What We Know So Far About the Shooting at a Historic Black Church in Charleston


Fox & Friends is wondering whether this is part of the 'War on Christians.'

An uncle said Roof received a gun from his father for a birthday present in April.

yikes. condolences to all those affected. this may seem like profiling...but if someone even LOOKS like that dude they should be locked up.
Just heard that they caught him in North Carolina.

His look is pure Madchester. Anoraks, bowl cut, iridescent round sunglasses...he looks like a member of Happy Mondays. Or Cud, maybe.

Gun ownership is a mental illness.
@1: If you are referring to this segment, and you somehow extrapolated that, you're wrong.
Can we get a volunteer program started to get all these angry young nerds laid so they have a different outlet for their misguided, pent-up energy?
That hair. Woof.
@6: He just looks like a troubled young man to me.
I am glad they caught the little shit stain.
why oh why?!: young males, guns, fox news.
utterly horrific, and it'll happen again, because those three primary factors will persist.
So why don't we call him a terrorist? He just committed an act of violence against non-combatants with the intent of causing political change. That's terrorism as pure and simple as can be.
@8: If only that would work.
@13 scan the news, this young mad man is quite often described as "clean shaven". can't be a "terrorist" unless you've got a beard. care to assert a theory as to why that tends to be the case; at least in the media?
@13 Thank you! He just assassinated a US senator FFS.
@15: The Boston bomber terrorists didn't have beards. Neither did the Ft. Hood shooter (which the Obama administration finally admitted was an act of terrorism), the underwear bomber, Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 terrorists, or Timothy McVeigh for that matter.
Maybe you want to say Islamic Jihadist instead, which would have more merit for a large swath of evil that is terrorizing large regions of the planet as of late.
From his own words, he wanted to kill black people because he felt threatened by them. Doesn't sound like terrorism to me.

But I never understood why so many people fall over themselves to call every act of violence terrorism anyway. Not like it changes anything, or makes the situation clearer.
Great, now the convo can devolve into an argument over semantics. Just like all the people rationalizing the violence by arguing with Obama that it does happen in advanced countries. It must stop.
@19- He felt scared of them because they were "taking over". Does that not sound like politics to you? Do you feel like it makes thing more clear to ignore political violence and pretend it doesn't exist? Or do you just feel like it's only terrorism when it's aimed at people like you?
Bigot says, "You're raping our women" and then shoots six women. I guess when you're that mentally disturbed, you don't see anything illogical there.

I blame the parents. First, for raising a bigot kid. Second, for giving bigot kid a gun.
Semantics have a huge impact on how events are perceived and processed, both culturally and legally.
@21: No, it does not sound like politics to me. When a disturbed person states an imaginary fear, it does not become actual politics. Not every act of violence is terrorism, despite the seeming comfort it gives you to declare it so.

No one is ignoring it and I have no idea where the "people like you" thing came from. I don't know why you are so mad at me.

Why does it make you feel better about the situation if you knee-jerkingly declare it is terrorism? I honestly want to know.
@24- So when someone kills a building full of people because Americans represent an imaginary existential threat to Islam that isn't terrorism?

As defined by the FBI:

'"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.'

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate…

The answers are: i) African Americans, ii) the Civil Rights Act, iii) assassination.
@26: Most Islamic terrorists are called terrorists because their end goal is the establishment of a worldwide Islamic government. It is not because of made up fears, as America would be a real threat to their worldwide caliphate. However, not every muslim who kills someone is a terrorist.

@27: By your logic, every act of violence is terrorism. I do not see the point of calling every act of violence terrorism, and just do not see why it makes people feel so good to claim so. Can you explain what feels so good about it? Moody Dwight did not seem to want to.
@27: Forgot to mention, by your logic, the rioters (not the actual protestors, but the rioters) in Ferguson and Baltimore are terrorists. Do you believe this to be true?
@28- And this guy wants an ethnically cleansed USA. Political goals + violence targeting non-combatants = terrorism.

@29- Who did the rioters kill?
Just because he's crazy it doesn't mean he can't also have a political agenda.
Terrorism and racism go hand-in-hand in that they involve violence targeted at a specific population with malicious intent. Where do we draw the line?
@30: If you want to call every racially motivated crime terrorism, fine, but if you do so, the definition of "terrorism" becomes such an umbrella term, it becomes useless. Every hate crime is not terrorism.

Also, the definition used by #27 did not include deaths, simply acts "dangerous to human life" such as burning down buildings, throwing rocks at people, etc. Please read before commenting.

As of right now, by the logic you are using, the protestors in Baltimore and Ferguson were terrorists. Why were you not demanding they be called such?
Oops, #33 should have read "rioters" rather than "protesters" in paragraph 3.
Personally, Theodore, I think "terrorism" is exponentially more valid and useful a term than "hate crime". Hate crime legislation redefines crimes according to motive (rather than intent), which we do in no other circumstances I can think of in the criminal justice system. Terrorism, as a label, makes a clearer statent about the nature of the crime itself.

For me, this looks like terrorism for three key reasons, no one of which would suffice in isolation: the degree of premeditation; the number of victims, as well as the fact, reason(s), and location of their congregating; and the ideological basis for the attack.

As to the notion that either Islamic world government or the perception that terrorists' targets stand in the way of that, mightn't one say the same of global white privilege?