Supernova said:

There's a huge difference between letting the media do your thinking for you and reviewing the way a word is generally used by news organizations, novelists, essayists and other scriblers. It can be noted objectively that the word is generally not used to describe a person whose violent apolitical or non ideological actions create fear in a neighborhood. By that definition, Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James and other classic criminals would be described as terrorists, and they clearly are not

Until it's shown that the Washington sniper has some ideological or political agenda, there are other words that better describe him, like "serial killer" or "spree killer"
[This message was edited Wed Oct 16 14:22:36 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

donnyenglish said:

"I am God" would be an offensive statement coming from a human being in most religions, I think... and you can be sure devout Muslims would not leave it behind, except in a ploy to make the sniper appear to be a classic delusional case who leaves omnipotent statements on the scene. I haven't read the Washington Post article, but in the unlikely event the sniper does have links with the Bin Laden of this world, then he would turn out to be a terrorist. Obviously, the authorities have yet to conclude such a link exist, and that's why they said he's not a terrorist. The cops have no interest in using labels that are not useful, because the way you respond to serial killers and terrorists can be very different - why would an investigator forget what he learned about serial killer psychology to use standards created for terrorists? That could end up hurting the investigation. So I say until we know otherwise, we call a cat a cat and leave it at that.

4LOVE said:

c'mon man...
not only is this gut NOT a TERRORIST yet
he's not even a SNIPER, oh yeah, the head shot,
well he is a seial killer, unless there are more than one.
BUT... that don't make them a terrorist cell.
and you cant concider it as being CONECTED to any TERRORIST
ACTIVITIES, yet, although these people got to be feeling like they did on 9/11.
shit... half the time you look at the news and they say
they "don't know if the (newest) shooting is related" to
the other shootings.
well damn, even if it's a copy cat, it's conected.
ok,
the terrorist motherfucker is exactly that, A TERRORIST
and should be treated accordingly.
all serial killers are terrorist when it's done so blatently, and publicly.
other terrorist...
SON OF SAM- new york
.22 CALIBER KILLER- buffalo
RICHARD RIMERIZ (sp)- L.A.
GREEN RIVER KILLER- whereever, oh GREEN RIVER (i crack me up)
and so on, and so on, and so on...

Aerogram said:

Why would I have to review how THOSE people use the word when the definition is clearly stated and has been without their help? I don't speak for anyone else, but it makes no difference whether or not he (or they) has a political agenda as motivation. He (and/or they) are terrorizing an entire region with the threat of cold-blooded death to innocent people.

Sorry, Aero, I can't agree with you on this one. See BAD MAN's post above.


Cut me...
[This message was edited Wed Oct 16 18:21:30 PDT 2002 by Supernova]

Terrorizing is different than terrorism.

IceNine said:

Now you're splitting hairs, Iceman. A terrorist uses terrorism. It's not my definition. It was there before I even entered the world. You guys have a beef with the definition, not those who use it in this instance.

IceNine said:

is not TERRORIZING a TERRORIST ACT???
the police and judicial system in my
area seems to think so.
call someone and threaten their life, that's the charge,
and it carrys a hefty amount of time. (if your lawyer
drops the ball)

00769BAD said:

So true.You threaten someone and it's called a terrorist threat.

Supernova said:

You are right... my problem is with the definition.

I go by the United Nations definition that I posted earlier. I really only think of terrorism as a political act and I do not apply it to simple domestic murder, even if the murders are horrific. If the murders are perpetrated to advance a political or religious ideology, I would consider them terrorist acts, otherwise I consider them to be simple violent crime.

IceNine said:

Don't get me wrong. I do see your point, because traditionally the word terrorist is imbued with political agendas. But, like many words in the dictionary, that word has multiple meanings that includes everything we're all talking about in this thread. I just see the fact that this person, or people (I happen to belive it's no more than 2 who do the actual act of killing in that infamous van), is making people feel the same way people felt after the Federal building in Oklahoma was bombed, and how the entire USA felt after last years 9/11 attacks. It's the very real threat of so many innocent people being killed at any time by someone.

And I just don't understand why he hasn't been caught by now either. No wonder the US government couldn't find bin Laden, they can't even find some guy in their own backyard.

Supernova said:

That's too bad. If you or Bad tried to use "terrorist" in that sense in an article, I am certain that you would be edited by your publication.

