What's new

Charleston church shooting: Who is Dylann Roof?

Unfortunately blacks are found to be more acceptable "thugs".

In this case the white man was a mass murdering terrorist and yet, the American police didn't bother putting their own brother in handcuffs despite just commuting a gruesome massacre in a church.
 
. .
Dichotomy and double standards at its best, please read the article in Washington Post here; I am quoting a para below from the article which kind of sums up to a certain degree why Dylann Roof is not labelled as terrorist.

“Most Americans are white, and we see white people like ourselves. When I see Dylann Roof, I remember being a white male his age, barely out of my teenage years and experiencing weird anger in a difficult time. (There's a reason that young men commit most murders.) We can identify much more easily with who he is. When Graham looks at Roof, he doesn't see a terrorist with a weird name and foreign ties. He sees a kid who was in his niece's English class -- literally.”

It is way easier to segregate and rebuke a group of people and think ill of them if you and your family and friends do not belong to that group. As soon as you see yourself in that group, it's amazing the amount of sympathy drawn out from your heart for that person because somehow now you can relate to that person.
 
.
It is way easier to segregate and rebuke a group of people and think ill of them if you and your family and friends do not belong to that group. As soon as you see yourself in that group, it's amazing the amount of sympathy drawn out from your heart for that person because somehow now you can relate to that person.
When Pakistani tribesmen (some doing out of fear) did the same for Taliban they were still labelled apparently only White people can feel for their own chemri others doing it are terrorist sympathizers...

I am quoting a para below from the article which kind of sums up to a certain degree why Dylann Roof is not labelled as terrorist.
Sad truth!
 
.
White people can feel for their own chemri others doing it are terrorist sympathizers...

I concur; as you probably read this story where a question of a BLUNDER in a drone strike ONLY came about when Mr. Warren Weinstein (an American contractor, and director in Pakistan for J.E. Austin Associates) was mistakenly targeted.

Others are regarded merely as collateral damage. There is a reason behind this saying: This is a WHITE MAN's WORLD.
 
Last edited:
.
. .
It is way easier to segregate and rebuke a group of people and think ill of them if you and your family and friends do not belong to that group. As soon as you see yourself in that group, it's amazing the amount of sympathy drawn out from your heart for that person because somehow now you can relate to that person.
Does this explain why we as a nation are generally tolerant towards terrorism? or more specifically why people of FATA/KPK allowed terrorists to establish bases in their lands or elsewhere? and did not wake up (many are still asleep) un till the fire reached to their own houses (APS, Peshawar)? Human psychology is very complicated.
 
. .
Does this explain why we as a nation are generally tolerant towards terrorism? or more specifically why people of FATA/KPK allowed terrorists to establish bases in their lands? and did not wake up (many are still asleep) unless the fire reached to their own houses (APS, Peshawar)? Human psychology is very complicated.

To some extent yes; but I would not make a blanket statement to include the "whole nation". Respectfully can I put forward a scenario in-front of you.

Let say I am a 9 year old boy who lived all his life in FATA with his siblings and family and my childhood days were not much different to any other ordinary village household of Pashtun heritage. But one dreadful morning I woke up to this unfathomed reality that my home was targeted by drone strike and all of my family members are dead.

What goes in the mind of that kid; can you put on his shoes for a moment and try to think what he had felt Syed bhai...now if you take my side will you be regarded as a "terrorist sympathizer" or a normal human being knowing the real background of this event; do you need to be related to me to feel my pain or you have to belong to Pushtun tribe for that matter? There are countless incidents like I mentioned (obviously excluding the ones in which the intelligence given is correct and the intended target is targeted).
 
Last edited:
.
To some extent yes; but I would not make a blanket statement to include the "whole nation". Respectfully can I put forward a scenario in-front of you.

Let say I am 9 year old boy who lived all his life in FATA with his siblings and family and my childhood days were not much different to any other ordinary village household of Pashtun heritage. But one dreadful morning I woke up to this unfathomed reality that my home was targeted by drone strike and all of my family members are dead.

