[Clyde Slick]

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism. Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate others.
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our focus.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]

Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate others.
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our focus.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 1, 10:29*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]

To that I would also add that both cases seem to me to be terroristic
acts to also influence *personal* (as opposed to "state bodies")
decisions. I think that ex-spouses or ex-partners (for example) who
brandish weapons to influence or dissuade someone from (again, for
example) dating somebody else should be guilty of making "terroristic
threats".

In the case of the Army recruit that could dissuade people from
joining the military. In the case of the doctor it could dissuade
other doctors from performing the procedure.

[[email protected]]

On 1 Iun, 23:29, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]



Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate others.
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our focus.-

then the abortionist murder isn't terrorism by that definition.
the intimidation uis aimed at doctors foing partial birht abortions.
And the soldier murder is not based on intimidating governemtn action,
either.

[[email protected]]

On 2 Iun, 00:14, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:29*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]

To that I would also add that both cases seem to me to be terroristic
acts to also influence *personal* (as opposed to "state bodies")
decisions. I think that ex-spouses or ex-partners (for example) who
brandish weapons to influence or dissuade someone from (again, for
example) dating somebody else should be guilty of making "terroristic
threats".


I most certainly agree with you there.
there are several types of terrorism.

Even schoolyard bullying is a type of terrorism.



In the case of the Army recruit that could dissuade people from
joining the military. In the case of the doctor it could dissuade
other doctors from performing the procedure.-

Correct.

[[email protected]]

No better illustration of hatethink is available than this
discussion. Both these acts were murders, plain and simple, and the
perps should be dealt with with no judicial notice whatever to the
ideology or state of mind of the killers, but rather with their acts.
In both cases individuals minding their own business were killed by
disturbed people and those people should be dealt with.

"Hate crime" is a hatethink concept and is dangerous, in fact lethal,
to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association.
It is more dangerous to society than the killings themselves. The
killers killed one or two individuals, but promoters of hatethink
endanger the whole society.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
wrote:

No better illustration of hatethink is available than this
discussion. Both these acts were murders, plain and simple, and the
perps should be dealt with with no judicial notice whatever to the
ideology or state of mind of the killers, but rather with their acts.
In both cases individuals minding their own business were killed by
disturbed people and those people should be dealt with.

"Hate crime" is a hatethink concept and is dangerous, in fact lethal,
to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association.
It is more dangerous to society than the killings themselves. The
killers killed one or two individuals, but promoters of hatethink
endanger the whole society.

Who said anything about a hate crime?

[[email protected]]

"Hate crime" is a hatethink concept and is dangerous, in fact lethal,
to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association.
It is more dangerous to society than the killings themselves. The
killers killed one or two individuals, but promoters of hatethink
endanger the whole society.

Who said anything about a hate crime?

"The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. "

The individual calling itself 'Clyde Slick". Presumably "hatqe" was
intended to read 'hate."

[[email protected]]

On 2 Iun, 02:22, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
*No better illustration of hatethink is available than this
discussion. Both these acts were murders, plain and simple, and the
perps should be dealt with with no judicial notice whatever to the
ideology or state of mind of the killers, but rather with their acts.
In both cases individuals minding their own business were killed by
disturbed people and those people should be dealt with.

*"Hate crime" is a hatethink concept and is dangerous, in fact lethal,
to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association.
It is more dangerous to society than the killings themselves. The
killers killed one or two individuals, but promoters of hatethink
endanger the whole society.

Who said anything about a hate crime?

I did

[[email protected]]

On 2 Iun, 02:28, wrote:
*"Hate crime" is a hatethink concept and is dangerous, in fact lethal,
to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association..
It is more dangerous to society than the killings themselves. The
killers killed one or two individuals, but promoters of hatethink
endanger the whole society.

Who said anything about a hate crime?
"The anti-aborionist

may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. "

*The individual calling itself 'Clyde Slick". Presumably "hatqe" was
intended to read 'hate."

The individual calling himself ixtarb, presumaly ixtarb was intended
to read iztarb.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
wrote:

"Hate crime" is a hatethink concept and is dangerous, in fact lethal,
to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association.
It is more dangerous to society than the killings themselves. The
killers killed one or two individuals, but promoters of hatethink
endanger the whole society.

Who said anything about a hate crime?

"The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. "

The individual calling itself 'Clyde Slick". Presumably "hatqe" was
intended to read 'hate."

