Sassenach wrote:I'm not sure what difference it makes whether we choose to call this an act of terrorism or not really. I must say my instinctive answer to the question is no, it isn't terrorism. The term isn't clearly defined so I guess it could be, but this feels a little different to me. Not all hate crimes are terrorist attacks. Ultimately it doesn't matter though.

True dat!

In agreement with Sass
bbauska

True dat!

And yet you said this earlier?

BOTH are terrorism. Failure to call them both what they are is problematic

How do you hold those views at the same time\? That it doesn't matter but its problematic?

Here's an interesting view on the flag...

In February of 2001, Jeb Bush, then governor of Florida, ordered that the Confederate battle flag, which since 1978 had flown at the state capitol in Tallahassee, be taken down.

"Regardless of our views about the symbolism of the ... flags -- and people of goodwill can disagree on the subject -- the governor believes that most Floridians would agree that the symbols of Florida's past should not be displayed in a manner that may divide Floridians today,

The SC attack is terrorism. It was an attack to terrorize and inflame.

The reason it was problematic was because the attack of Maj Hasan was not called terrorism.

freeman3 wrote:One thing Brad and I agree on (I think) is the absurdity of people forgiving this guy for his (for want of a better word) evil acts. Why has this notion evolved that we are required to forgive someone for their acts no matter how depraved? Does Christianity really require this?

Yes.

(Matt. 18:21-35) Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" 22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times. 23 "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay what you owe.' 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

The point of the parable is this: when a Christian sees life through the prism of how great their own sin is and how Jesus paid the price for it, and how because of the finished work of Christ the Christian will spend eternity in heaven instead of the hell that their sins merit, then they will forgive. Why? Simply because it is commanded? No, because they view themselves rightly and God rightly. In light of what they deserve, they are blessed. In light of their blessing, they are quick to forgive others.

That said, what those families did at the man's arraignment was amazing to watch.

I thought that such an absolution was between a person and God--am I wrong? I saw a member of one of the victim's families say that they forgive him...I suppose it is a good thing to let go of anger at some point so that a person can move on but forgiveness? I find that to be a bit much.

They also asked for mercy on the man's soul. Understanding the nature of hell, they do not even wish that upon this man. That is forgiveness. That is love. It is easy to love those who love you. It is difficult to love those who hate you.

freeman3 wrote:I agree that it is wrong to just say this guy is an isolated nutcase. He is just the most racist, crazy tip of an iceberg that goes deep into society. Without a lot of white people being angry about Obama's election and without the economic pressures brought on by income stratification you don't get this guy.

Without mental illness and drug use, you don't get this guy.

What do you suppose the percentage of the white population is who cheered the actions of this man is?

And you don't get all of these shootings of unarmed black people by police.

This is crap. It is unrelated. It is unproven. It is absolute rubbish.

Are there unarmed white people shot by black police officers?

Are there white people beaten and killed by black people simply for being white?

Here's my hypothesis: there are racists of every color. Some small percentage of these racists act upon their beliefs violently.

We can't be sure that this guy would have acted without those two factors (Obama's election, economic pressures), but we would be foolish to ignore likely underlying causes even if they can never be proven . I have no idea what the solution is...except do something about the gap of the haves and have nots.

I see no connection.

Furthermore, punishing success, which is what you're talking about, will that not bring antipathy? Or, will people joyfully surrender their wealth to others? Why don't we all hold hands and sing "Imagine?"

People do bad things. They always have and they always will.

Bad stuff just happens , right ? People just do stuff and they are completely unaffected by what's happening in the culture around them , right? Got it.

freeman3 wrote:Bad stuff just happens , right ? People just do stuff and they are completely unaffected by what's happening in the culture around them , right? Got it.

I'm not saying that.

However, it is a stretch from this guy to "the system of white oppression caused this."

If you don't believe me, rather than simply asserting something not in evidence, why not prove it?

Just saw this.

Henry Krinkle and Emma Quangel have uncovered what appears to be the website of Dylann Roof, the man who murdered nine people in a Charleston church earlier this week. (The site was registered in February of this year, and Quangel reports that she confirmed Roof's responsibility with a reverse whois search.) The site, called The Last Rhodesian, contains a zip file full of photos of Roof in various poses, often armed, sometimes with a Confederate flag, sometimes trampling or burning an American flag. And it contains a manifesto, which doesn't leave any room for doubt—in case anyone still had any—about the author's worldview.

The excerpts are bad enough. I can't imagine what the whole thing is like.

Question: why is it that we have the Patriot Act when they don't catch nuts like this? He had a website for crying out loud!

fate

Are there unarmed white people shot by black police officers?

Are there white people beaten and killed by black people simply for being white?

Did you think to try and answer these questions your self?
Or was the probability of finding at lest one instance enough to somehow make your case.? if not one, then how many instances have to be black cop, white unarmed man to have significance.
Or was it purely rhetorical?

One of the reasons the questions you ask is difficult to answer is that police across the US haven't been reporting on shootings . Reporting to the FBI is optional, and most of the country’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies choose not to report. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be a cultural aversion to over sight?
The other reason is that some forces record race of victim, but few record race or police involved...
There's an interesting attempt at finding the truth of a statement like yours linked below.
What they know is truth is

It is very accurate to say blacks are shot at more often by police than whites.

.
More we don't really know.
But we do know that if one black cop shoots one unarmed white teen ...... that doesn't disprove the trend that has been in evidence of unarmed blacks being shot with great frequency.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... unarmed-w/

Actually, Sass it makes a big difference as to whether it is characterized as terrorism or not. To many blacks since is simply the latest incident in a long series of attacks in the South by whites to intimidate blacks. Terrorism has been defined as the use of violence to obtain political ends. What makes it feel like it isn't terrorism is due to the fact that he acted alone and I think we implicitly think of terrorism as being done by an organized group. That is a rational way to look at it because politics is a group activity. The question here is to what extent did the culture in South Carolina and the US help to foster the development of a guy like this?

You asked for proof, DF . I will put it in but-for causation format. But for the glorification of the Confederacy in the South (including flying the Confederate flag in South Carolina state capital) would this guy have acted? But for Obama's election would this guy have acted? But for the over-the- top attacks on Obama for every perceived transgression would this guy have acted? But for the characterization of Obama as being Muslim, not born here, a communist--not a real American--would this guy have acted ? But for all the negative depictions of blacks on TV, the internet and other media would this guy have acted?

Was James Earl Ray solely responsible for shooting Martin Luther King or did the racist culture in the south have something to do with it?

There has been a lot of anger due to the first black man getting elected president.
You can never be certain what hat causes someone to do this because we have free will. But we shouldn't ignore the impact of the larger culture as being a causal factor.

rickyp wrote:fate

Are there unarmed white people shot by black police officers?

Are there white people beaten and killed by black people simply for being white?

Did you think to try and answer these questions your self?
Or was the probability of finding at lest one instance enough to somehow make your case.?

There are many more than "one case."

I'm going to be nice and simply say you are as ignorant as ever.

And, sorry, there is no wave (or ongoing problem of) white cops gunning down unarmed black suspects. Does it happen? Yes. Do black cops gun down unarmed white suspects? Yes. Do white cops shoot unarmed white suspects? Yes.

This is just garbage, like "hands up, don't shoot" was garbage.

Any headlines or protests on this?

Cincinnati police officer Sonny Kim was killed in a shootout on Friday morning. Kim was an immigrant to the United States from South Korea.
sonny kim
Kim was a husband and the father of three, a martial arts instructor. (Cincinnati.com)

It was the first time a Cincinnati officer was killed in the line of duty since 2000.

Suspect Trepierre Hummons was also killed in the shootout with police. He wrote a good-bye message online before the shooting.

Was this a systematic problem too?

freeman3 wrote:Actually, Sass it makes a big difference as to whether it is characterized as terrorism or not. To many blacks since is simply the latest incident in a long series of attacks in the South by whites to intimidate blacks. Terrorism has been defined as the use of violence to obtain political ends. What makes it feel like it isn't terrorism is due to the fact that he acted alone and I think we implicitly think of terrorism as being done by an organized group. That is a rational way to look at it because politics is a group activity. The question here is to what extent did the culture in South Carolina and the US help to foster the development of a guy like this?

You asked for proof, DF . I will put it in but-for causation format. But for the glorification of the Confederacy in the South (including flying the Confederate flag in South Carolina state capital) would this guy have acted?

First, I would note that all of your "but-for causation" is almost-credible at best. For example, the Confederate flag? So, do you really suppose that every Confederate soldier, or even most of them, were willing to die for slavery? I've heard this stated and I find it less than dubious.

We live in a different world now. We don't have the same sort of pride in our States as they did back then. The Civil War was fought for a number of reasons, but slavery would not have been the primary reason for Confederate soldiers.

But for Obama's election would this guy have acted?

How is this indicative of systemic racism? Or, are you simply trying to blame Obama? I will defend him: it's not his fault.

But for the over-the- top attacks on Obama for every perceived transgression would this guy have acted?

More supposition.

I might suggest it was to stop Obama from making more attacks on Republicans. He is the most partisan President in my lifetime. That, plus his aloof from Congress nature, explains why he got his butt kicked on that trade bill this week.

But for the characterization of Obama as being Muslim, not born here, a communist--not a real American--would this guy have acted ? But for all the negative depictions of blacks on TV, the internet and other media would this guy have acted?

This is wonderful, emotional rhetoric and it might well sway a jury, but what judge in his right mind would take this as "evidence?"

Was James Earl Ray solely responsible for shooting Martin Luther King or did the racist culture in the south have something to do with it?

Do you suppose the culture in the South has changed over the last (nearly) 50 years?

There has been a lot of anger due to the first black man getting elected president.
You can never be certain what hat causes someone to do this because we have free will. But we shouldn't ignore the impact of the larger culture as being a causal factor.

There is ample evidence the man came from a dysfunctional and weird home. There is ample evidence that he was an anti-social loser.

It's not like it took a criminal mastermind to walk into a church and kill people. In terms of mass killings, this is about as wicked as it gets.

That said, you've adduced zero evidence that the "culture" pushed him to it. You're nonsense about negative images of black people in the media is pretty offensive, actually. You mean to tell me you believe most of the characters on TV portrayed by black actors are negative? Media types aren't sufficiently diverse?

I think you woke up in 1962 or something because the US you're describing is not the one I live in.

Let's look at negative stereotyping of blacks on TV.

https://www.msu.edu/~lapinsk3/Maria_Lap ... 542669.pdf
http://forms.gradsch.psu.edu/diversity/ ... Isaacs.pdf
https://library.uoregon.edu/sites/defau ... ations.pdf

But I look forward to the research that supports your point of view on this...

And of course that's not even talking about the stuff that goes out over the internet...

freeman3 wrote:Let's look at negative stereotyping of blacks on TV.

https://www.msu.edu/~lapinsk3/Maria_Lap ... 542669.pdf
http://forms.gradsch.psu.edu/diversity/ ... Isaacs.pdf
https://library.uoregon.edu/sites/defau ... ations.pdf

But I look forward to the research that supports your point of view on this...

And of course that's not even talking about the stuff that goes out over the internet...

Google is wonderful, isn't it? Just post lists and that "proves" your point--and, if I'm not convinced, I can do what you didn't: read the articles.

No thanks.

Beyond that, even if (I am doubtful) the articles establish racism in the media, it does nothing to establish your theory. It's still a triple-bank shot blindfolded.