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....

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.

Quote:

*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.

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', 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Opinions of the mob? As far as I know Oberon is one guy speaking for nobody but himself so stop trolling him.

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.

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:

The only one who sees it as a troll is you.

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: