Blame Whitey Thread Unravels

[BamaMoose]

pnwmom (80,867 posts)

Why isn't shooting 16 people in a nightclub in itself a sign of terrorism?
     
I don't get why they are saying there is "no sign of terrorism." The word "terrorism" isn't synonymous with "radical Islamic terrorism." There are Christian terrorists, political terrorists, and people who are just general haters.

But it sure would terrify me if I thought that someone might come to a nearby public place and just start shooting.

mikeysnot (2,913 posts)

2. Was the shooter a
 
wrong wing white guy?

Star Member Doreen (2,353 posts)

6. I saw the post and the first thing I thought was "they are probably white."

Damn white people randomly throwing bullets around in public places.  It happens, literally, all the time.

Ace Rothstein (1,153 posts)

16. Why would you think they are white?
 
This appears to be an African American nightclub.

Well that was unforeseen.

shraby (18,360 posts)

7. I haven't read anything about it yet, but was it a case of the "good guys with guns" "saving"
 
people from harm and in the process getting many more shot?

pnwmom (80,867 posts)

10. That's what I'm wondering. They think they're going to be a good guy shooting back
 
but as far as the police are concerned, they're just one of the shooters.

salin (47,374 posts)

8. 2 words: Gun Culture (or 1 anacronym NRA)
 
but you know this  Rhetorical questions are so useless in this era of reactionary right irony to which they, themselves are oblivious.

Ah it was a few responsible CCW's that got out of control.  No doubt radicalized by the latest edition of American Rifleman.

hack89 (35,966 posts)

18. Or Criminal Culture
 
I would bet on the latter.

That is also an option.

pnwmom (80,867 posts)

11. What was the political motive in the Orlando shooting? Wasn't that terrorism against gay people? nt

Absolutely had nothing to do with the Islamic religion.  Repeat that if necessary.

pnwmom (80,867 posts)

21. Okay. What if the Orlando shooter didn't have that political motive? What if he deliberately
 
went after gay people. Do you agree with the previous poster that such an act wouldn't constitute terrorism?

Ummm.  What?

Yavin4 (23,854 posts)

14. This is racism in a nutshell. Using the criminal act of one member of a race or class to incriminate
 
the entire class. When a White gunman mass murders people, his actions are not used to tar all White people. However, whenever a person of the muslim faith does it, it's immediately an implication of an entire religion. 

Get back on topic.  A white guy is responsible.

oberliner (42,881 posts)

20. Where do you get the idea that the gunman was white?
 
Seems unlikely. 

Why would you ever think that?

stillcool (24,697 posts)

36. I have no idea....except
 
He's not labeled as a terrorist

So all the murders that have happened in DC and Chicago this year were done by white guys because.......terrorist?

cwydro (24,807 posts)

23. It seems very unlikely this was a white gunman.
 
Would you care to reconsider your post?

pnwmom (80,867 posts)

31. Is that your guess or do you have a link for that? I haven't seen anything about the shooters

 except there appear to have been more than one.

It must be Whitey.....stop with your reality.

Ace Rothstein (1,153 posts)

17. But this probably wasn't a white gunman.

pnwmom (80,867 posts)

32. The reports I've seen say there were more than one, but don't specify race.
 
What have you read?

Whitey, whitey, whitey...

melman (1,822 posts)

33. This looks like a gang shooting
 
Do you want all gang members classed as terrorists? Somehow I doubt that you do.

Umm, yeah lock up all gang bangers (white and black and Hispanic) as terrorists.  I have no problem with this.

pnwmom (80,867 posts)

34. The first reports said there was a single shooter, which wouldn't imply a gang shooting. n/t

Still clinging to "It was Whitey.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028854990

[Movie buff- The Sequel]

