So this chap in the states who shot the cameraman and reporter was black, motivated by the
Charleston killings and targeted white people against whom he held race-based grudges.
But nobody is calling him a terrorist - just a nutter with a gun and a grudge.
So where, I wonder, does this leave those who claimed the killer in Charleston would have been labelled a terrorist had he not been white? Only it would seem to me that this case fundamentally disproves that rather silly argument. :rubchin:
So basically, the black man was racist and he did this because
some white people had been racist recently..... or he was just another American nutter with a gun :shrug:
Both, basically. The point is that the original contention by Jorge was that a case like this would
instantly lead to the shooter being labelled a terrorist, whereas the murder in Charleston did not because that shooter was white.
My point is that the reaction to this crime has conclusively proved this contention to be false.

It was a silly argument at the time and really a quite bizarre reaction to
I agree... bloody Americans and their guns
Indeed. I wouldn't normally go out of my way to use something like this to make a point, but that
was such a wrongheaded suggestion that I feel it's justified in this instance.
His name was Vester, but that wasn't good enough. So he chose to be known as Bryce.
Americans are, without a doubt, the most f**ked up of all earthly organisms.
There's no point talking to Berni about it. He *definitey* hasn't looked at any of the
footage or photos of the incident.
Can't believe that reporter was 24
Yeah, but he sure could rock a cowboy hat