Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Charleston killer - is he a terrorist? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Charleston killer - is he a terrorist?
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
because you're primarily concerned about shielding an entire repulsive political faction from any ramifications of the deaths of nine people as the direct result of their toxic culture
Can you explain how pointing to another toxic culture and possible double standards is shielding white supremacists? It can't even be said to be a distracting tactic due to the question posed by this thread was if this incident should be considered terrorism.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you explain how pointing to another toxic culture and possible double standards is shielding white supremacists?
Yes.

[Smile]

It is, as I said, quite literally pointing a finger and saying "Hey, look over there, instead! We don't need to take any sort of action on this, because this event that I consider to be fairly similar didn't require any of those actions!" In some cases, it's even simpler than that; it amounts to pointing out that leftists are also capable of murder, just in case conservatives were afraid that people would start associating murder purely with them.

It's the same thing that's wrong -- that's toxic and offensive, in fact -- with the "White Lives Matter" counter-protest.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which is fine if framed as a, "What can we do to curb white supremacists violent acts?" discussion.

But this was a question about branding the act terrorism or not. Finding similar situations seems entirely relevant to THIS discussion. [Razz]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you believe that Rafi's intent, in saying he perceived no distinction between Ayers and Roof, was to confirm that, yes, he thought Roof was indeed a terrorist? Heh.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I think you were correct in that he enjoys reminding us that Obama associated with someone who could fit a terrorist lable. (no distinction between the two argument) This is likely seeing a perfect oportunity to burn Obama by association while staying topical.

So a qualified Yes.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With a 40 year-old, poor example.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I'm asking why it's happening and pointing out the reasons.
No. In fact, that's specifically what you're not doing.

quote:
Obviously asking questions like that is hurting some feelings and making some of you uncomfortable and I'm sorry about that
Except that you aren't actually asking any questions, you're not remotely sorry, and you aren't hurting anyone's feelings. Rather, you are disgusting me, because you're primarily concerned about shielding an entire repulsive political faction from any ramifications of the deaths of nine people as the direct result of their toxic culture -- to the extent that you not only want to shut down any conversations about that larger issue but are mocking the possibility that such conversations might be had. I don't know how you get to a place where your first response to a national tragedy is "how do I distract people from this so my political faction isn't harmed," but I'm sorry you wound up there.

I'm not trying to make the case for any political faction or shut down conversation - that's the province of name callers and tantrum throwers. I'm asking why you need to classify it in a such selective fashion, why people doing this in one respect are your heroes and the exact same thing in others are despised . I'd prefer to expand the conversation and identify the motivations, not shut it down - you're the one shutting it down, mocking the situation. The politics of this are all yours and apparently you get very upset about anyone pointing it out. That's not uncommon, you're just an average guy with average ideas and no desire to question them. Nothing wrong with that, most everyone is like that. I think we're all going to be ok though.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Oh, I think you were correct in that he enjoys reminding us that Obama associated with someone who could fit a terrorist lable. (no distinction between the two argument) This is likely seeing a perfect oportunity to burn Obama by association while staying topical.

So a qualified Yes.

Sure, Roof is a terrorist just like Ayers. Why are some so incredibly upset at that? Why do some want that to not be true? What's the rationale they use to justify that?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, please don't pretend to be more stupid than you are.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bill Ayers is no hero of mine - I disapprove of the actions that he took. At the same time, a person who recklessly pursues property damage is different from someone who intentionally kills others. You assertion that "Roof is a terrorist just like Ayers" doesn't make sense unless you torture the words to mean what you would like them to mean. If you are sincerely attempting to shed light on this topic by providing examples for comparison, which of the following examples do you believe Roof is most like: Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, or Bill Ayers?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair, I think Roof is more like Anders Breivik.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now I see why deciding whether Root is a terrorist or not is so important: American terrorists have killed more people in America than Muslim terrorists since 9/11.

quote:
In the 14 years since Al Qaeda carried out attacks on New York and the Pentagon, extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States, explaining their motives in online manifestoes or social media rants.
But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.
The slaying of nine African-Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church last week, with an avowed white supremacist charged with their murders, was a particularly savage case. But it is only the latest in a string of lethal attacks by people espousing racial hatred, hostility to government and theories such as those of the “sovereign citizen” movement, which denies the legitimacy of most statutory law. The assaults have taken the lives of police officers, members of racial or religious minorities and random civilians.

Of course, if a Neo-Nazi who slaughters members of a Sihk temple is just considered "crazy," then we can say that American extremism isn't much of a problem.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now that a 24-year-old naturalized Kuwaiti has murdered four Marines, my question is: was that terrorism?

And how does it compare to the Charleston killer?

I mean, are they both terrorists? If so, why?

If only one is a terrorist, how do they differ?

I have to say he certainly acted like a terrorist, just like Dylann Roof did. Both were out to strike fear in a population, for whatever purpose.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only thing that I could see that might mitigate an assertion of terrorism is that he went for a military target. But otherwise, yeah, I think it's pretty obvious.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They appear to be the same (don't have quite enough info to make a differential assessment of the level of mental illness). Both should be judged by their actions.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Before we know for sure, it would be interesting to discuss what are the criteria that we would use to determine whether the Charleston shooter were a terrorist or just a violent insane person.

There is one piece of evidence that the scenario is not unlike the radicalization of Muslim extremists. With the caveat that this has not yet been confirmed (the website is registered in the name of Dylann Roof and includes photos of him, but I haven't see confirmation that this was not done quickly after the fact as a hoax):

quote:
I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country. But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes. Me and White friends would sometimes would watch things that would make us think that “blacks were the real racists” and other elementary thoughts like this, but there was no real understanding behind it.

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

The putative manifesto then goes deeper into racist ugliness

link

Whether he is a terrorist does not depend on whether he is insane, or whether he acted alone, or whether he is racist.

To determine whether it was terrorism, look only at these two questions:

1. Were the targeted victims combatants, or otherwise valid targets according to principles analogous to the laws of war (e.g. military leaders, manufacturers or transporters of weapons, etc). IF YES, THEN IT'S NOT TERRORISM. Here, churchgoing blacks are clearly not valid targets by any moral law of war, therefore their inntentional killing is murder, a war crime, and/or terrorism.

2. Was the violence executed IN ORDER TO "SEND A MESSAGE?" Here, the selection of a black church as a venue strongly falls into the pattern of traditional KKK terrorism, intended to send a message and to suppress certain communities. Other statements my the sheetheas murderer cited on this page and elsewhere strongly corroborate that the killings occurred to send a message.

Any news pundit who claims this was not an act of terrorism is ignorant6 of history, operating without a coherent definition of terrorism, and/or willfully obtuse.

KKK since inception has operated as a terrorist organization at war with America. It was founded with the clear purpose to continue the civil war. It's a greater threat to America than ISIS and continues to inspire lawlessness, treason and murder. Time we stopped coddling the sheetheads, taking the flag of rebellion off state buildings is just a start. We need a broad law banning masks in public except for narrow and brief nonpolitical entertainment such as Halloween. A ban on use of fire in conjunction with protest. Freedom of speech does not protect seditious solicitation of violence and murder.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The killing of military recruiters is less clearly terroristic that the church killing, because the recruiters are arguably valid military targets, same as a bomb factory. The crimes indisputably invoinvolved in the recruiter killings were Capital Treason, murder, and criminal negligence on the part of whatever US leaders were responsible for the recruiters not being allowed to bring arms to
to protect themselves from such an obviously forseeable event.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mental illness can enter the picture at some (hard to define) point - as an extreme example, if someone commits murders because the aliens in his coffee cup insist that people stop using cell phones, arguably he is committing violence to achieve a political end, but in reality he is off his rocker.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The crimes indisputably invoinvolved in the recruiter killings were Capital Treason, murder, and criminal negligence on the part of whatever US leaders were responsible for the recruiters not being allowed to bring arms to
to protect themselves from such an obviously forseeable event.

For one thing, IIRC, none of the recruiters were killed. It was at the other place where casualties occurred.

Second, if the US leaders are responsible for those killed because the recruiters weren't armed at the time, wouldn't it follow they would also be responsible if one of the recruiters murdered someone because he was armed at the time?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So we are holding President George H.W. Bush responsible?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So we are holding President George H.W. Bush responsible?

Killers are most responsible for their killings. After that, those that intentionally assisted the killers.

After that, those that intentionally solicited and aided the killers.

Negligent culpability is after that.

HW Bush is #1 for negligent culpability, Clinton after that. Obama is pretty far down the line. Unless you emphasize the "last clear chance" doctrine, in which case we might single out Obama for not insisting that recruiters be armed in the face of a wave of military targetings.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently you have to go further down than the President to assign blame for the recruiters being unarmed.

As PolitiFact says:

quote:
In 1992, when Bush was president, the Department of Defense issued a directive related to firearms for military personnel. That directive replaced an earlier one from 1986. The directive doesn’t specifically address recruiting offices, but it applies broadly to military sites.

The 1992 directive, signed by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald Atwood, didn’t outright ban military personnel from carrying weapons. Instead, it said that only certain employees could carry weapons, including those who worked in law enforcement, security and prisons. The directive also did not apply in certain situations, such as in war zones.

The policy explains that the intent is "to limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel." So the policy did cover most military personnel.

Those who have opposed this policy have sometimes referred to it as a Clinton-era policy because the Army did release a regulation that implemented the Defense Department directive in March 1993, two months after Clinton took office. (For more on a similar claim that circulated after a mass shooting at the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard, see the fact-checking website Snopes.)

A new Defense Department directive issued in April 2011 after a mass shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas tweaked the policy with some new phrases, including that workers have an "inherent right to self-defense." However, the overall policy essentially remained the same. Here is part of that directive:

"Arming DoD personnel (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) shall be limited to missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DoD assets or persons’ lives. DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties..."

The Department of Defense issued a directive, not a law, in 1992 -- when Bush’s father was president. It did not ban firearms outright; it limited them to military personnel who held certain jobs, such as positions in law enforcement. And while the Army issued a regulation implementing that directive in 1993 -- two months after Clinton was in office -- experts say it is not the sort of matter that would typically rise to the attention of a president.

Furthermore, it appears that being armed was not typical on a military base even before this directive was written.

quote:
Steven Bucci, a military expert for the Heritage Foundation and former Army colonel, told PolitiFact that the policy about firearms existed for decades before Clinton, or Bush for that matter.

"As far back as when I joined the military in 1973, and probably further back, you have never been able to carry firearms, privately owned or government, on military installations. You always had to register it with the MP's and keep them locked in the arms rooms," he said, referring to military police...

"No one ‘disarmed’ the military -- the military itself prefers to manage good order and discipline by not having everyone armed," he told PolitiFact.

So while the President--or any President, for that matter--is ultimately responsible, being Commander-in-Chief and all, this was a standing decision that was implemented probably before Nixon's time and by lower level commanders in the military itself.

It would be rather odd for the President to try to override his Generals in the matter of when soldiers should be armed. (As it is for Congressmen to do the same.)

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1