Beltway sniper to be executed at 9pm

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the suggestion is that this had something to do with terrorism there was no evidence of that. The guy cited Bin Laden in the same breath as character's from The Matrix.

It might be that he intended it as some sort of copycat thing, but the guy himself had no direct links to terrorist groups - he was likely deluded and criminally insane.

The liberal definition of a terrorist. Only someone with direct links to organized terror.

Thats like saying, only people with ties to organized crime can be called criminals.

What is "organized terror" when it is at home?

Surely you mean "organized terrorist group" - where individuals are funded and trained for the purposes of using violence for the express purpose of achieve political goals.

In the sense of your intended meaning we as might call the guy who shot John Lennon a "terrorist", rather than what he was - a lone, disturbed individual who found something to justify his delusion. What about the guy who shot Gianni Versace - Terrorist or lone madman?

I'm sure you can connect the dots here.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If the suggestion is that this had something to do with terrorism there was no evidence of that. The guy cited Bin Laden in the same breath as character's from The Matrix.

It might be that he intended it as some sort of copycat thing, but the guy himself had no direct links to terrorist groups - he was likely deluded and criminally insane.

The liberal definition of a terrorist. Only someone with direct links to organized terror.

Thats like saying, only people with ties to organized crime can be called criminals.

What is "organized terror" when it is at home?

Surely you mean "organized terrorist group" - where individuals are funded and trained for the purposes of using violence for the express purpose of achieve political goals.

In the sense of your intended meaning we as might call the guy who shot John Lennon a "terrorist", rather than what he was - a lone, disturbed individual who found something to justify his delusion. What about the guy who shot Gianni Versace - Terrorist or lone madman?

I'm sure you can connect the dots here.

The guy who shot Lennon was a madman no doubt. Wanted to take his place after he was dead.

There were no political or religious motives.

Not the case with Hasan and all the smoke from the gun was there for many years and it was ignored.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the suggestion is that this had something to do with terrorism there was no evidence of that. The guy cited Bin Laden in the same breath as character's from The Matrix.

It might be that he intended it as some sort of copycat thing, but the guy himself had no direct links to terrorist groups - he was likely deluded and criminally insane.

The liberal definition of a terrorist. Only someone with direct links to organized terror.

Thats like saying, only people with ties to organized crime can be called criminals.

What is "organized terror" when it is at home?

Surely you mean "organized terrorist group" - where individuals are funded and trained for the purposes of using violence for the express purpose of achieve political goals.

In the sense of your intended meaning we as might call the guy who shot John Lennon a "terrorist", rather than what he was - a lone, disturbed individual who found something to justify his delusion. What about the guy who shot Gianni Versace - Terrorist or lone madman?

I'm sure you can connect the dots here.

The guy who shot Lennon was a madman no doubt. Wanted to take his place after he was dead.

There were no political or religious motives.

Not the case with Hasan and all the smoke from the gun was there for many years and it was ignored.

The thread isn't about Hasan. Its about the Beltway sniper.

[Peikko 1,575]

If the suggestion is that this had something to do with terrorism there was no evidence of that. The guy cited Bin Laden in the same breath as character's from The Matrix.

It might be that he intended it as some sort of copycat thing, but the guy himself had no direct links to terrorist groups - he was likely deluded and criminally insane.

The liberal definition of a terrorist. Only someone with direct links to organized terror.

Thats like saying, only people with ties to organized crime can be called criminals.

What is "organized terror" when it is at home?

Surely you mean "organized terrorist group" - where individuals are funded and trained for the purposes of using violence for the express purpose of achieve political goals.

In the sense of your intended meaning we as might call the guy who shot John Lennon a "terrorist", rather than what he was - a lone, disturbed individual who found something to justify his delusion. What about the guy who shot Gianni Versace - Terrorist or lone madman?

I'm sure you can connect the dots here.

I'm equally sure he can not.

