AprilMichelle said:

What do you consider "good solid information"? There is a guy(s) who is shooting people at random in the DC/MD/VA area. With the exception of two of the victims (there have been 11 so far in two weeks) all have been single shots to the head. Nine have been killed.

He picks people doing ordinary things like:
- sitting at the bus stop
- going to a crafts store
- loading purchases from Home Depot
- pumping gas
- going to the grocery store
- mowing the lawn
- standing on a corner.
- kid going to school

The police do not have a composite of the person(s). But a white/cream colored van/truck has been seen leaving the scene of several of the shootings.



.
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 14:13:30 PDT 2002 by Ifsixwuz9]

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 13:31:44 PDT 2002 by IceNine]
[/quote]


"So, tell me... do you truly believe that the killer has political motivation for his actions, or are you simply defining ANY act of violence against people "terrorism" instead of random violence?"

For the last time, an act of terrorism is an unlawful violent act against SOCIETY, not random acts designed to target individuals. My dictionary would tell me that this sniper clearly meets those criteria. Now, this debate seems to center around whether or not the motivation behind the unlawful acts has to be political or ideological to be considered terrorism. My dictionary tells me that terrorism can occur without political or ideological motivations, but I do appreciate the fact that terrorism is often associated such acts. I do truly believe that the sniper has political motivations. He wants to cripple the D.C. area with his actions. This sniper is not only committing these acts of violence to kill his individual victims, but he also obviously desires to have an economic and social impact on the area. If that is not ideological, then I do not know what is.

I'm sure you heard of the guy who is going to be prosecuted under the new anti-terrorism law for making a false report on the sniper attacks to get out of work. Is that a strong enough indication for you that these acts are considered terrorist acts? I'm also sure that you have heard from the Virginia authorities that they plan on seeking the death penalty for this sniper if he is caught under new anti-terrorism statutes. Is that also a strong indication for you that these acts are considered terrorist acts. End of story.

donnyenglish said:

So... please tell me why you brought up Islam and Arabic people in your initial post if you do not believe that terrorism is necessarily political.

I could appreciate your point if you had not mentioned these groups in your post.

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 14:30:42 PDT 2002 by IceNine]

Unfortunately, there's a tendency to exploit anything that might have some resemblance to terrorism, obviously for political and ideological purposes. It's all part of the big big brother push we've seen accelerate since 9/11 -- the idea that we are increasingly threatened and therefore must let our law enforcement officers work without too many hassles from that civil liberties thing.

In the future, the only people who will achieve true privacy will be rich... or Antarticans.

BTW, I don,t care what the dictionaries say... when the media has called someone a "terrorist" in the past, it was invariably due to the fact he/she was using violence to promote and express political and ideological views (including religious). Furthermore, a "terrorist" always has links to organizations or movements that are ideological or political.

Expanding the definition to include anyone who "terrorizes" a neighborhood forces you to think of almost all serial killers as terrorists, something that few if any media outlets felt the need to do for decades. So why now?

I think the answer is obvious.
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 14:48:55 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

Aerogram said:

EXACTLY!!!

I swear to god, I KNEW that you would get it!

Once again, I must proclaim Aerogram as the most intelligent org member.

So... please tell me why you brought up Islam and Arabic people in your initial post if you do not believe that terrorism is necessarily political.

I could appreciate your point if you had not mentioned these groups in your post.

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 14:30:42 PDT 2002 by IceNine]
[/quote]


I brought up the issue about Arabs because the topic of this thread is "Washington D.C. Area Serial Sniper . . . Terrorist?" The person who made the post makes reference to his belief that this person is not connected to Osama. I responded to this and other posts implicating that this person may be an Islamic terrorist by pointing out being a terrorist is not tantamount to being Islamic. Most people who have responded are afraid to admit that when they read the post that they immediately contemplated the issue as being whether or not this sniper is connected with a muslim group. I simply wanted to open people's minds. I hope I have.

donnyenglish said:

Okay, I get your point...

I don't ever like to jump to conclusions about issues unless I have some facts, so I didn't think that the issue was a terrorist issue.

I'll go you one better... I think that the United States will be engaging in terrorism if they attack Iraq without provocation.

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 15:04:01 PDT 2002 by IceNine]

I'll go you one better... I think that the United States will be engaging in terrorism if they attack Iraq without provocation.

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 15:04:01 PDT 2002 by IceNine]
[/quote]


If the attack is pursuant to the laws of this nation, then no. If unlawful, then possibly.

What is a terrorist?He's attacking civilians isn't he?But i guess until we find out what his NATIONALITY is we can't tell whether it's a terrorist act or a sniper The US has some serious double standards.

donnyenglish said:

Sorry i should have read your post first.It's amazing how most americans think.Terrorism is a RACE related term and no WHITE american can be a terrorist.So sad.

Aerogram said:

So when some right winged hillbilly with ties to the KKK starts to shoot innocent civilians is that considered a terrorist attack?Never heard it called that before.

Seriously, nobody said that whites could not be terrorists... my point is that terrorism is a political act and it can be perpetrated by all races.

The sniper is not a terrorist by the most common definition of terrorism and is rather the cowardly act of a sociopathic madman or possibly a psychopathic madman. Spree killers, mass murderers and serial killers are not usually terrorists. Terrorists can be mass murderers and so forth, but it is a mistake to call all murderers terrorists.

I made the point earlier that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, so was Ted Kaczynski. Both of these men are white Americans. This simple example proves that white Americans can be terrorists and that terrorism is not a race-related issue.

I really don't think that anyone could possibly believe that whites could not be terrorists.

IceNine said:

I wasn't referring to you in perticular.I just think that most people see terrorism as something done by a non-white person.

4LOVE said:

Yeah... you are probably right in a great number of cases. There are also a lot of people who think that America is not capable of attrocities...

There certainly are some of us who realize that race has nothing to do with hate, crime or terrorism.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Bingo.

I hope when they do find him (or her) he gives the cops an excuse and they drop him on the spot. Sick, sick shit. Reminds me of NYC in 77...

You have to wonder how ONE MAN can get loose on this level within 30 mile of the White House and we still can't find him, yet the "anti-terrorist" movement is supposed to "root out" entire terrorist camps worldwide. I'm starting to think that England has the right idea with the cameras on the street corners, as much as I never thought I'd say that.

IceNine said:

---

You hit the nail on head!!! There is no proof that this person is involved with Osama Bin Laden. This person is just a psychopath. I live less than 10 minutes away from the first 4 shootings and work less than 10 minutes from the one that happen yesterday. It is getting scary just to go out to work.

4LOVE said:

Perhaps you will recall that the pipe bomb that exploded at the Atlanta Olympics was first investigated as a possible terrorist act involving the KKK? The suspect they arrested turned out to be innocent, and I'm not sure what happened at the end, but one thing is clear. Not all hate groups are considered to be terrorists, even when one member acts violently. In fact, the city of Charleston was unsuccessful in labeling the KKK a terrorist group for the purpose of banning their marches. The modern meaning of "terrorist" generally refers to individuals who belong to organizations that support and finance the violent means of political and ideological "expression". In other words, it takes more than just shooting at people and carrying a card of some hate organization. Where does that leave Tim McVeigh? You might want to ask the authorities.

Look up the words "terrorist" and "gun" on Google, and you will find many examples of fringe groups labelling this and that a "terrorist act". Sign O' the times... it's just that it's now the ultimate threat, so a guy a desacrate a Jewish cemetery, who would have been accused of an "hate crime", is now easily labelled a "terrorist" by understandably upset members of the Jewish community.

The point is that it serves no purpose to suddenly want to label all sorts of acts "terrorism" just because they involve "terrorizing the population". Serial killers and rapists have been said to be "terrorizing" this or that town in countless articles, and I assure you most of them few if any of them were called "terrorists" all these years.

Next thing you know, we'll be calling so and so an Org terrorist because he/she posts bait.

mrchristian said:

and U can say this because there isn't a madman running loose on your beltway/freeway/intercounty highways...right
what u don't see on tv is the Metropolitian area waking up turning on the news to see of someone has been shot - that way they'll know whether to leave the house or not..

yeah the media is full of bullshit...but when its ur kids that are out there - relatives etc HOLLA...

right now many people are sitting home blinds drawn hoping like hell this person is caught before the Halloween festivities begin...
this is not a "terrorist" act in the normally intoned way - this is terrorism caused by someone who is native to us another Timothy McVey if you will...

if its not why don't u come live in my city for a minute see how safe U feel...

53yr old Phildelphia man gunned down 50ft from a police traffic stop...while he was gassing his car

Aerogram said:

Thank you for supporting me.Terrorist/ism seems to be open to whoever is using it.The media says terrorist and you tell me what comes to mind.If the media says terrorist what is the percentage of people who immeadiately think of an ARAB person?

4LOVE said:

Sorry, but the above does not support your wide-open definition of the word. Just because the word is abused doesn't mean its meaning has changed. That's like saying that because some people say someone "went psycho" at a party, the definition of psychosis is expanded to include people who have simple fits of rage. That's not the medical definition of "psychotic". Basically the same is true for "terrorism" -- those who seek to expand the meaning of the word unwittingly render it meaningless.

To answer your question, when I personally think of terrorism, I think 1914 and the first world war, that was precipitated by a terrorist act. I also think of the FLQ, an organization that kidnapped someone here in Canada in 1970. I don't think "Arab" or "Muslim" automatically, though I know many do exactly that.

Aerogram said:

And that was all i was really trying to say.

applekisses said:

A BSJ in a Boston area Univeristy requires Broadcast Journalism Communication Majors to take several Broadcasting classes. I was very lucky and had some great veteran NBC pros teaching us.

Since the 1990 recession, reporting for locals and in some respect Info-tainment is not longer a profession requiring a degree. U get paid if can do the leg work 24/7. I did it for 3 years in politics and it was enough.

I will say that the news in Israel is fantastic. Between the time it took for both WTC towers to collapse on 911, the Israeli TV newspeople were already wondering, debating and speculating "how" the USA would attack Bin-Laden and where he was exactly in Afganistan.

Savannah said:

Well, yes, one would expect Broadcast Journalism Communication Majors to have to take classes in Broadcasting
What I'm saying is that a decent plain old hard core Journalism program will not allow Broadcasting as part of its required curriculum.

Aerogram said:

I agree with this 100 percent. Read this everyone!

Aerogram said:

That is the answer that is obvious, folks. Listen to Aerogram. He hit the nail on the head on this one.

JDODSON said:

So the fact that this sniper left behind a note saying "I am god" does not strike you to indicate that he has a religious motivation? You guys are truly amazing and closed minded. Look at the Washington Post web page. The headline is that Federal authorities do not believe that the sniper is a terrorist. Then the whole article talks about whether the guy is connected with Al Caeda. It amazes me that you'll don't see the double standard.

Why would the Al Quaeda terrorist group want to shoot a few random citizens?

Don't you think that there are bigger, better, more political targets that they would focus on?

applekisses said:

I agree and disagree. If you watch BBc documentaries, you see a master example of brilliant TV journalism. But your local 8pm news... if often fails to qualify as a serious news source.
Regarding this case: From the little information we have I would not consider the sniper a terrorist (just like Saddam is no terrorist). I think he doesnt even get a kick out of killing those people. They are just tools for him. I believe that the REAL kick he is getting is the FEAR he is spreading... the power he has over thousands of peoples emotions... thats the kick

Aerogram said:

Fortunately, I don't let the media do my thinking for me.