Amazon.com Widgets

Do you think Dylan Roof being white is the reason the media did not label him a terrorist.

Asked by: JeffEKahn
  • There is a significant double standard

    Since Dylan Roof was a white, Christian male, I believe this was the reason he was not labeled at terrorist. Let us review the definition of terrorist. From dictionary.Com, "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." Roof stated that he had to do it because the black people were taking over his land and he wanted to start a race war. He also had a picture where he was wearing the flags of apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). He fits the textbook definition of a terrorist but, because he is not Muslim, media outlets (Fox News in particular) will not label him what he really is. Imagine if Roof was a Muslim, we all know the media would immediately (within 5 seconds of discovering his religion) would have screamed terrorism. Why not here? Why do we have to have such a significant double standard.

  • White Supremacy Survives

    America claims to be secular and pro equality but it is not. This is a hate crime intended to terrorize the black population but was not considered a terrorist jut because he is a White American. Additionally, the fact that he is not Muslim makes the media think he is innocent.

  • He fits the definition.

    Dylan Roof's actions were to create terror in order to cause a desired political change - in his case, the initiation of a 'race war' that he felt to be inevitable. One of the "no" supporters compares him to Bryce Williams, but that's comparing apples and oranges, as Williams was attempting what he considered to be a vengeance killing, no more.

    Had he been black or Muslim, the terrorist labels would have been flying before the story even hit the news, but the sad truth is that Americans cannot accept that white Christians can be terrorists as well, and bend over backwards to create excuses when it happens.

  • He absolutely fits the profile.

    Dylan Roof's actions were to create terror in order to cause a desired political change - in his case, the initiation of a 'race war' that he felt to be inevitable. One of the "no" supporters compares him to Bryce Williams, but that's comparing apples and oranges, as Williams was attempting what he considered to be a vengeance killing, no more.

    Had he been black or Muslim, the terrorist labels would have been flying before the story even hit the news, but the sad truth is that Americans cannot accept that white Christians can be terrorists as well, and bend over backwards to create excuses when it happens.

  • Just a punk with a gun.

    To call him a terrorist would legitimize him. As it is, he was a young man with serious mental issues, who was on meds, if I recall correctly. So we're looking at a kid who's not thinking straight getting his hands on a firearm, and going to a public place. Remember, he's not thinking clearly, and maybe he has a beef with a fellow person (who am I kidding, he was mad at a black guy and thought he would somehow be in the congregation). I can speak from experience that I will whip out Overkill 9000 at the first opportunity to solve a problem on paper. Or when playing Dwarf Fortress. The point is that the kid was:
    1. Judgement-impaired
    2. Angry at the world
    3. Probably harboring a deathwish. I can safely say that if I die before I die of old age, I'm going out in a way that will be talked about for years, such as being shot in a bathtub full of Rupees.
    If anything, that attack and the lead-up could be considered a plea for help.

  • He was labeled a terrorist

    I heard him called a terrorist many times. The guy got ripped apart by the media, so I don't know what "double standard" your delusions make you believe there is.
    Furthermore, he had mental problems, and people that are considered terrorists usually do so with a clear mind, because otherwise they're just insane.

  • What was his goal?

    To my understanding, he just wanted to start a race war, which is not really a political position. Terrorists often want a political change, and use terror as a means to get the government to enact said change. So, no, I don't think he was a terrorist, since his actions were to incite society (I guess) to change, and is no more a terrorist than any other advocate using threats, violence, or even peace to enact societal change.

  • What about the virginia shooter

    Vester Flanagan aka Bryce Williams the black gay man who shot two of his white ex co workers on live tv as revenge for the Charleston victims wasn't called a terrorist . There's probably a other reason. I believe that both of these men were sick twisted racist daemons who don't represent all members of their races.

  • I heard plenty in the media call him a terrorist...

    I saw many in the media say he was a terrorist... I did not see them say the same thing about Bengazi however! The government took over a month to say it, so maybe there are other more important situations of not calling things terrorism than this one. Just saying.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.