and better. :hmmm:
"Smoke seen rising near US Capitol"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIsVaqgWcAMyoFt.jpg:large
https://twitter.com/SweeneyABC
Betonov
06-29-15, 03:17 PM
Looking at the picture it seems the Canadians succesefully invaded.
BBC and CNN have nothing, could be a local fire
u crank
06-29-15, 03:29 PM
Looking at the picture it seems the Canadians succesefully invaded.
No. Canadians are BBQing just to the north. :D
Looking at the picture it seems the Canadians succesefully invaded.
BBC and CNN have nothing, could be a local fire
Probably is, I just thought I'd bring it up just in case it turned into something else. One can never be sure these days, especially at the moment, also I wasn't quite sure what thread to put it in and didn't want to start a new one so I plonked it here.
Doesn't look a particularly big fire anyway. :hmmm:
Probably is, I just thought I'd bring it up just in case it turned into something else.
Jumping the gun again Oberon? :)
Torplexed
06-29-15, 08:05 PM
Doesn't look a particularly big fire anyway. :hmmm:
Just some members of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference burning their Confederate flag. :O:
Jumping the gun again Oberon? :)
Well, it's that time of year, and considering what date it is next week it's a bit of a jumpy time. :yep: Still, I guess they were just electing a new pope, so it's nothing to worry about. :smug:
Just some members of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference burning their Confederate flag. :O:
:har::har::har:
em2nought
06-29-15, 10:49 PM
That's just methane gas burning on top of the cesspool. :up:
That's just methane gas burning on top of the cesspool. :up:
I remain constantly surprised that world governments have yet to harness the energy potential of political hot air and spin. It would end our reliance on oil within a week!
HunterICX
06-30-15, 05:13 AM
I remain constantly surprised that world governments have yet to harness the energy potential of political hot air and spin. It would end our reliance on oil within a week!
We've got Jesus to thank for that...he created fossil fuel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEAyTLQBVns
You mean it wasn't Texas and the Saudis?...
<O>
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.