The word "terrorist" was originally coined to describe a "supporter or agent of the Terror regime" after the French revolution. That is one specialized meaning it still has. The use of the word "terrorism" to describe the simple act of terrorizing (without any ideological or political rationale) is at best literary in a world that has long given it an ideological connotation. Which is why the authorities and media outlets have not said the sniper is a terrorist, even though it has terrorized the area. There is a very large consensus on this. Usage does not corroborate your position or Bad's, simple as that.

IceNine said:

did you notice that they are now trying to draw a line on
the conection to MICHALE'S.
MICHALE the archangel, protector of POLICE
the HAND OF GOD so on and so forth.
whut is religion to some, is maddness to others.
the prollum with the educated is that you can't see the simpleminded side of things.
i really don't care whut the U.N. conciders a terrorist act.
I lived in BUFFALO at the time of the .22 cal. killer
whom targeted young black males... in my hood.
it was an act of terrorism against me and mine.
i'm sayin Mr.NINE, don't let all the education you have prevent you from understanding why others see whut you don't.

Aerogram said:

The dictionary does. I understand your position, but we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Aerogram said:

whut you say is true IF i might be writing for an AMERICAN PAPER...
if i were, say, writing for an islamic paper, they may want me to call it an act of HEROISM
TAMATO TAMAHTOE
[This message was edited Wed Oct 16 19:06:54 PDT 2002 by 00769BAD]

The definition certainly does say "often for ideological or political reasons" rather than "for ideological or political reasons," but I feel that the word is used to describe political or ideological violence about 99.999% of the time.

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Supernova said:

Look up many other words and you will see more obscure or archaic definitions that are not the usual meaning of the word in everyday English. You can't use a word in its literary sense in a law enforcement context.

OUT...

Aerogram said:

I acknowledged that in a previous post. But since I'm not part of the law enforcement establishment I don't have to uphold such stringent things. I could go into a spiel about some silly things the law enforcement establishment claims, that isn't right (or rational) on a civil/human rights basis, but it has no bearing here.

Aerogram said:

and ENGLISH is nothing but a BASTERDIZATION of the KINGS ENGLISH.
which i take to a whole nother level
[This message was edited Wed Oct 16 19:21:12 PDT 2002 by 00769BAD]

My vote:

The sniper is a more of a sociopath than a terrorist.

Obviously, there's a spectrum a ideological delusional thinking that creates these modern monsters, so most of them have some form of "cause" or justification for their actions. But when the sole apparent motivating factor appears to be tied to a love of "the kill," then it seems more fitting to label the lunatic as a sociopath or pyscopath rather than terrorist.

For example, consider these jerkies:

• Timothy McVeigh - terrorist
  
• Theodore Kazinski - terorist and psycopath
  
• AlQaeda jackasses - terrorists
  
• Palestinian suicide bombers - terrorists
  
• Irish Republican Army car bombers - terrorists
  
• Bali night club bombers - terrorists

And compare them to these nut cases:

• Richard Ramirez the L.A."Night Stalker" - psycopath/sociopath
  
• Son of Sam - psycopath/sociopath
  
• Ted Bundy - psycopath/sociopath
  
• Saddam Hussein - psycopath/sociopath/megalomaniac
  
• The average drive-by shooter or gang-banger - sociopaths

None of these folks are "normal" or "law-abiding." All feel the need to kill, and some would claim divine, political or racial justification for their actions. A few would admit that they are simply not in control of their destructive impulses. But the term terrorist seems best reserved for those with specific political or idealogical ambitions, whereas the psychopath/sociopath is just plain whacked.

Our sniper seems to dig the hunt and the kill, as well as the thrill of escape. We may learn of larger political, religious or other explanations for these actions, but at the present, the killer is just another version of the serial killer that is bred and nurtured by our "free" and gun-and-violence-adoring society.

Does anyone else have the feeling that the sniper is likely a disgruntled, trained, former law enforcement officer or military sniper?

The movie "In The Line Of Fire" comes to mind. Damn, I thought Malkovich was masterful in that role! Hey, wait a moment... Maybe it's jsut like the video game discussion, and it was that movie that created the motivation for the sniper!

Other perspectives that I fully expected to read include the idea that Bush Jr. has hired the sniper to deflect attention away from the economy! I welcome additional, thoughtful conspiracy theories from our panel of experts.