Sorry, I didn't catch that.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 1, 10:23*pm, wrote:
On 1 Iun, 23:29, Jenn wrote:





In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]

Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate others.
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our focus.-

then the abortionist murder isn't terrorism by that definition.
the intimidation uis aimed at doctors foing partial birht abortions.
And the soldier murder is not based on intimidating governemtn action,
either.

I agree. Two issues that generally make these crimes fail to meet
the standard of terrorism.
1) Being the acts of individuals it is difficult to describe these
acts as being a policy or ideology of violence.

You don't think that these creeps had a policy of violence?

One person acting
alone without influence of others cannot establish a policy or
ideology.
2) The purpose, there is no evidence that either crimes purpose was to
"exert pressure on decision making state bodies". Knowing criminal
purpose is often difficult

In the soldier case, the perp said that he did it "because of what they
had done to Muslims in the past."

and changing the penalty based upon that
does little for the victim.

It's not about the present victim.

IMO, criminal intent factors should stop
once accidental action has been ruled out. It just cloggs the courts
and serves to the benefit of the lawyers and few else.

ScottW

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 2, 10:02*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:23*pm, wrote:
On 1 Iun, 23:29, Jenn wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a
doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while
an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that
had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer
of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the
murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The
anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are
told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to
intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]

Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate
others.
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our focus.-

then the abortionist murder isn't terrorism by that definition.
the intimidation uis aimed at doctors foing partial birht abortions.
And the soldier murder is not based on intimidating governemtn action,
either.

*I agree. *Two issues that generally make these crimes fail to meet
the standard of terrorism.
1) Being the acts of individuals it is difficult to describe these
acts as being a policy or ideology of violence.

You don't think that these creeps had a policy of violence?

*One person acting
alone without influence of others cannot establish a policy or
ideology.
2) The purpose, there is no evidence that either crimes purpose was to
"exert pressure on decision making state bodies". *Knowing criminal
purpose is often difficult

In the soldier case, the perp said that he did it "because of what they
had done to Muslims in the past."

and it comes down to who "they" are?


and changing the penalty based upon that
does little for the victim.

It's not about the present victim.

I don't like the implication that some future victims are more worthy
of
protection or deterrence than others.

It's not about "worthiness", thought I know that that's the political
argument.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 11:53*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:23*pm, wrote:





On 1 Iun, 23:29, Jenn wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]

Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate others..
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our focus.-

then the abortionist murder isn't terrorism by that definition.
the intimidation uis aimed at doctors foing partial birht abortions.
And the soldier murder is not based on intimidating governemtn action,
either.

*I agree. *Two issues that generally make these crimes fail to meet
the standard of terrorism.
1) Being the acts of individuals it is difficult to describe these
acts as being a policy or ideology of violence. *One person acting
alone without influence of others cannot establish a policy or
ideology.

Then suicide bombers don't meet that standard either.

[[email protected]]

On 2 Iun, 12:53, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:23*pm, wrote:





On 1 Iun, 23:29, Jenn wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]

Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate others..
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our focus.-

then the abortionist murder isn't terrorism by that definition.
the intimidation uis aimed at doctors foing partial birht abortions.
And the soldier murder is not based on intimidating governemtn action,
either.

*I agree. *Two issues that generally make these crimes fail to meet
the standard of terrorism.
1) Being the acts of individuals it is difficult to describe these
acts as being a policy or ideology of violence. *One person acting
alone without influence of others cannot establish a policy or
ideology.
2) The purpose, there is no evidence that either crimes purpose was to
"exert pressure on decision making state bodies". *Knowing criminal
purpose is often difficult and changing the penalty based upon that
does little for the victim. *IMO, criminal intent factors should stop
once accidental action has been ruled out. *It just cloggs the courts
and serves to the benefit of the lawyers and few else.

ScottW-

I think that Reid, the shoe bomber, acted alone.

[[email protected]]

On 2 Iun, 13:02, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:23*pm, wrote:
On 1 Iun, 23:29, Jenn wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]

Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate others.
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our focus.-

then the abortionist murder isn't terrorism by that definition.
the intimidation uis aimed at doctors foing partial birht abortions.
And the soldier murder is not based on intimidating governemtn action,
either.

*I agree. *Two issues that generally make these crimes fail to meet
the standard of terrorism.
1) Being the acts of individuals it is difficult to describe these
acts as being a policy or ideology of violence.

You don't think that these creeps had a policy of violence?

*One person acting
alone without influence of others cannot establish a policy or
ideology.
2) The purpose, there is no evidence that either crimes purpose was to
"exert pressure on decision making state bodies". *Knowing criminal
purpose is often difficult

In the soldier case, the perp said that he did it "because of what they
had done to Muslims in the past."


So? Roeder did it because of what the doctor
did to fetuses in the past

[[email protected]]

On 2 Iun, 13:16, ScottW2 wrote:


*I don't like the implication that some future victims are more worthy
of
protection or deterrence than others.

ScottW-


But some might be 'less' worthy.
Would that include illegals, or children of illegals????

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 4:31*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 2, 1:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

then the abortionist murder isn't terrorism by that definition.
the intimidation uis aimed at doctors foing partial birht abortions..
And the soldier murder is not based on intimidating governemtn action,
either.

*I agree. *Two issues that generally make these crimes fail to meet
the standard of terrorism.
1) Being the acts of individuals it is difficult to describe these
acts as being a policy or ideology of violence. *One person acting
alone without influence of others cannot establish a policy or
ideology.

Then suicide bombers don't meet that standard either.

*You think suicide bombers are acting alone?
*I don't.

Are you sure that these two were acting alone?

I'm not.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
wrote:

On 2 Iun, 13:02, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:23*pm, wrote:
On 1 Iun, 23:29, Jenn wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a
doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while
an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that
had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer
of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the
murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The
anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are
told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to
intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision
making by state bodies."[1]

Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate
others.
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our focus.-

then the abortionist murder isn't terrorism by that definition.
the intimidation uis aimed at doctors foing partial birht abortions.
And the soldier murder is not based on intimidating governemtn action,
either.

*I agree. *Two issues that generally make these crimes fail to meet
the standard of terrorism.
1) Being the acts of individuals it is difficult to describe these
acts as being a policy or ideology of violence.

You don't think that these creeps had a policy of violence?

*One person acting
alone without influence of others cannot establish a policy or
ideology.
2) The purpose, there is no evidence that either crimes purpose was to
"exert pressure on decision making state bodies". *Knowing criminal
purpose is often difficult

In the soldier case, the perp said that he did it "because of what they
had done to Muslims in the past."


So? Roeder did it because of what the doctor
did to fetuses in the past

Exactly.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 2, 1:01*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 2, 10:02*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:23*pm, wrote:
On 1 Iun, 23:29, Jenn wrote:

In article

,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a
doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions,
while
an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier
that
had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the
murderer
of
the doctor as a terrorist. *And some on the right label the
murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged
with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The
anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has
haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we
are
told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based
on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism.

Of course it is.
Wiki:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to
intimidate
or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on
decision
making by state bodies."[1]

Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization
and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but
murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see
the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate
others.
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and
threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its
affiliates,
which ultimately want to cause exponential harm to us, and are
activley persuing the means to do so. We need to keep our
focus.-

then the abortionist murder isn't terrorism by that definition.
the intimidation uis aimed at doctors foing partial birht
abortions.
And the soldier murder is not based on intimidating governemtn
action,
either.

*I agree. *Two issues that generally make these crimes fail to meet
the standard of terrorism.
1) Being the acts of individuals it is difficult to describe these
acts as being a policy or ideology of violence.

You don't think that these creeps had a policy of violence?

*One person acting
alone without influence of others cannot establish a policy or
ideology.
2) The purpose, there is no evidence that either crimes purpose was
to
"exert pressure on decision making state bodies". *Knowing criminal
purpose is often difficult

In the soldier case, the perp said that he did it "because of what they
had done to Muslims in the past."

* and it comes down to who "they" are?

and changing the penalty based upon that
does little for the victim.

It's not about the present victim.

*I don't like the implication that some future victims are more worthy
of
protection or deterrence than others.

It's not about "worthiness", thought I know that that's the political
argument.

Than what is it about? Pandering?

The intimidation or silencing of entire groups. Like police officers.

[Signal[_2_]]

Mr Clyde Slick wrote:

On consecutive days, an abortion foe gunned down and murdered a doctor
well known for performing and advocating late term abortions, while an
American convert to Islam gunned down and murdered a soldier that had
recently completed boot camp. Some on the left label the murderer of
the doctor as a terrorist. And some on the right label the murederer
of the army recruit as a terrorist. He actually was charged with 15
counts of terroristic acts, in addition to murder. The anti-aborionist
may well be charged with terroristic acts, and, if Kansas has haqte
crime laws, he might be charged with that. In both cases, we are told
the current evidence is that both murderers acted alone, based on
preliminary investigations.

the question is whether this is terrorism. Maybe it is. And surely it
is bad enough. But it seems to me, in the lack of organization and
goup executiion, that these are more akin to murders, but murders
based upon hate and/or myopic religious zealotry. But I can see the
argument for terrorism, because they are meant to intimidate others.
At any rate, as bad as it is, both are less of a danger and threat
than the mass murdering terrorists of Al-Queda and its affiliates,

You're more likely to get killed by one of your own bobbies, or a
hernia, than by any "terrorist"..

http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2006/09/71743

Noam Chomsky: “What is Terrorism?”

That brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have been
assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be
some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can
find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it
taken from a US army manual is, fair enough, is that terror is the
calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain
political or religious ideological goals through intimidation,
coercion, or instilling fear. That’s terrorism. That’s a fair enough
definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that. The problem is it
can’t be accepted because if you accept that, all the wrong
consequences follow. Now there is a major effort right now at the UN
to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on terrorism. When Kofi Annan
got the Nobel prize the other day, you will notice he was reported as
saying that we should stop wasting time on this and really get down to
it. But there’s a problem. If you use the official definition of
terrorism in the comprehensive treaty, you are going to get completely
the wrong results. So that can’t be done. In fact, it is even worse
than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low-Intensity
Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close
paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low-Intensity Conflict is
just another name for terrorism. That’s why all countries, as far as I
know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out,
counter-terrorism. We happen to call it Counter-Insurgency or
Low-Intensity Conflict. So that’s a serious problem. You can’t use the
actual definitions. You’ve got to carefully find a definition that
doesn’t have all the wrong consequences. There are some other
problems. Some of them came up in December 1987, at the peak of
the first war on terrorism, that’s when the furor over the plague was
peaking. The United Nations General Assembly passed a very strong
resolution against terrorism, condemning the plague in the strongest
terms, calling on every state to fight against it in every possible
way. It passed unanimously. One country, Honduras, abstained. Two
votes against; the usual two, United States and Israel. Why should the
United States and Israel vote against a major resolution condemning
terrorism in the strongest terms, in fact pretty much the terms that
the Reagan administration was using? Well, there is a reason. There
was one paragraph in that long resolution which said that nothing in
this resolution infringes on the rights of people struggling against
racist and colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation to
continue with their resistance with the assistance of others, other
states, states outside in their just cause. Well, the United States
and Israel can’t accept that. The main reason that they couldn’t at
the time was because of South Africa. South Africa was officially
called an ally. There was a terrorist force in South Africa. It was
called the African National Congress. They were a terrorist force
officially. South Africa in contrast was an ally and we certainly
couldn’t support actions by a terrorist group struggling against a
racist regime. That would be impossible. And of course there is
another one. Namely the Israeli occupied territories, now going into
its 35th year. Supported primarily by the United States in blocking a
diplomatic settlement for 30 years now, still is. And you can’t have
that. There was another one at the time. Israel was occupying Southern
Lebanon and was being combated by what the US calls a terrorist
force, Hizbullah, which in fact succeeded in driving Israel out of
Lebanon. And you can’t have… allow anyone to struggle against a
military occupation when it is one that we support so
therefore the US and Israel had to vote against the major UN
resolution on terrorism. And I mentioned before that a US vote against
is essentially a veto. Which is only half the story. It
also vetoes it from history. So none of this was every reported and
none of it appeared in the annals of terrorism. If you look at the
scholarly work on terrorism and so on, nothing that I
have just mentioned appears. The reason is that it‘s got the wrong
people holding the guns. You have to carefully hone the definitions
and the scholarship and so on so that you come out with the right
conclusions; otherwise it is not respectable scholarship and honorable
journalism. These are some of the problems that are hampering the
effort to develop a comprehensive treaty against terrorism. Maybe we
should have an academic conference or something to try to see if we
can figure out a way of defining terrorism so that it comes out
with just the right answers, not the wrong answers. That won’t be easy





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 12, 3:41*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:17*pm, Jenn wrote:



*I don't like the implication that some future victims are more worthy
of
protection or deterrence than others.