Someone in the bloggosphere or on Fox or one of these idiotic opinion talking heads is obviously blurring the lines between what is and isn't terrorism for some personal gain and the result is this shift in thinking from using the word for the purpose which it was coined to using it to create feelings of horror and anger. Terrorism has a meaning that is very particular. Either use it properly or don't use it at all. Clearly, without being able to use correct terminology people's critical thinking skills are even more sadly lacking. What a crock.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If the suggestion is that this had something to do with terrorism there was no evidence of that. The guy cited Bin Laden in the same breath as character's from The Matrix.

It might be that he intended it as some sort of copycat thing, but the guy himself had no direct links to terrorist groups - he was likely deluded and criminally insane.

The liberal definition of a terrorist. Only someone with direct links to organized terror.

Thats like saying, only people with ties to organized crime can be called criminals.

What is "organized terror" when it is at home?

Surely you mean "organized terrorist group" - where individuals are funded and trained for the purposes of using violence for the express purpose of achieve political goals.

In the sense of your intended meaning we as might call the guy who shot John Lennon a "terrorist", rather than what he was - a lone, disturbed individual who found something to justify his delusion. What about the guy who shot Gianni Versace - Terrorist or lone madman?

I'm sure you can connect the dots here.

The guy who shot Lennon was a madman no doubt. Wanted to take his place after he was dead.

There were no political or religious motives.

Not the case with Hasan and all the smoke from the gun was there for many years and it was ignored.

The thread isn't about Hasan. Its about the Beltway sniper.

You're right.. Forgot what thread i was posting in... there's so much terrorist love going around from the left.

But both had political and religious motives. Hasan's and Muhammed's motives were very similar.

If the suggestion is that this had something to do with terrorism there was no evidence of that. The guy cited Bin Laden in the same breath as character's from The Matrix.

It might be that he intended it as some sort of copycat thing, but the guy himself had no direct links to terrorist groups - he was likely deluded and criminally insane.

The liberal definition of a terrorist. Only someone with direct links to organized terror.

Thats like saying, only people with ties to organized crime can be called criminals.

What is "organized terror" when it is at home?

Surely you mean "organized terrorist group" - where individuals are funded and trained for the purposes of using violence for the express purpose of achieve political goals.

In the sense of your intended meaning we as might call the guy who shot John Lennon a "terrorist", rather than what he was - a lone, disturbed individual who found something to justify his delusion. What about the guy who shot Gianni Versace - Terrorist or lone madman?

I'm sure you can connect the dots here.

I'm equally sure he can not.

Someone in the bloggosphere or on Fox or one of these idiotic opinion talking heads is obviously blurring the lines between what is and isn't terrorism for some personal gain and the result is this shift in thinking from using the word for the purpose which it was coined to using it to create feelings of horror and anger. Terrorism has a meaning that is very particular. Either use it properly or don't use it at all. Clearly, without being able to use correct terminology people's critical thinking skills are even more sadly lacking. What a crock.

Losing the debate early? "you lack critical thinking skills"

I think its obvious to everyone JUST WHO is trying to blur the lines between what is and isn't terrorism.

[Peikko 1,575]

If the suggestion is that this had something to do with terrorism there was no evidence of that. The guy cited Bin Laden in the same breath as character's from The Matrix.

It might be that he intended it as some sort of copycat thing, but the guy himself had no direct links to terrorist groups - he was likely deluded and criminally insane.

The liberal definition of a terrorist. Only someone with direct links to organized terror.

Thats like saying, only people with ties to organized crime can be called criminals.

What is "organized terror" when it is at home?

Surely you mean "organized terrorist group" - where individuals are funded and trained for the purposes of using violence for the express purpose of achieve political goals.

In the sense of your intended meaning we as might call the guy who shot John Lennon a "terrorist", rather than what he was - a lone, disturbed individual who found something to justify his delusion. What about the guy who shot Gianni Versace - Terrorist or lone madman?

I'm sure you can connect the dots here.

The guy who shot Lennon was a madman no doubt. Wanted to take his place after he was dead.

There were no political or religious motives.

Not the case with Hasan and all the smoke from the gun was there for many years and it was ignored.

