# Dylann Roof is a Terrorist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074 "2015-06-21T14:50:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2015, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/101 "2015-06-21T22:11:44Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Quite true. But what if you were so pissed off that you shot the white devil honkey, and for good measure, a few of her honkey friends who happened to be standing around? Is that now “an act of terrorism”? Is that what terrorism means now – “a motivated crime serious enough that it makes the national news”? I’m sure this isn’t an official criterion, but I’m perfectly fine with this as a “working” definition. If you commit a crime intended to strike a blow for a specific political ideology–a crime so heinous that it receives a lot of attention–then it is terroristic crime. If Roof had shot the black congregants without letting them know why they were being killed, without leaving behind a “call to arms” manifesto straight out of a white supremacist group handbook, then it wouldn’t be any different than any other mass shooting. And “terrorist” wouldn’t apply. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/102 "2015-06-21T22:15:34Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > Fwiw, I think I prefer ‘modern day lynching’ to ‘terrorism’, it feels right to me. Lynching involves a group killing one person, not the other way around, so I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/103 "2015-06-21T22:17:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Quite true. But what if you were so pissed off that you shot the white devil honkey, and for good measure, a few of her honkey friends who happened to be standing around? Is that now “an act of terrorism”? Is that what terrorism means now – “a motivated crime serious enough that it makes the national news”? If we go by the legal definition… probably not. You’d have to prove that **monstro** was trying to: (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 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2015, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/104 "2015-06-21T22:35:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But just to be clear, I’d be happy to get rid of the term altogether in the US. Same with “hate crime”. OK, we’ll just have to disagree on the previous points. But I will just say – and this may help to clarify my views on this – that I disagree with that statement, too. “Hate crime” is an important concept in identifying a specific type of crime. It might be used to escalate its level of seriousness, but more importantly, it is often (though not always, by any means) associated with an organized initiative attracting a collective mentality, so it’s an important concept for investigative and jurisdictional purposes – for example, the feds send in the FBI instead of leaving it to local yokels. I also believe – though most here will disagree with me – that “hate speech” is one of the instruments of such organizations and individuals and is also an important legal concept. I happen to believe that governments and judiciaries can be responsible enough to apply the concept in an appropriately limited fashion with net social benefit – but that’s a whole different discussion. And I do think that “terrorism” is an equally functional legal concept. Rather than throwing it out because it’s misapplied so often, I’d rather limit it to very specific situations requiring a very high bar of evidence, but for the few situations that meet the stringent criteria, I’d give our security systems a lot of leeway. [Here’s a good example](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=October_Crisis). Ironically it comes from Canada where ostensibly nothing ever happens, but in 1970 a Quebec terrorist cell kidnapped a diplomat and a government minister and demanded actions in support of Quebec secession. They killed the government minister and held the British diplomat for ransom to their political demands. Now that’s terrorism. In response, the federal government controversially (but I say they were right) invoked an emergency powers act that suspended civil rights and unleashed the military to handle the situation, which was quickly defused. My parents were in Montreal at the time and described how odd it was to see armored military vehicles all over the city, but if anything, it made them feel more secure. As indeed it should have – the interesting sidebar to this is that the crime rate in the city went down to approximately zero during this time, while AFAIK no one’s actual civil rights were violated and the terrorists were apprehended. Anyway, that’s the kind of situation that the word “terrorism” should be used for. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2015, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/105 "2015-06-21T23:30:54Z")
You mean like when a senator is executed along with others and the executioner has a manifesto declaring a race war in a state that still isn’t over the war of seccession and still flies the slavery flag at its capitol? The only thing this guy lacked was direct participation in his act by others of his kind. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/106 "2015-06-22T00:03:17Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > And I do think that “terrorism” is an equally functional legal concept. Rather than throwing it out because it’s misapplied so often, I’d rather limit it to very specific situations requiring a very high bar of evidence, but for the few situations that meet the stringent criteria, I’d give our security systems a lot of leeway. I like your “hate speech”/“hate crime” comparison … and I agree this act in South Carolina doesn’t appear to need any qualifiers. Now if the DA down there elects not to prosecute, then I can see labeling this as a terrorist act so that the\* Federales\* can step in and prosecute. Otherwise this is just simple murder, how many times do we need to send this bozo to the electric chair? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/107 "2015-06-22T00:38:16Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > OK, we’ll just have to disagree on the previous points. But I will just say – and this may help to clarify my views on this – that I disagree with that statement, too. “Hate crime” is an important concept in identifying a specific type of crime. It might be used to escalate its level of seriousness, but more importantly, it is often (though not always, by any means) associated with an organized initiative attracting a collective mentality, so it’s an important concept for investigative and jurisdictional purposes – for example, the feds send in the FBI instead of leaving it to local yokels. > > I also believe – though most here will disagree with me – that “hate speech” is one of the instruments of such organizations and individuals and is also an important legal concept. I happen to believe that governments and judiciaries can be responsible enough to apply the concept in an appropriately limited fashion with net social benefit – but that’s a whole different discussion. > > And I do think that “terrorism” is an equally functional legal concept. Rather than throwing it out because it’s misapplied so often, I’d rather limit it to very specific situations requiring a very high bar of evidence, but for the few situations that meet the stringent criteria, I’d give our security systems a lot of leeway. [Here’s a good example](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=October_Crisis). Ironically it comes from Canada where ostensibly nothing ever happens, but in 1970 a Quebec terrorist cell kidnapped a diplomat and a government minister and demanded actions in support of Quebec secession. They killed the government minister and held the British diplomat for ransom to their political demands. Now that’s terrorism. > > In response, the federal government controversially (but I say they were right) invoked an emergency powers act that suspended civil rights and unleashed the military to handle the situation, which was quickly defused. My parents were in Montreal at the time and described how odd it was to see armored military vehicles all over the city, but if anything, it made them feel more secure. As indeed it should have – the interesting sidebar to this is that the crime rate in the city went down to approximately zero during this time, while AFAIK no one’s actual civil rights were violated and the terrorists were apprehended. Anyway, that’s the kind of situation that the word “terrorism” should be used for. Your example of terrorism seems more like insurrection to me. Terrorism is generally thought to be an act aimed at the civilian population. And it looks like what we in the US call terrorism you want to call a hate crime. So it just boils down to a matter of semantics-- you want to distinguish the same crimes from “ordinary” crimes, but you want to call them a different name. Is that far off the mark? The way I see it, premeditated murder is the worst crime one can commit. It should receive the maximum penalty allowed by law. Adding a further charge of terrorism or hate crime just makes it “worster”, if you will. It still gets the maximum penalty, so what is accomplished? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/108 "2015-06-22T00:40:41Z")
**wolfpup** , I agree with you that hate crime is a subset of terrorism. But imagine if Roof had only been accused of knocking over black people’s mailboxes instead of blowing off their heads. Calling that terrorism–in the same vein as the Weathermen, Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, and Al-Queda–just doesn’t seem right to me. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/109 "2015-06-22T00:51:08Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Like everything else it’s broken along lib/con lines, with libs being rather insistent on the point. Maybe because of these tribalistic reasons: > > 1. Resentment over right wing militias never being taken seriously by authorities while they themselves were called weak on terror; it’s a perceived way to reverse the narrative. > 2. To poke cons in the eye over “one of their own” (as perceived by the left). > 3. Behghazi revenge. Why won’t you call it terrorism, huh, huh? Welp, we’re all out of straw, folks. I certainly cannot speak for these mythical “libs” of which you speak, but I think it entirely reasonable to call this terrorism, and for none of the bizarre “tribalistic reasons” you list. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/110 "2015-06-22T00:53:14Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > **wolfpup** , I agree with you that hate crime is a subset of terrorism. But imagine if Roof had only been accused of knocking over black people’s mailboxes instead of blowing off their heads. Calling that terrorism–in the same vein as the Weathermen, Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, and Al-Queda–just doesn’t seem right to me. Surely no one would try to use ‘terrorism’ in the mailbox-vandalizing situation. Doesn’t use of the term imply a certain level of violence? If not violence against persons, then at least destruction of an impressive level. Blowing up their houses–maybe. Knocking over their mailboxes: no. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/111 "2015-06-22T00:55:13Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Surely no one would try to use ‘terrorism’ in the mailbox-vandalizing situation. Doesn’t use of the term imply a certain level of violence? If not violence against persons, then at least destruction of an impressive level. > > Blowing up their houses–maybe. Knocking over their mailboxes: no. Per the US legal definition, it must “Involve acts dangerous to human life” ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/112 "2015-06-22T00:58:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Per the US legal definition, it must “Involve acts dangerous to human life” Which leads me to wonder: if someone (citing a political agenda) blew up, say, the Washington Monument, at a nighttime moment when no guard happened to be nearby…wouldn’t that get called ‘terrorism’ even if no human life was taken? (I bet it would.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/113 "2015-06-22T01:02:32Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Which leads me to wonder: if someone (citing a political agenda) blew up, say, the Washington Monument, at a nighttime moment when no guard happened to be nearby…wouldn’t that get called ‘terrorism’ even if no human life was taken? (I bet it would.) I’m not sure how you can blow up a building and not have it be dangerous to human life unless it’s out in the middle of nowhere. The Washington Monument is a bit isolated, but it’s still on the mall in the nation’s capital, which is a densely populated city. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/114 "2015-06-22T01:09:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not sure how you can blow up a building and not have it be dangerous to human life unless it’s out in the middle of nowhere. The Washington Monument is a bit isolated, but it’s still on the mall in the nation’s capital, which is a densely populated city. I did choose the WM because it’s kind of set apart. A small enough explosion could topple it without necessarily involving other buildings. As a hypothetical, it’s not perfect…but it’s only a hypothetical. It does seem quite possible that there do exist installations throughout the USA could be destroyed in such a manner that humans aren’t around (or impacted) at the time of the destruction. Mount Rushmore might be a better example than the WM, come to think of it. Substantial damage could be done to the sculpted faces by an explosion that would be within a range small enough to spare the visitor center and/or any guard huts or such. (I can’t speak to the safety of Vandamm or his staff, however.) ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/115 "2015-06-22T01:11:06Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Which leads me to wonder: if someone (citing a political agenda) blew up, say, the Washington Monument, at a nighttime moment when no guard happened to be nearby…wouldn’t that get called ‘terrorism’ even if no human life was taken? (I bet it would.) True. The Weathermen blew up empty government buildings, taking pains not to kill anyone. And they were a terrorist group. But I would argue that the use of explosives is so reckless that it doesn’t matter they didn’t intend to harm people. There’s no way of preventing a person from potentially wandering onto the scene and getting a face full of shrapnel. Furthermore, people fooling around with bombs can make [mistakes](http://www.newyorkcitywalk.com/html/images_weathermen.html). Knowing that your next-door-neighbors may be making bombs in their living room doesn’t help you sleep well at night, whether they intend to inflict terror on you or not. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/116 "2015-06-22T01:11:35Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > I did choose the WM because it’s kind of set apart. A small enough explosion could topple it without necessarily involving other buildings. As a hypothetical, it’s not perfect…but it’s only a hypothetical. > > It does seem quite possible that there do exist installations throughout the USA could be destroyed in such a manner that humans aren’t around (or impacted) at the time of the destruction. Mount Rushmore might be a better example than the WM, come to think of it. Substantial damage could be done to the sculpted faces by an explosion that would be within a range small enough to spare the visitor center and/or any guard huts or such. > > (I can’t speak to the safety of Vandamm or his staff, however.) Well, if you can find a similar case that was labeled as terrorism, I guess we have something. I don’t see any point in a debate about what we think might happen. That type of discussion usually just serves to amplify whatever prejudices we, as posters, have. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/117 "2015-06-22T01:42:37Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Seems like a telling comment – if you’re using the term “terrorist” to mean someone who committed a very serious crime and deserves the maximum punishment, then you’re not using the term in its intended meaning and purpose. “Hate crime that resulted in nine fatalities” serves that meaning just fine. No, it doesn’t. (Am I doing this right?) ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/118 "2015-06-22T01:52:06Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > True. The Weathermen blew up empty government buildings, taking pains not to kill anyone. And they were a terrorist group. True, but they planned much worse. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/119 "2015-06-22T01:57:13Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > True. The Weathermen blew up empty government buildings, taking pains not to kill anyone. And they were a terrorist group. > > But I would argue that the use of explosives is so reckless that it doesn’t matter they didn’t intend to harm people. There’s no way of preventing a person from potentially wandering onto the scene and getting a face full of shrapnel. Furthermore, people fooling around with bombs can make [mistakes](http://www.newyorkcitywalk.com/html/images_weathermen.html). Knowing that your next-door-neighbors may be making bombs in their living room doesn’t help you sleep well at night, whether they intend to inflict terror on you or not. Yeah, I would not want to be the defense attorney arguing that my client blew up a building, but made certain no one would get hurt. Maybe if he was a certified demolition expert, but even then the idea that no one could possibly be wondering around near the building is a bit far fetched. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074/120 "2015-06-22T02:35:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, if you can find a similar case that was labeled as terrorism, I guess we have something. I don’t see any point in a debate about what we think might happen. That type of discussion usually just serves to amplify whatever prejudices we, as posters, have. [The Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front](http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html) are very close to what you’re asking for. As of this article in 2005, they hadn’t killed anyone, and I haven’t heard of their causing any human deaths or even injuries. But they’ve done millions of dollars worth of property damage. Because they’ve focused on property damage and not killing humans, I’ve argued before, and will continue to argue, that they should not be grouped with Al Qaeda or the Klan as terrorist groups. Certainly they’re criminal, but I think it’s worth drawing a sharp line between violence against humans and property destruction. The federal government, in this case, disagrees with me :). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dylann-roof-is-a-terrorist/723074.md?page=7)