Just this morning I heard that a 9th person had been killed in the Washington DC area by a sniper. One commentator tried to place the blame on the Osama gang. Another "so-called" profiler made a fool of himself with lame brain comments. The media is so tactless - they never offer any real news. The thing that really gets me is they're foolish enough to think all American people are just as foolish as they are. They assume us incapable of forming our own opinions.

I would like to know more details. Watching the news is like watching the soaps. Now they're trying to make us believe this guy is a terrorist without any offer of evidence or clue to back it. It's shameful and embarrasing!!

i honestly don't think this sniper-thing is terrorist-related. the media's just tryin 2 blow shit outta proportion, as always...

I don't believe it to be terrorist related either.

Sensationalism has ruined the news profession... the public's attention is only grabbed by sensational stories, while the banal and mundane trivialities of most news fails to produce ratings for news programs. With this in mind, the news media often tries to find the most "controversial" and "exciting" angle for stories, rather than practicing honest journalism.

I dislike the news very much.

And... I would consider this guy to be a spree killer.

AzureStar said:

You guys are amazing. What makes the sniper a terrorist? His or her race or religion??? This person is committing violent acts with the purpose of terrorizing the general public and there is probably some radical political motivation behind the attacks. That makes the person a terrorist. I can't believe that people fail to realize that a so-called "terrorist" is more likely to look like the majority in this country rather than the minority. But we are quick to get nervous when we see an Arabic person when prior to 9-11 just about the only terrorism this country has seen on U.S. soil has come from the majority. If Bush really wants to fight the war against terrorism, then he needs to concentrate on these types of crimes too. Had this sniper left behind some evidence indicating that he was Arabic, would this nation's reaction be different? Would the President's reaction be different? Ask yourself why?

Donn

donnyenglish said:

ask the news media all of these questions, not us...

donnyenglish said:

They are not wrong in criticizing the portrayal of the shooter as a terrorist.

In order to be a terrorist, one must employ tactics of terror in the pursuit of a political goal. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that this shooter has ANY political motivation to his crimes, therefore he/she is nothing more than a spree killer or mass murderer until his/her motivations are identified.

Most terrorists do not claim to be god either...

The idea of tying this shooter to terrorism plays on America's fear of terrorism and produces ratings for networks and media outlets. It is nothing more than irresponsible sensationalism.

There is one answer to all of the problems stated in this thread...
DO NOT WATCH TV NEWS
I was a print journalist for several years and have a degree in the subject. There is a reason that broadcasting classes are not a part of the journalism curriculum...it's because TV NEWS IS NOT JOURNALISM.
I think info-tainment is the word for it.
Pick up a New York Times or Washington Post instead.

IceNine said:

They also collaborate with the government to distract us from the real issues of the day. It's sickening to watch. I had to turn of the tv it was so stupid.

applekisses said:

My sentiments exactly !!!

IceNine said:

I totally agree. Unfortunately, it's much more about ratings and profit than about telling the story in an objective manner.

Furthermore, like Columbine and the numerous copycats cases seen around the country after Columbine(which were not widely reported), i think the attention the media's giving to this sniper only serves to perpetuate the problem. In his/her warped psyche, any attention is better than no attention.

mrchristian said:

mrchristian...whenever I see your name I get that horrible 80s Night Ranger song "Sister Christian" going through my head...
"Mr Christian...oh the time has come..." blah blah...

SweeTea said:

You said it! I had an argument with my good friend who's a journalist yesterdy about this. She SWEARS that they're offering a public service. I told her they're doing no such thing, all their doing is putting more fear into people's minds with mindless speculation and dribbel, all the while making the sniper feel more important.

LadyCabDriver said:

I could not have said that better myself, Miss LCD

anyone got some good solid information on this...i've got to be in washington dc /baltimore area 27-30th of this month

AprilMichelle said:

I don't think anyone really knows at this point...He strikes randomly!

Just be careful APrilMichelle.

This is a tragedy...yesterday's shooting just tore my heart out.

AprilMichelle said:

Be careful! If you have to gas up a car or go to a store, odds say that it would probably be safer for you to go to places where he has already struck. He probably won't return to the scene of a crime.
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 10:18:49 PDT 2002 by applekisses]

applekisses said:

I cringe everytime i hear the song...and most people think they're the first ones to come up with it. "Motoring...what's your price for flight?"--what the hell is that? Although if you listen to the lyrics, the guy is worried about his younger sister growing up, moving away and the toll it takes on her...not too bad.

mrchristian said:

Sorry! I knew I probably wasn't the first. Wow...I didn't ever really think about what the song was about. That's an interesting take on it. If I ever dare hear that song again, I'll think about what you said.

Unfortunately this is most likely to be one of our own. I pray to god that they catch this maniac. Better yet, I hope he gets caught and engages the cops in a shootout. That way, justice will be guaranteed. If they catch this creep alive, he'll just blame the voices in his head and get off on an insanity plea.

it's a vicious circle:


the media- especially tv- hypes up a story like this under the guise of "the public needs to know" & in the process (sometimes deliberately, sometimes not) they sensationalize the story, knowing that the more they sensationalize it the higher the "ratings" will go. they know that a lot of people are attracted to the "drama" of it & will stay glued to the tv waiting for the latest

tidbit

of information..


then, of course, the ANIMAL who's doing all this killing, he's got to be basking in the glow of all the terror & pain he's wreaked.


No doubt, this is a big story
but
it doesn't need hourly updates when nothing new has been learned or discovered, nor does it need "team coverage" or "continuing coverage"..


I'm simply praying that the police will catch this animal before he strikes again..

what happened last night at Seven Corners, I pass through that area about once a month or so to shop, I know exactly where that took place..
& I know people who live in that general area..
it could have
easily been any 1 of us...

IceNine said:

In order to be a terrorist, one must employ tactics of terror in the pursuit of a political goal. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that this shooter has ANY political motivation to his crimes, therefore he/she is nothing more than a spree killer or mass murderer until his/her motivations are identified.

Most terrorists do not claim to be god either...

The idea of tying this shooter to terrorism plays on America's fear of terrorism and produces ratings for networks and media outlets. It is nothing more than irresponsible sensationalism.[/quote]


You are just flat wrong. Here is the dictionary definition of a terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce SOCIETIES or governments, OFTEN for ideological or political reasons"

This sniper is clearly a terrorist. It is clear that this sniper is engaged in the unlawful use of violence to intimidate society. It is also probably that this guy has some ideological or political purpose behind these terrible attacks. The only reason people are not calling this guy a terrorist is because the racial profile on the sniper is that he is white. If he were muslim would he automatically be a terrorist in our eyes? What does that have to do with it? What if it was just a so called "serial killer" who happened to be muslim? It is hard to believe that people refuse to believe that racism exists in this country. Just watch the news. Just read the posts on this page. You don't have to be of arabic descent or practice Islam to be a terrorist despite what people in this country conveniently believe.

You are so very wrong.

There has been NO communication from the killer mentioning ANY political ideology, therefore your ASSUMPTION is nothing but an ASSUMPTION.

You should really learn to wait for information before deciding if someone is a terrorist or their actions are terrorist actions.

Unless you can consider empty shells a terrorist message, the killer has left ABSOLUTELY NO message that identifies any political motivation to his acts.

I don't know where in the world you get the ignorant idea that this person MUST be a terrorist. Were Charles Starkweather, the Zodiac Killer and David Berkowitz terrorists? I don't think so... they all did basically the same thing that this guy is doing.

Also, NOBODY has said ANYTHING about Islam in this thread... you are so deluded in your thinking that you see things where they clearly do not exist. Your viewpoint is terribly biased and is not objective in any way. I fail to see any logic in your assertions or assumptions and I am disappointed to see people jump to conclusions and convince themselves of things without any evidence to support their claims.

Please try to wait for FACTS to come out before proclaiming someone to be a terrorist.

EDIT: Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist and he was white. Nobody is being a racist here other than you.

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 12:18:00 PDT 2002 by IceNine]

donnyenglish said:

I don't know whether or not this asshole has any political motivations, all I know is the fact that he IS terrorizing people in the DC/Virginia area regardless of his motivation, regardless of his ethnic background. All I know is that a lot of people in that area of the country are afraid to even leave their houses because what's been said is that this person shoots from a very long distance (most times), and usually only attempts one shot - and he seems to be hitting all his targets. That's terrorism of another kind. Domestic or foreign, political or apolitical; this asshole is terrorizing people. And his latest victim was a female FBI employee.

applekisses said:

Nothing to apologize for. It's actually amazing to me that a song so bad(the music) would last this long on radio.

IceNine said:[quote][quote]

donnyenglish said:

I will repeat because you are obviously slow on the uptake. The American Heritage College dictionary defines terrorism as being: "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, OFTEN for ideological or political reasons"

I highlighted the word "OFTEN" for you so you can understand that political or ideological reasons are not necessary for an act to be terrorism. The sniper has unlawfully used violence to intimidate society. That makes him a terrorist. End of story. That is my only point. If you fail to see the logic then you must also fail to be able to read because it is as clear as day. But the media has skewed our view of what terrorism really is. I watched the news on July 4th this year when that guy shot people at LAX. The whole focus on whether or not this was an act of terrorism was on the race of the perpetrator. I am speaking reality. If it makes you uncomfortable, then you should ask yourself why.

the idiot media wrote on sunday about how the REAL SNIPERS
of the law enforcement, and the military were upset that
whoever the shooter(s) is/are, that they were nothing but
shooters of average ability.
"we take pride in one shot, one kill." for the good of society. this shooter is of the quality of any deerhunter.
funny... now this sick fuck is doin head shots.
i predict that there will be more HEAD SHOTS before it's all done.
funny2...
the law keeps talking about lookin for someone out of the military, i would feel so much better if the were looking among their own.

Supernova said:

I agree Supernova. I have serious doubts that the DC-area sniper is what the media now "defines" as a "terrorist" but, the sniper is obviously creating terror, thus in my book is a kind of terrorist. I doubt they have any ties to Osama or any other Islamic terrorists, but rather might be someone from this country. Some facts on the sniper include: they do not seem to strike on the weekends, they usually kill in more populated areas (gas stations, stores) which are generally close to a major intersection, and they seem to aim for the head with a single shot from a long distance. His latest victim was a female FBI worker who worked for the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center which assesses threats against major structures and cyber networks. I have doubts that the sniper singled her out from her job, but I would think that the killer would feel more fortunate with this specific tragedy because he killed someone who was a symbol of this country's justice system, the very system that is suppose to find him and bring him to justice. At the same time, this particular killing is also getting more attention from the media which might make the sniper even more eager to kill. One killing was one too many, let's pray there are not anymore.
[This message was edited Tue Oct 15 15:35:24 PDT 2002 by Erendira]

donnyenglish said:[quote]IceNine said:[quote]

I am very far from "slow on the uptake" and you are very far from insightful.

Terrorism, as defined by your initial post, is obviously supposedly political in nature, as you mention Islam, Arabs and all that. You are clearly saying that everyone would consider this to be a "terrorist" act if the perperator was thought to be Arabic and not white.

The fact that you bring groups with political goals into the argument defines your statement as a statement of political terrorism. There are white terrorists as well as Arabic terrorists and your assertion that people would consider this terrorism if the suspect was Arabic denotes your decision that this issue must be POLITICAL terrorism.

Any act of violence against people causes "terror" and could loosely be termed "terrorism," but 99.999% of all acts that are considered terrorism are POLITICAL acts.

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? This is an important distinction to make, as the word TERRORISM is pretty much exclusively used to describe attrocities done for the purposes of promoting a political ideology.

If all acts of violence are terrorist acts, then Americans commit thousands of terrorist acts per day.

I believe that you are fundamentally myopic and that you should re-think your statements.

EDIT: Here is the United Nations defintion of terrorism:

UN Resolution language (1999):

1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

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

The very fact that he is killing people and inciting fear defines him by Webster's dictionary as being a "terrorist". But, is he a terrorist by the MEDIA's standards, such as an affiliate to a radical religious organization that bombs embassies?...probably not. I think it is just a looney gone mad.