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.
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."
Why wasn't Dylann Roof labelled a terrorist?...and where the hell are the BLM people marching for him to be tried as such? I guess they realized that makes too much sense and may be too constructive for their liking, so they'll instead troll some politicians or block traffic against black Friday shopping.
I have little doubt that the next big terrorist attack will not be from a guy named Mohammad or Omar, but will be from a good ol' boy with a copy of the Turner Diaries, a bunch of "stop white genocide" crap on his computer and nothing to lose.
I am not one of those people declaring "America be racists!", but only an equally idiotic fool would believe there are no racists in America, and no shortage of extremists ones. These people are getting radicalized over the internet, buying guns at the local gun shows and meeting up on the deepweb to plan God knows what. They are every bit as real and as dangerous as ISIS, and they have the advantage of not fitting any profile and already being in the US. ISIS needs to send people here and blend in to cause terror, while all Bubba and Jim Bob have to do is go down to the local Synagogue, black church or court house.
And before anyone says it, I am still 100% pro-second amendment and for internet freedom. I just wish the feds would do more to monitor these nuts to keep an eye out for ones that may turn action into words.
* I have yet to meet a single flag-on-lapel knuckle-dragger who goes on about "dem muzzies er terrorist!" who has ever heard of Sayyed Qutb or read "Milestones."
A terrorist act is a terrorist act, it is unfortunate that much of the media tries to pretend like it isn't terrorism when it happens in the US if it isn't being done by an Islamic Extremist. Had Dylann Roof been Muslim, this would have been a massive story that would have thrown every Muslim in the country under the bus blaming them for his action.
Why was Paris considered terrorism, but not Charleston?
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.
It really comes down to politics. Terrorism is the use we word for groups or people who do bad things that we can use the military against for money related purposes. Using the army on Dylan Roof would not be good. Dylan Roof is a mass shooter, because he's good for gun control.
Politics. Both terms like 'mass shooter' or 'terrorist' to the average thinker, mean the exact same thing. Mass shooter is a bit more specific in terms of how an act of terror is committed, but just like 'suicide bomber,' terrorism is a word that could easily be used in its place. Never the less, what we call it doesn't matter. What ISIS did in Paris is evil and wrong, just as what Roof did in Charleston is evil and wrong.
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.
Both were horrible but the main difference besides the number of casualties is in Charleston, you had a psycho loner who killed for apparently racial reasons and in Paris you have an organized group that carried out the attacks for religious reasons and they have the backing of a state and millions of supporters.
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.
I agree, I view white supremacists or ANY racial group who kill based on racism with a much higher level of contempt than I do terrorists.
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.
Why was Paris considered terrorism, but not Charleston?
