Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
I don't think someone's rambling blog can be called a "manifesto" when his daily life contradicts it. His friend is black and in the South, that black friend has had many opportunities to see Dylann Roof around other blacks; how he acted, what he said about/around them. The friend swears that Dylann Roof never had a racist comment.What about his manifesto?
I can blog all I want about "the purity of the Arabian horse" but I can and do cross breed out my mares when I find a nice stallion of another breed. I can hold the ideal while not being slavish to it.
To the point, the two witnesses we have now of record have said that Roof's main target was a school with predominantly white kids; and that he changed his mind at that particular date and went to sit in a Bible study for an hour while he calmly waited for a cue to rise and shoot 3 male and 6 aging female Christians.
I'm saying he should be prosecuted for two hate crimes, given that he is almost certainly gay and the day before was the big shattering announcement from another southern Christian church that its leadership was not allowing gay weddings under their watch no matter what SCOTUS says in the next coming days. If he is gay and this was a reaction against Christians, we the general public have a right to know that. We need to at least rule it out before we all sing in unison "it was RACISM ONLY!" so a very uncomfortable topic doesn't have to be explored..
Let's say that you have a point (you don't but hear me out). Does that mean we should ignore the fact that the shooter is gay and that he attacked a Christian church the day after a Christian church announced their entire leadership was not having any part of gay weddings?You really don't care one way or the other. Your biggest concern is trying to make Roof gay so you can use this tragic event to smear queers.
I mean, two witnesses have said "he really wanted to shoot up a white college campus" and "we have no idea why he changed plans on Jun 17, 2015 and hit up a church instead?" The day before was the Christian announcement and a real blow to gays. My observation in recent years it that the Rainbow militants are like the new KKK. While the KKK operates and lives day in and out around others who despise them and would never promote them or say bake a KKK "****** hangin'" cake, the KKK accepts this and doesn't in its wildest dreams expect everyone to play along with their twisted dogma. But not so with the more militant factions and twisted minds in the LGBT militia. When denied anything they're after, their leadership/talking heads lash-out! They usually use the courts or "leaked information" when they want to hit someone like Josh Duggar, but in this case one of their more extreme ranks "went the extra mile"..
You want the problem of him being gay and targeting a church the day after the Southern Christian church made it's "no gays, no way" wedding announcement. I'm saying we can't rule it out until it's explored. What if it's true? What if he shot up the church specifically because his gay anger at Christians got the better of him? I mean, after all, there have been media announcements that the LGBTs are actively engaged in a, and I quote, "culture war". What if it's true that this kid took the word "war" literally, owning a brand new shiney handgun and a clip, and all those squirming thoughts wriggling around in his unhinged mind? You want to give that motive a blind and 100% complete pass. I don't. We'll let history decide who is right.
Are all gays this unhinged? No, they're not. Do I want people to think every LGBT practitioner is as crazy as this loon? Nope. But just like Gabby Gifford's shooter, when the left was all about finding out each and every one of his possible motives, I want to leave no stone unturned on this one. It isn't every day someone walks into Bible study (the last psychological refuge in this crazy world where someone might feel safe) and pumps a bunch of lead into the completely innocent and passive attendees. We Americans need to be 100% certain that this gay boy's motives were all-about race and nothing else. You're saying we need not explore that he is gay and the day and place he struck. On that point we are at loggerheads.
Last edited: