The politicization of the Charleston killings is in full swing. Capturing the killer–who would want his name mentioned here–has given progressives and race hustlers (I know; I repeat myself) years to come to flog Americans for their supposed sins. What sins? Racism, of course. For example, this from Powerline:
Is the killer a racist? Was his crime racially motivated? The media and Obama Administration are seizing on any shred of anything that could be spun into evidence to claim he is. At the moment, a variety of statements that could be interpreted to indicate racist views have been widely publicized. Less widely publicized is the fact that the killer had a variety of black friends. What’s missing is apparent membership in any white supremacist organization, though he may have dabbled in displaying some symbols, such as the confederate flag, that might be thought racist by some.
The killer reportedly repeated the 9th grade and dropped out before tenth grade. In the 5-6 years before he committed mass murder, he apparently indulged heavily in psychotropic drugs, didn’t work and passed the time playing video games. I suspect his failure in school was in large part related to drug use as well. Like many cases of arrested development, dim bulbs like the killer often latch onto symbols and ideas that, to their underdeveloped brains say “rebel,” and “cool,” and that tend to outrage the straight, responsible society from which their own choices have alienated them. In most cases, these wastes of good oxygen don’t really believe in any of that, but it does give them a way to spit in the face of conformity, which they paradoxically try to ignore.
Is the killer a racist? The media and Federal Government are latching onto anything to make that case. The media, because it dovetails with their progressive preconceptions and supports their never dying “whites evil; blacks victims” narrative. The government, because it also matches their preconceptions, and gives them another excuse to force abhorrent, progressive policies on the nation. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is already investigating the case as a hate crime, and as an act of terrorism.
It’s far too early to definitively label the killer a racist. We just don’t know enough to determine whether racism was his motivation, or whether he chose a black church merely because he knew–due to our current racial upheaval–it would cause mass outrage and cement his place in history. I suspect the latter is more likely, but the media and DOJ will, regardless of the facts, surely present it as the former. There are, to be sure, some apparently racial elements in the killer’s background and statements, but that doesn’t mean those factors were his actual motivation. He also played video games and was involved in dangerous drugs. Couldn’t those influences be as powerful?
The issue of terrorism is, however, something about which we should all be concerned.
Remember that we are dealing with a President who cannot call actual terrorists–people who, by any definition, are unquestionably terrorists–by their name. Our battles against terrorists overseas transmogrified into “overseas contingency operations.” The Benghazi attack wasn’t done by terrorists, but by common Muslims spontaneously outraged over a video no one had ever seen, Muslims who just happened to be carrying military weapons and well-dialed in mortars in their back pockets. It is only recently that the victims of the Ft. Hood terror attack have been allowed the benefits they deserve, but the Obamites still classify that attack as “workplace violence,” despite the fact that it was carried out by a Muslim jihadist who had been in direct contact with a known terrorist leader.
President Obama is, as fast as he can, releasing the worst of the worst terrorists in the world, just so he can keep a campaign promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He certainly relates to them, but this is one of the few promises Mr. Obama has kept, all of them to the detriment of America. His administration has classified as terrorists veterans returning from the battlefield, members of the Tea Party–patriots who support the Constitution and limited government–the NRA, and in general, anyone that does not support Mr. Obama. But identify actual terrorist murderers as terrorists? That might make them mad and then they would do really bad things. They might cut people’s heads off twice!
Is the Charleston killer a terrorist? Consider this from Paul Mirengoff at Powerline:
The Justice Department now says it’s going to investigate whether the killings were an act of terrorism. This is a less clear cut matter, but on the facts as they have been reported, it may well be that Roof engaged in terrorism.
Killing people because you don’t like their race is a hate crime. Killing people for a political purpose is terrorism.
In the classic case of terrorism, the criminal is either (1) trying to induce a government to do something, e.g., get the U.S. to change its Middle East policy, or (2) trying to demoralize a population into capitulating, fleeing, or cowering — as in Iraq. It is also terrorism, I think, when the violence is intended to curb the exercise of speech.
I haven’t seen an indication that Roof hoped to accomplish any of these objectives. However, there are reports that he wanted to spark a race war. If so, his action would clearly be terrorism, in my opinion.
Even absent this sort of sweeping objective, one could argue that Roof is a terrorist. His selection of an historically symbolic black church suggests that he was interested not just in killing African-Americans, but also in making a political statement.
Words matter. I normally agree with the Powerline folks, but not this time. Calling a common, domestic criminal, regardless of how many people he kills, a terrorist, trivializes actual terrorism and provides very real benefits for the adherents of the Obamite worldview. Remember that the Obamites, and a great many other Progressives, love to identify anyone that opposes them as terrorists and tend to see unquestionable acts of terrorism as mere criminal matters and do everything they can do to try terrorists in common criminal courts.
If it can be proved the killer hoped to cause a race war, any rational person must understand that no matter how hard the Obama Administration and its allies tries to stir up racial animosity, there will be no race war. America is long past that and there is no interest in going back, at least not outside the Obama Administration. Absurd, hopeless thoughts, even it they exist, do not terrorism make.
Some Muslim spokespersons are claiming that Americans categorize all crimes by Muslims as terrorism, but this is nonsense. A great many Muslim criminals are prosecuted for their crimes every day, and terrorism never enters into it. The defining attributes of terrorism have to do not with the mere commission of a crime, the races of the victims, or their number. Is a serial killer who kills nine people over several years a terrorist, or is he a criminal that committed nine separate murders at different times and places? The Charleston killer murdered nine in one place at one time. How does that make him different in fact and law, than a serial killer? He’ll still be charged with nine counts of murder, just like the serial killer.
Terrorism differs from common crime in that it is fundamentally a political act undertaken to achieve or support political ends. ISIS murders, rapes and tortures in the furtherance of a global caliphate. Iran seeks nuclear weapons because its leaders believe this will hasten the coming of the hidden Imam and the establishment of Islamic domination of the Earth with Iran in charge. Murdering millions of Jews is also part of their religious intention. Palestinians and others wish to exterminate the Jews, because their holy book calls for it. All wish to kill Americans because we are not Muslim and stand in their way. It is a truism that not all Muslims are terrorists, but virtually all contemporary terrorists are Muslim.
But Islam is a religion! No, it’s not. It’s a fully formed political system with its own supporting laws, all wrapped in religious trappings to give it legitimacy. There is, in Islam, no separation of church and state; the church is the state. If Allah ordains that women be treated like cattle, who can argue? If Allah ordains that Christians and Jews be murdered wholesale, who can say otherwise? If Allah allows honor killings of women by their husbands and other male relatives, so be it.
But terrorists terrorize! Their goal is to cause terror! The Charleston killer certainly caused terror, so he’s a terrorist!
The media is certainly using such flimsy reasoning, and the DOJ surely will. The two convicted murderers that escaped from a New York prison have caused terror–fear–throughout the region by their very escape and the fact they remain at large. Are they terrorists? Whenever a serial rapist is loose in a community, women are terrorized, but no one rationally calls that criminal a terrorist.
Allowing the DOJ to call the Charleston killer a terrorist elevates him to celebrity status, which surely he wants, and establishes a dangerous precedent. If common criminals can be classified terrorists, and taken under federal jurisdiction, we’re all in trouble. Remember who the Obama Administration thinks to be terrorists. Every year, the federal government makes more and more behavior federal crimes, which enlarges the federal bureaucracy to track, apprehend and prosecute those new crimes. The administration of criminal justice is rightfully the province of the states. Securing the safety of the nation is the primary business of the federal government, not making political points and keeping the racial pot stirred and boiling by inserting the federal courts into local murders.
Ultimately, to understand the killer’s motivation, one need understand nothing other than that he was motivated by the author and source of evil, and in his acts, became evil incarnate. For whatever reason, he willingly sold his soul. That’s terrible enough.
The Charleston killer will face the death penalty, and various other lesser felonies, nine times over. If sentenced to death, will his motivation matter? The federal government cannot approach that penalty, but it can play politics with the case, use it to keep Americans at each other’s throats to distract them from the corruption and legacy building of the Administration, and establish a dangerous precedent useful for declaring any and all Americans terrorists.
That’s the real terror inherent in the Administration’s intentions.
UPDATE: 062015, 1625 CST
A black friend of the white man accused of murdering nine people at a Charleston church says the suspect told him a week prior to the killings that he planned to shoot up a local college campus.
Christon Scriven, a drinking buddy of Dylann Roof, told The Associated Press Friday that he thought Roof’s statements were just drunken bluster. However, Scriven said that he was concerned enough that he and another friend, Joey Meek, went out to take his .45-caliber gun, hiding it in an air-conditioning vent of a mobile home until they all sobered up.
‘He just said he was going to hurt a bunch of people’ at the College of Charleston,’ said Scriven, 22.
“I said, ‘What did you say? Why do you want to hurt those people in Charleston?’
“He just said, ‘In seven days. … I have seven days.’
This might suggest that the killer’s real motivation was merely to kill regardless of race. By all means, read the entire article. It seems to confirm that not only did the killer have black friends, he often partied with them. Again, it may be wise not to jump to early, easy conclusions about the killer’s motivation.