"Why isn't shooting 16 people in a nightclub in itself a sign of terrorism?"
This ties somewhat into the problem of giving something too loose of a definition, so that it could be defined as whatever the speaker wants it to be and thus loses the true gravity of its meaning, as has been done over the last several years with terms like "Bullying" and "Obesity."
I think in order for it to be considered an act of terrorism, there would need to be a clear ideological motive behind the act.
For instance, I would not consider Jared Loughner's massacre or the Sandy Hook massacre, horrible though they both were, to be acts of terrorism, on the grounds that each was more of a case of an incredibly disturbed individual who just snapped one day and started shooting, with no real known ideological motive. Even though some such as the DUmmies tried to classify Loughner's massacre as an act of political/ "Right wing" terrorism due to Gabrielle Giffords being targeted, that doesn't work due to the facts that 1) Loughner had been known to be an ultra- liberal motivated more by a psychotic obsession with Giffords than an actual political vendetta, 2) Giffords was a "Blue dog" Democrat who held liberal positions on some issues and conservative positions on other issues and wasn't outspoken enough on any of them to really make a target of herself, and 3) one of the people killed in his massacre was a Bush- appointed conservative judge. If the only thing driving the massacre is sheer madness or a personal vendetta, I wouldn't call it an act of terrorism.
 We don't know much about the Cincinnati shooting yet, so I'd say don't call it an act of terrorism until we learn more of the circumstances behind it.

" There are Christian terrorists, political terrorists, and people who are just general haters."
Notice how the DUmmy makes no reference to ecoterrorists. Then again, that's not surprising, since ecoterrorists like Rodney Coronado (Who spent some time on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list) and the Unabomber are hailed by uber- leftists like the DUmmies as wonderful heroes whose actions should be encouraged.

Umm, yeah lock up all gang bangers (white and black and Hispanic) as terrorists.  I have no problem with this.

I'd support that too.

[SVPete]

Yavin4 (23,854 posts)

14. This is racism in a nutshell. Using the criminal act of one member of a race or class to incriminate
 
the entire class. When a White gunman mass murders people, his actions are not used to tar all White people. ...

Nearly 24K DU posts and Y4 hasn't noticed that's a staple of DU? The moment word is out of some sort of mass murder or act of terror, DU-folk are split between those blaming white Fundie gun-nuts and those posting, "I hope he was white, I hope he was white, I hope he was white, I hope he was white, I hope he was white, I hope he was white, ..."! It's as predicable as the Sun rising in the east.

[YupItsMe]

Soon as I read about this shooting I was 99% sure it was a black on black shooting.  My guess is the guy held the gun sideways while firing like the badass gangsta he thought he was.  White people don't pull out guns and start shooting in a bar because someone "dissed" them.  Glad the perp is dead.   Apparently you need to shoot at least 16 people before it's not police murdering someone to shoot him dead. 

Also, you know he's black, by the very fact that every single media outlet is avoiding the description.  they've gotten pretty predictable.

[SVPete]

...
Also, you know he's black, by the very fact that every single media outlet is avoiding the description.  they've gotten pretty predictable.

I looked over several news reports and, despite there having been numerous witnesses, no descriptions of the shooters were give. The same is true of that half-way house murder in Saginaw, MI. The two are not related, except in the sole fact that the MSM have published no descriptions of the murderers. I've come to interpret silence on something that basic and knowable to be evidence of agenda.

[I_B_Perky]

pnwmom (80,867 posts)

Why isn't shooting 16 people in a nightclub in itself a sign of terrorism?
     
I don't get why they are saying there is "no sign of terrorism." The word "terrorism" isn't synonymous with "radical Islamic terrorism." There are Christian terrorists, political terrorists, and people who are just general haters.

But it sure would terrify me if I thought that someone might come to a nearby public place and just start shooting.

Want to know why, dummie? Because pavement ape terrorism is OK in the minds of the libs.

[SVPete]

pnwmom (80,867 posts)

Why isn't shooting 16 people in a nightclub in itself a sign of terrorism?

Simple. Calling gang-bangers terrorist would be insta-denounced as RACIST! (even though there are whites in criminal gangs)

[BamaMoose]

Two charged with murder in connection to shootout:





Damn white people.  Probably 1%ers, since they could afford all the tanning bed time needed to get that dark.