The thread isn't about Hasan. Its about the Beltway sniper.

You're right.. Forgot what thread i was posting in... there's so much terrorist love going around from the left.

But both had political and religious motives. Hasan's and Muhammed's motives were very similar.

You don't half talk a lot of ######. Who knew?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No Joe, they were not similar. Again if you're going to go down that road you have to accept that Andrew Chapman was a terrorist as well, which of course - he was not.

[Peikko 1,575]

If the suggestion is that this had something to do with terrorism there was no evidence of that. The guy cited Bin Laden in the same breath as character's from The Matrix.

It might be that he intended it as some sort of copycat thing, but the guy himself had no direct links to terrorist groups - he was likely deluded and criminally insane.

The liberal definition of a terrorist. Only someone with direct links to organized terror.

Thats like saying, only people with ties to organized crime can be called criminals.

What is "organized terror" when it is at home?

Surely you mean "organized terrorist group" - where individuals are funded and trained for the purposes of using violence for the express purpose of achieve political goals.

In the sense of your intended meaning we as might call the guy who shot John Lennon a "terrorist", rather than what he was - a lone, disturbed individual who found something to justify his delusion. What about the guy who shot Gianni Versace - Terrorist or lone madman?

I'm sure you can connect the dots here.

The guy who shot Lennon was a madman no doubt. Wanted to take his place after he was dead.

There were no political or religious motives.

Not the case with Hasan and all the smoke from the gun was there for many years and it was ignored.

The thread isn't about Hasan. Its about the Beltway sniper.

You're right.. Forgot what thread i was posting in... there's so much terrorist love going around from the left.

But both had political and religious motives. Hasan's and Muhammed's motives were very similar.

If the suggestion is that this had something to do with terrorism there was no evidence of that. The guy cited Bin Laden in the same breath as character's from The Matrix.

It might be that he intended it as some sort of copycat thing, but the guy himself had no direct links to terrorist groups - he was likely deluded and criminally insane.

The liberal definition of a terrorist. Only someone with direct links to organized terror.

Thats like saying, only people with ties to organized crime can be called criminals.

What is "organized terror" when it is at home?

Surely you mean "organized terrorist group" - where individuals are funded and trained for the purposes of using violence for the express purpose of achieve political goals.

In the sense of your intended meaning we as might call the guy who shot John Lennon a "terrorist", rather than what he was - a lone, disturbed individual who found something to justify his delusion. What about the guy who shot Gianni Versace - Terrorist or lone madman?

I'm sure you can connect the dots here.

I'm equally sure he can not.

Someone in the bloggosphere or on Fox or one of these idiotic opinion talking heads is obviously blurring the lines between what is and isn't terrorism for some personal gain and the result is this shift in thinking from using the word for the purpose which it was coined to using it to create feelings of horror and anger. Terrorism has a meaning that is very particular. Either use it properly or don't use it at all. Clearly, without being able to use correct terminology people's critical thinking skills are even more sadly lacking. What a crock.

Losing the debate early? "you lack critical thinking skills"

I think its obvious to everyone JUST WHO is trying to blur the lines between what is and isn't terrorism.

Debate with you? You are such a card.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

No Joe, they were not similar. Again if you're going to go down that road you have to accept that Andrew Chapman was a terrorist as well, which of course - he was not.

No - you are obviously dishonest when you list someone who killed lennon because he was a madman, and listing a serial killer.

There is a clear difference. Although I have no problem if you want to call serial killers terrorists, they just won't be called islamic terrorists. (unless of course they are doing it in the name of islam)

This guy was not "just a mad murderer". He targeted American soldiers without disregard or distinction as to who they were (as far as identity). He shot as many as he could and would have taken them all out, and continued on if he could. THis all in one instance.

Its no different to what happened on 911, just that he didn't have airplanes as his weapon. He had a gun and firepower.

Debate with you? You are such a card.

You're right. It can hardly be called a debate when my position clearly trumps yours.

Don't take it personally.

[Peikko 1,575]

No Joe, they were not similar. Again if you're going to go down that road you have to accept that Andrew Chapman was a terrorist as well, which of course - he was not.

No - you are obviously dishonest when you list someone who killed lennon because he was a madman, and listing a serial killer.

There is a clear difference. Although I have no problem if you want to call serial killers terrorists, they just won't be called islamic terrorists. (unless of course they are doing it in the name of islam)

This guy was not "just a mad murderer". He targeted American soldiers without disregard or distinction as to who they were (as far as identity). He shot as many as he could and would have taken them all out, and continued on if he could. THis all in one instance.

Its no different to what happened on 911, just that he didn't have airplanes as his weapon. He had a gun and firepower.

Debate with you? You are such a card.

You're right. It can hardly be called a debate when my position clearly trumps yours.

Don't take it personally.

What's to take personally? Being a self proclaimed winner of a message board argument? Can this get any funnier, really?

Edited November 10, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No Joe, they were not similar. Again if you're going to go down that road you have to accept that Andrew Chapman was a terrorist as well, which of course - he was not.

No - you are obviously dishonest when you list someone who killed lennon because he was a madman, and listing a serial killer.

There is a clear difference. Although I have no problem if you want to call serial killers terrorists, they just won't be called islamic terrorists. (unless of course they are doing it in the name of islam)

This guy was not "just a mad murderer". He targeted American soldiers without disregard or distinction as to who they were (as far as identity). He shot as many as he could and would have taken them all out, and continued on if he could. THis all in one instance.

Its no different to what happened on 911, just that he didn't have airplanes as his weapon. He had a gun and firepower.

Its not unknown for serial killers to target a specific demographic - like women, or homosexuals. That doesn't make them terrorists.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

No Joe, they were not similar. Again if you're going to go down that road you have to accept that Andrew Chapman was a terrorist as well, which of course - he was not.

No - you are obviously dishonest when you list someone who killed lennon because he was a madman, and listing a serial killer.

There is a clear difference. Although I have no problem if you want to call serial killers terrorists, they just won't be called islamic terrorists. (unless of course they are doing it in the name of islam)

This guy was not "just a mad murderer". He targeted American soldiers without disregard or distinction as to who they were (as far as identity). He shot as many as he could and would have taken them all out, and continued on if he could. THis all in one instance.

Its no different to what happened on 911, just that he didn't have airplanes as his weapon. He had a gun and firepower.

Debate with you? You are such a card.

You're right. It can hardly be called a debate when my position clearly trumps yours.

Don't take it personally.

What's to take personally? Being a self proclaimed winner of a message board argument? Can this get any funnier, really?

I don't have to proclaim anything. The information speaks for itself.

No Joe, they were not similar. Again if you're going to go down that road you have to accept that Andrew Chapman was a terrorist as well, which of course - he was not.

No - you are obviously dishonest when you list someone who killed lennon because he was a madman, and listing a serial killer.

There is a clear difference. Although I have no problem if you want to call serial killers terrorists, they just won't be called islamic terrorists. (unless of course they are doing it in the name of islam)

This guy was not "just a mad murderer". He targeted American soldiers without disregard or distinction as to who they were (as far as identity). He shot as many as he could and would have taken them all out, and continued on if he could. THis all in one instance.

Its no different to what happened on 911, just that he didn't have airplanes as his weapon. He had a gun and firepower.

Its not unknown for serial killers to target a specific demographic - like women, or homosexuals. That doesn't make them terrorists.

Why not?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because specific words have context-dependent meanings.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Because specific words have context-dependent meanings.

Wouldn't it be ok to assume that said group (homos and women) in that particular town would be terrorized and fear for their lives if said serial killer were still on the loose?

Card again? Trump...

[Peikko 1,575]

Because specific words have context-dependent meanings.

Why worry about that? If people want to call this or that act an act of a terrorist, they should go right ahead, it is their first amendment right. Clearly, being able to 'spot' a liberal at a thousand paces is what is important. Joe is the man.