TERRORIST Identified in S. Carolina Church Massacre

[Jaymax85]

Originally Posted by Vanmarsenille

Thank you. It looks like some people need to buy a dictionary. A terrorist is someone who uses terror to further political aims/goals. This guy was a racist motherfucking cocksucker, but not a terrorist.

You are a dumbass. He clearly had an agenda... to rid the world of black people and to bring the Fox News reality to the world.

[fecurtis]

I just read this:

The man who shot and killed nine parishioners at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, told police that he “almost didn’t go through with it because everyone was so nice to him,” sources told NBC News.

And yet Dylann Roof decided he had to “go through with his mission.”

That's awful. Absolutely awful. He realizes that reality doesn't match his perception yet goes through with it anyway.

At least this completely throws any defense for insanity out of the window.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Relevant:
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131

Terrorism will continue to exist no matter what you do. Does that mean the US should cease funding operations around the world to root out and kill high ranking terrorist leaders? By your logic they should, because you're assuming that the goal is to "eliminate" a problem versus minimizing the problem.

Racism will exist sure, but most racists don't start killing random, innocent people.

That onion article is very relevant. I think more relevant than the parts of Stewart's monologue where he was fixated on something like the street names. That's not what causes people to kill others.

While the shooter was clearly racist, racism by itself was NOT the key factor here. There are a lot of very racist people out there, who are filled with hate. But they all dont go shooting 9 people in a church. I think the differentiating factor here was a mental health issue, not racism. The degree of crazy inside his head is what compelled him to actually take action, compared to the KKK members who probably share his racist ideas, but dont share his level of mental illness that causes one to act on those thoughts in such an extreme way.

Fact is, racism of some form or another exists everywhere, always has, and probably always will. Same is true for mental illness. Yet, racism + craziness somehow doesnt seem to manifest itself in the same violent ways elsewhere, not with the same frequency. (at least not in 1st world modern countries. there should be no pride in comparing yourself to a place like Syria and saying, well I'm better than them).

Every country in the world has people who commit crazy violent acts, because every country in the world has crazy people. I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's reasonable to assume that the number of these senseless acts can be lowered to zero anywhere.

Just because it can't be brought to zero, doesn't mean it's not worth the effort to try and bring the numbers down to a level more in line with most other 1st world countries. One thing I do agree with Stewart on, there's clearly almost zero appetite to do so.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

I just read this:

That's awful. Absolutely awful. He realizes that reality doesn't match his perception yet goes through with it anyway.

At least this completely throws any defense for insanity out of the window.

I don't know what constitutes "insanity" from a legal perspective. He clearly knew what he was doing, and should be held responsible for the actions.

It's also clear that his brain "isn't working right", for lack of a better term, if he realizes that reality doesnt match his perception, but he goes thru with his plan anyway.

He may not be "insane" from a legal perspective, but he's not mentally right either. It would be helpful to clarify what his mental issue is; not to provide any excuse for his actions, but to use that knowledge to identify others who have the same issue, to stop them before they act as well.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I don't know what constitutes "insanity" from a legal perspective. He clearly knew what he was doing, and should be held responsible for the actions.

It's also clear that his brain "isn't working right", for lack of a better term, if he realizes that reality doesnt match his perception, but he goes thru with his plan anyway.

He may not be "insane" from a legal perspective, but he's not mentally right either. It would be helpful to clarify what his mental issue is; not to provide any excuse for his actions, but to use that knowledge to identify others who have the same issue, to stop them before they act as well.

From a legal perspective, you have to be completely unaware of the consequences and repercussions of what you're doing. Based on what he said and his interactions, he definitely was cognitively aware of what he was doing and what he was about to do.

Not sure if his brain isn't working right either. I'm no medical expert though but as far as I know, we don't really consider extreme racism to be a mental illness. It isn't more so voices in his head I don't think, it could just be the voices in his life. I mean just take Donald Trump's comments from earlier this week:

[QUOTE]"When Mexico sends its people they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."[/QUOTE"]

Now I heard those and just laughed because most people don't take him seriously, but this kinda stuff reinforces xenophobic behavior and I think we forget that what you say can have far reaching consequences, especially if you have a wide audience.

[P1]

Originally Posted by jawwadh

so its a racial thing? a terrorist is anyone who terrorizes people, not just foreigners. This asshole def was one. The term transcends race.

It might help if you read what I wrote. I said I would *not* call a black guy who kills nine white people in church a terrorist.

[Whostheboss]

Originally Posted by MightyMouseTech

That is still just +1.

lol good catch
i meant +1 * 10^1000

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by P1et

It might help if you read what I wrote. I said I would *not* call a black guy who kills nine white people in church a terrorist.

I think he's saying that he IS a terrorist or what he did was an act of terror.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

From a legal perspective, you have to be completely unaware of the consequences and repercussions of what you're doing. Based on what he said and his interactions, he definitely was cognitively aware of what he was doing and what he was about to do.

Not sure if his brain isn't working right either. I'm no medical expert though but as far as I know, we don't really consider extreme racism to be a mental illness. It isn't more so voices in his head I don't think, it could just be the voices in his life. I mean just take Donald Trump's comments from earlier this week:

"When Mexico sends its people they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."


Now I heard those and just laughed because most people don't take him seriously, but this kinda stuff reinforces xenophobic behavior and I think we forget that what you say can have far reaching consequences, especially if you have a wide audience.

Anyone who makes decisions that have life-altering consequences (like killing 9 people), and does so based even partially on what someone like Donald Trump (or any other TV personality) has to say, well, I stand by my statement that their brain isn't working right. Perhaps as of today it is not formally classified as a mental illness, but it should be.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Perhaps as of today it is not formally classified as a mental illness, but it should be.

lol won't argue with that.

[Andrew115]

Originally Posted by C5driver

“I’m confident, though, that by acknowledging it — by staring into that and seeing it for what it is — we still won’t do jack s---. Yeah, that's us.”

It's the same post-mass murder rhetoric recycled. Stewart claims we won't do jack shit. What's he referring to "doing"? Ban guns? Ban evil? Ban prejudice?

I think he is talking about education and trying to identifying these young people with wild hate and help them.

[C5driver]

Originally Posted by Andrew115

I think he is talking about education and trying to identifying these young people with wild hate and help them.

Perhaps. However, like the following recent study points out, it's a complex and difficult task.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

[Andrew115]

Originally Posted by C5driver

Perhaps. However, like the following recent study points out, it's a complex and difficult task.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

I agree 100%. If a generation can cut smoking cigarettes down like they have I have faith we can dramatically reduce racial hate. Not that it will fix all cases like this.

[Vanmarsenille]

Originally Posted by jawwadh

You are a dumbass. He clearly had an agenda... to rid the world of black people and to bring the Fox News reality to the world.

The ad hominem attack is not necessary, just because you don't agree with my point of view. But, taking your point to its logical conclusion: so all people who hold racist views are now terrorists too? Does that mean that the Black Panther Party are terrorists? What about the NAACP? Don't they all have racial agendas? With respect to your Fox News comment, that doesn't really warrant a response, other than exposing your own ignorance.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Vanmarsenille

The ad hominem attack is not necessary, just because you don't agree with my point of view. But, taking your point to its logical conclusion: so all people who hold racist views are now terrorists too? Does that mean that the Black Panther Party are terrorists? What about the NAACP? Don't they all have racial agendas? With respect to your Fox News comment, that doesn't really warrant a response, other than exposing your own ignorance.

Here's my take, the NAACP isn't really a racist organization nor have they caused any acts of terror so that's a silly comparison.

The Black Panther Party was known for it's violent measures and yes was considered a terrorist organization much the same was as the KKK used to be. Neither do much now though that's violent.

[Vanmarsenille]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Here's my take, the NAACP isn't really a racist organization nor have they caused any acts of terror so that's a silly comparison.

The Black Panther Party was known for it's violent measures and yes was considered a terrorist organization much the same was as the KKK used to be. Neither do much now though that's violent.

My statement was that the NAACP has a racial agenda, not that they are a racist organization, though that is up for debate, in my opinion.

I just don't agree that this guy is a terrorist, but I can't be bothered arguing.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Vanmarsenille

My statement was that the NAACP has a racial agenda, not that they are a racist organization, though that is up for debate, in my opinion.

I just don't agree that this guy is a terrorist, but I can't be bothered arguing.

Fair enough, at the end of the day it's just semantics anyway and, if found guilty, they should throw the book at this guy regardless of what you wanna call it.

The only reason it even remotely matters is because if something is declared a terrorist act or hate crime then you tend to get worse punishments but I think in this instance, it won't particularly matter.

[TXSTYLE]

This Scum sack is a foking TERRORIST!!! Regardless of ethnicity.

[P1]

Originally Posted by TXSTYLE

This Scum sack is a foking TERRORIST!!! Regardless of ethnicity.

In your opinion, at which point should one receive the "terrorist" label? Honest question.

[954Stealth]

Is it Terrorism? According to DOJ it might be. In fact, they are currently investigating just that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7623704.html


For people too lazy to click the link:

Feds: Charleston Shooting A Potential Act Of 'Domestic Terrorism'
June 19 2015 by Huffington Post Staff

WASHINGTON -- Federal authorities are investigating the shooting of nine people in an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina from a variety of angles, including as a potential act of domestic terrorism, a Justice Department official said Friday. DOJ had previously said the incident was being investigated as a potential hate crime.

"The department’s investigation of the shooting incident in Charleston, South Carolina, is ongoing," spokeswoman Emily Pierce said in a statement. "This heartbreaking episode was undoubtedly designed to strike fear and terror into this community, and the department is looking at this crime from all angles, including as a hate crime and as an act of domestic terrorism.”

Alleged shooter Dylann Roof is currently in the custody of local authorities in South Carolina.

[kprocivic]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Fun fact, on average putting someone on death row and executing them is more expensive than your typical life in prison sentence.

I know hence why I said asap.

[Nkc]

Put a firing squad on this guy, retrieve the shells, send parents the bill for the bullets used.