What goes in the mind of that kid; can you put on his shoes for a moment and try to think what he had felt Syed bhai...now if you take my side will you be regarded as a "terrorist sympathizer" or a normal human being knowing the real background of this event; do you need to be related to me to feel my pain or you have to belong to Pushtun tribe for that matter? There are countless incidents like I mentioned (obviously excluding the one's in which the intelligence given is correct and the intended target is targeted).
Bhai, problem is perception and you would agree with me that people of FATA, a predominant majority, thrive on war economy. I have lived all my life in tribal society, I am well aware of the mindset of tribals and I tell you, it was impossible, I repeat, impossible, for the so-called Taliban (or anyone else for that matter) to set foot in tribal areas without the consent and approval of tribals, armed tribals. Moreover, tribals did not allow them to establish in FATA out of good heart or due the so-called Pashtoon wali, but in return of certain 'favors'. However, tribal learnt it rather hard way that the price of favors was not what they were expecting. Well before infamous drone attacks, delegations upon delegations from the GoP and military saw the tribal elders and tried to educate them on changing situation post 9/11 but tribals refused to budge. In-fact they were so thick headed that Soofi soor of Sawat took about thousand or so of his followers into Afghanistan only to be massacred. Tribals continued to provide shelter to those who were fighting in Afghanistan and took the heat in 'return' of their support for Afghan insurgents. No, I am not saying American invasion was right, but merely pointing out that Tribals were targeted for a reason. In-fact if someone had to be blamed, it was Afghan insurgents who used FATA to establish their hideouts and then the FATA people who extended their hospitality towards these unwelcoming guests for a variety of reasons (war economy, blood relations, Pashtoon wali, refusal to accept Pakistan and Afghanistan as two countries etc.). Finally, yes, I do feel pain when I put myself in the shoes of the 9-years old boy who lost everything and I can understand that he was left but with few options. This is life, unfortunately, this is life.
 
. .
This here is an Australian comedian talking about gun control----awesome----.


Racism exist everywhere, it even exists in India and Pakistan.

Hi,

I have often told my black American friends---you have no clue about racism---you got to see it being practiced in india.
 
.
I have lived all my life in tribal society, I am well aware of the mindset of tribals

Then can you please provide some insight on the factors on why FATA was a peaceful region before 9/11. I know that Govt. writ was non-existent but there was no militancy and suicide attacks even though I read that there were presence of foreigners as well as a considerable population of Afghan refugees. Therefore don't you think that the point of cultural heritage and customs etc contributing to militancy is not valid here since you can argue that the very same tribals were living peacefully before 9/11.

In-fact if someone had to be blamed, it was Afghan insurgents who used FATA to establish their hideouts).

Post 9/11 things got drastically changed and I agree that the influx of Afghan insurgents made things worse but who were these insurgents? were they a mixture of foreign fighters and locals together or only locals...?

Note: Sorry to @Akheilos to be little off topic here.
 
Last edited:
.
What is terrorism??



Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
  • Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear to be intended (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; and
  • Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (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; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
  • Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
  • Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

FBI — Terrorism Definition

Terrorism is not just an mass attack on any civilian, terrorism and mass killing is two different thing, a killer (Serial Killer) can go on a killing spree and kill 90 people just to satisfy whatever of his or her twisted need. But a Terrorist can kill only one people or sometime none to perform a terrorist attack. The different is in his motive.

According to 18 USC the condition of becoming a terrorist attack are defined by one cause.

Appear intended (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; and

The core of terrorist attack based on an attack which intend to alter or influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion.

Now, if you look at the definition, you need to know not just an organisation but individual can perform a terrorist attack on US or on US interest overseas. The main point being an attack was aim to influence the policy of government.

Now, is hate crime belong to terrorist attack? It does and it doesn't, again, depend on if the person who committed the attack if their aim is to influence the policy of US government, bear in mind hate crime can be a very board spectrum, it does not just defined between race and religion, but also many factor are involved, hatred of humanity, hatred of authority, hatred of gender, hatred of relationship. The problem you have to ask is, odes the Charleston shooting is just some guy who hate a group of people and shoot the heck out of that group? Then it will not be an terrorist attacks, or if that guy aim to change the US policy by carrying out an attacks? Then it would be terrorism.

Mind you, in the history of United States, there are about 120 declared terrorist attack in US or with US interest overseas, Muslim and black only contributed some 30% of those attack as those were peaked between 60s to 2000s, most labelled terrorist are white.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom