I want to weigh in on the discussion of whether the Charleston, S.C., massacre was an act of terrorism.

Here goes: I believe it qualifies.

Dylann Roof is accused of murdering nine people after he spent an hour studying the Bible with them. He reached into a pocket, or something, pulled out a gun and started shooting.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/the-killings-in-charleston-werent-terrorism-119233.html?hp=m1#.VYY_CVLbKt8

The victims never saw it coming. An act of terror? By my definition of the word, yes.

Yet we’re not calling it that. It’s a “hate crime.” Muslims who opened fire in Texas before they were killed were “terrorists.” A young white man in Charleston does the same thing and he’s called a “racist,” a “lunatic,” or a “mass murderer.”

You want mass murder? The 9/11 attacks certainly qualify. They, too, were carried out by terrorists.

I am growing weary of these word games.

The Charleston shooter was a terrorist, who committed a hate crime, who killed many people at once and thus, qualifies as a mass murderer.

Why not lump all these descriptions together?

We can stop playing semantic games with the language.