It's not about "worthiness", thought I know that that's the political
argument.

*Than what is it about? *Pandering?

The intimidation or silencing of entire groups. *Like police officers..

*So the dems fairness doctrine is a hate crime. *Good to know.

Meanwhile it turns out that the lunatic museum shooter wasn't
christian,
is a socialist, and thinks Bush was behind 9/11.
Sounds like a lunatic lefty to me.

Yes, 2pid, in a revised listing by the SPLC the White Nationalists
like Bratzi are now categorized on the left. Hitler and Stalin are
too, as is Pol Pot.

And in breaking news on Fox the Spanish Inquisition has now been
blamed on the Democrats. LoL.

You are *so* brilliant! LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 12, 12:34*pm, Signal wrote:


You're more likely to get killed by one of your own bobbies, or a
hernia, than by any "terrorist"..



HAve anything else as stupid that you can say?

right, and you're more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than by
an IED in Baghdad.
In 1941 you were more likely to get killed by smoking cigarettes than
from a Japanese sneak attack.

[Signal[_2_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:

You're more likely to get killed by one of your own bobbies, or a
hernia, than by any "terrorist"..

HAve anything else as stupid that you can say?

Facts are offensive and stupid now? That's odd.. that's weird.

right, and you're more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than by
an IED in Baghdad.
In 1941 you were more likely to get killed by smoking cigarettes than
from a Japanese sneak attack.

Have you considered alcohol-free beverages?





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 12, 8:04*pm, Signal wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
You're more likely to get killed by one of your own bobbies, or a
hernia, than by any "terrorist"..

HAve anything else as stupid that you can say?

Facts are offensive and stupid now? That's odd.. that's weird.



The misuse and misinterpretation of Irrelevant facts are offensive an
stupid

right, and you're more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than by
an IED in Baghdad.
In 1941 you were more likely to get killed by smoking cigarettes than
from a Japanese sneak attack.

Have you considered alcohol-free beverages?

Good News!!!
You don't like misused, misinterpretated and irrelevent facts any more
than I do!

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 2, 8:17*pm, Jenn wrote:

*I don't like the implication that some future victims are more worthy
of
protection or deterrence than others.

It's not about "worthiness", thought I know that that's the political
argument.

*Than what is it about? *Pandering?

The intimidation or silencing of entire groups. *Like police officers.

So the dems fairness doctrine is a hate crime. Good to know.

Meanwhile it turns out that the lunatic museum shooter wasn't
christian,

Oh, you're right; he can't be a right winger then.

is a socialist,

"WESTERN SOCIALISM, unlike Marxism/Communism and Capitalism, emanates
not from Reason alone but from the ETHOS OF THE WEST. It expresses the
instinctive and Intuitive feelings UNIQUE to the Aryan Nation. Its Idea
is the Musketeers¹ cry: ³One for All and All for One!² The ingathering
of the White Nation-States into ONE CULTURAL ORGANISM ‹ its own
territory and its own State in which to house, protect, and nurture the
Nation ‹ precludes Marxist inspired class warfare and hate-struggles
between its component parts. The ECONOMY springs from the CULTURE. MONEY
becomes merely a tool, a means of exchange, a storage of value ‹ not an
ILLUMINATI weapon.² (pp. 143-4). ³No intelligent person took MARX
seriously. His Old Testament idea that work is evil ‹ and New Testament
idea that men and races are equally endowed ‹ opposes Nature and the
very Soul of the West.² Marxists, Bolsheviks, Communists denounce
³capitalist pigs.² While from behind the scenes ‹ in the on-going battle
to implement the PROTOCOLS OF ZION ‹ all wars and revolutions are
financed by JEW CAPITALISTS. (pp. 143-5.)"

Yeah, sounds like what most of the world means by "socialist" alright.

and thinks Bush was behind 9/11.

Is Alex Jones a liberal? lol

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 11:26*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:48*pm, Jenn wrote:

Oh, you're right; he can't be a right winger then.

*I actually don't think he is any wing but the insane wing.
*The blame game going on is the closest thing
this guy who was the utlimate blamer, played.

"Aw, heck, I'm jes' not gonna play the goshdarned old blame game".

Guess who said that, 2pid? LoL.