Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem confused about the hierarchy of evil. Charleston was "white supremacy", and that's worse than anything. Calling it mere terrorism would have trivialized the incident.
Pretty much that. Had it been just another act of terror, like Chattanooga, Boston, Fort Hood, etc, it would have been forgotten about in no time. Calling it "white supremacy" gave it air play and supplied faux outrage for months.
ISIS, who follow the political ideology of Sayyed Qutb*, a form of political Wahhabism, attack Paris killing a bunch of innocent people in a callus, downright inhuman act. Radical Sunni Islam inspired terrorism strikes again, and everyone agrees.
But in South Carolina, when Dylann Roof, a follower of white nationalism, a fan of white supremacist Harold Covington and all around indoctrinated extremist went on a killing spreed in a black church...well, that was mean.
How on Earth was that NOT an act of terrorism? This piece of filth is a white supremacists who wears patches of apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia on his shirt and even wrote a MANIFESTO explaining why he did it. And he is somehow NOT a terrorists? If that was a Muslim, it would RIGHTFULLY be called terrorism. But when it is a white Christian...it was just "him being crazy" and there is "nothing else to it."
If you think they are the same.."act of terrorism" and have to ask then you really don't understand the meaning of terrorism.
A lot of it is scope and size of the incident. The attacks in Paris, for example, were on par with the Oklahoma City bombing. If something like the latter were to happen again, I have no doubt that people would be comfortable calling it terrorism.
The Charleston shooting, as terrible as it was, was an order of magnitude less than the Paris attacks. It got about as much attention as the Fort Hood shootings a few years ago by a radical Muslim, and more attention in my opinion than the shooting in Chattanooga, which was also carried about by a radical Muslim. So I really don't think that the Paris attacks and the Charleston shooting is a fair comparison.
Funny though how the Fort Hood shooting was labeled "workplace violence" rather than "Islamic terrorism". By that perverted "logic" Roof was simply arranging premature funerals.
Kind of odd how Charleston has fueled the demand for the desecration of Confederate flags, memorials to Civil War heros and denunciation of anyone with a Southern heritage. Yet brutal, barbaric Islamic terror has some idiots demanding the importation of more Islamic terrorists, calls to honor Muslims and to protect mosques, Islamic flags and any other symbol of the death cult.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
They both were terrorist attacks because the intent was to create widespread societal fear. The difference is White Southerners are against terrorism and went out of the way to prove so by removing the rebel flag from the capital. It is shameful that Dylan Roof was taken to Burger King by police when he should have been hung from the nearest tree.
Meanwhile most Muslims silently support terrorism.
By the government's own definition of terrorism, the U.S. itself is a terrorist group...but they add the word "subnational" to exclude governments.
It's all political, and there is a lot of hypocrisy. They use it for their own benefit.
When people are afraid, conditions are ripe for tyranny. The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if the government tries to increase control (like they did with the patriot act, etc) in the name of keeping everyone safe, and anyone who resists their power grab could potentially be labeled a terrorist.
They both were terrorist attacks because the intent was to create widespread societal fear. The difference is White Southerners are against terrorism and went out of the way to prove so by removing the rebel flag from the capital. It is shameful that Dylan Roof was taken to Burger King by police when he should have been hung from the nearest tree.
Meanwhile most Muslims silently support terrorism.
Roof was on a personal vendetta. He made no claim about terrorizing society in the US.
And he had no political intent.
They both were terrorist attacks because the intent was to create widespread societal fear. The difference is White Southerners are against terrorism and went out of the way to prove so by removing the rebel flag from the capital. It is shameful that Dylan Roof was taken to Burger King by police when he should have been hung from the nearest tree.
Meanwhile most Muslims silently support terrorism.
muslims kill people in the name of their religion, islam.
Roof killed people because he was mentally deranged.
Um, Muslims (or anyone) that kill in the name of religion are mentally deranged too.
Roof was a terrorist, plain and simple-but he doesn't fit the media or Government narrative of who our "enemy" is and what the War on "Terror" is about. They need to manufacture consent for war, and to do that the boogeyman must be in the countries we want to invade, not here in the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
