By delaying or destroying medical research the ALF is killing people.
I didn’t knock down any falsely attributed arguments, especially since I’d relate to those points. I’m just not as personally invested as so many others seem to be on what it’s called.
Then why are libs so insistent on this point, even trying to embarrass and shame the right over not using the word? Why did Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore get vociferous applause reactions from their audience for calling it terrorism? If you think there’s any other reasons feel free to offer your own.
This might be for you.
THat’s a reach there, friend. If that’s sufficient to call them terrorists then kids who engage in a sit-in that blocks a parking lot for a research facility are also terrorists.
For a change, I have no strong opinion on this matter. I’m inclined to say Dylan Roof was a mass murderer like John (The Beltway Sniper) Muhammad, and I wouldn’t classify either man as a terrorist. But I’m not the least bit outraged that people disagree with me, and understand perfectly if other people DO want to label them as terrorists.
Roof is a racist scumbag, and will get either life in prison or the death penalty, and he’ll get that sentence a lot faster than most other killers (just as Timothy McVeigh did) . No white person will miss him.
My only question is, why does anyone care very much whether Roof is labeled as a terrorist? If he IS, it won’t hurt my feelings- I just wonder what good that would serve?
It might motivate an investigation of how he was ‘radicalized’, possible white supremacists he corresponded with, and the like. My understanding is that domestic terrorists are investigated in different ways (and generally much more thoroughly in terms of ideology and individuals and organizations with whom he may have been affiliated with) than more mundane sorts of crimes.
You said:
Is not delaying and/or destroying research that is saving lives ‘violence against humans’?
As if he were like an ISIS recruit. He wasnt recruited. He compleined that there were no organizations that met his needs. He was simply a mentally ill man.
Studying “radicalization” is different from investigation this guy’s affiliations. The latter will happen whether this is put in the terrorist framework or not, I strongly suspect.
But investigating radicalization is exactly the kind of likely response to calling it terrorism that is counterproductive. AFAICT, all of the talk about causes of radicalization is not grounded in actual social science. The academics who study why people join terrorist groups or engage in terrorism say that there isn’t much that distinguishes it from any other area of human endeavor. The same mess of circumstance and happenstance that makes a little boy actually become a firefighter is pretty much applicable to what makes a little white supremacist actually become a killer, or a little jihadi actually join ISIS.
The radicalization narrative doesn’t help us stop terrorism. What it does is justify other dubious policies, like entrapping young men deemed “likely” to become radical, or going after people who we might otherwise consider to be engaging in free speech.
So, for instance, vetoing a bill to fund stem cell research is terrorism in your mind?
No…please reread these statements
If there’s any indication that Roof was affiliated with organized racist groups, I’m all for pursuing them. I don’t know whether he was a lone wolf or whether he was in contact with any violent militia-type organization. I’d assume that sort of thing would be checked out regardless of whether he’s given the label of terrorist.
I would change my mind and call him a terrorist if evidence links him to a larger movement. But that has yet to be determined. I say, prove he’s more than a lone nut and THEN call him a terrorist. Don’t call him a terrorist in hopes it will lead to investigation as to whether he’s more than a lone nut.
On what basis do you say he was “mentally ill”?
I certainly don’t agree with his beliefs or ideology, but I don’t automatically leap to “mentally ill”. Having different beliefs doesn’t make you crazy or insane or unable to know right from wrong - the latter being the test for “legally insane at the time of a crime”.
No. It is not.
Yes it is.
… and often a rope. You’re too literal.
Roof is the mob - a modern gun plays the part of several people, and the victims were put to death without legal authority. It’s also relevant that they died as representatives of … well, you’d have to ask Roof, but it seemed to be enough that they were black.
He may as well have taken them outside one at a time and put a noose around their necks.
FBI Director James Comey declined to label the Wednesday shooting at a predominantly black church in Charleston, S.C., as a terrorist act.
“Terrorism is act of violence done or threatens to in order to try to influence a public body or citizenry, so it’s more of a political act and again based on what I know so more I don’t see it as a political act,” Comey said at a press conference Friday in Baltimore.
Seriously?
That he murdered people in cold blood…extenuating factor: He sat with em for an hour. In others that makes it far harder to kill.
That he couldnt find another outlet for his rage
That his amygdala isnt working properly
So what you’re saying is that everyone who commits premeditated murder is insane?
Point taken about the “radicalization” narrative. But I call Roof a terrorist because it fits with the long-term terrorism throughout American history and up into the last century committed against black people in America, which includes other church attacks, bombings, and the like (among many, many other forms of violence).