Obama screws up murder investigationFollow

The school varus attend owes him nothing. The only thing the school can be found at fault for is enrolling someone below their standards.

Nah, I like you somewhat, but then again you've been brainwashed.

Edited, Jan 14th 2011 11:25am by LockeColeMA

And in almost any other place on Earth.

You say "mentally deranged", I say "terrorist".

You're saying he's not a terrorist? Pray tell why?

Terrorists have to be brown, duh.

http://westgatehouse.com/art98.html


Because he fits the definition . Your turn?

You don't think shooting Congresswomen and judges has an influence on the government? And that the calls for gun control that you are so against now are coincidences? Influence seemed to be entirely his point; otherwise he would have just shot random people in the street. Or maybe made balloon animals, or become a nudist. I'm not sure how the mentally deranged think, but it's obvious from his writings that he didn't like the government and wanted to change it.

Nah, I just don't know what you think it means. There's quite a large difference between that and reality, you see

Seems to fit the bill to me. Of course I doubt that he will be tried as a terrorist, after all he doesn't praise Allah or bury his nose in the Qu'ran. But his intent was to obviously cause unrest, and panic. Kind of like those guys who flew a couple planes into the World Trade Centers (if they really did, I am not convinced one way or the other tbh) all be it on a much smaller scale. He fits the bill of terrorism. A shooting in a public forum is terrorism.

Why do you think he is not a terrorist.



Also to answer your earlier question. I do not think that all mentally hilarious people should be killed. I do however think that all murderers who have been proven and found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt (like what will happen in this case) that receive life sentences should be killed. It costs around 80K a year to keep someone locked up in prison. 80K a year, with free meals, free education, free health care, free housing. Of sure its not glamorous. But what about people who pay taxes that struggle to afford one of those 4 things. IMHO anyone who murders someone should be killed. a 25 cent bullet is a lot cheaper than paying 80K a year for the next 20+ years. If this guy gets consecutive life that is 60*80 = 4.8 million dollars that taxpayers pay to keep him going. Assuming the cost to incarcerate does not rise. (which is doubtful).

So MR. Conservative. Which is it. Pay 80K/yr on this one guy, or spend 25 cents on a bullet. Take away government funded healthcare from 30 people, or spend 25 cents on a bullet. It may sound crude, but this guy gave up his right to be any part of society when he decided to shoot a bunch of people, and that includes living for free for the rest of his life.

No. I think he just wanted to kill someone he hated. There is a difference. The words in the definition of terrorist aren't there just for show, they are designed to differentiate one type of crime from another. By your interpretation *any* crime which makes someone else upset (which would be all of them) would qualify. Clearly, that can't be correct, right? I mean, just step back from the specifics for one moment and you can see that something is missing.



No. It's not.



A good question. Because he didn't have a "cause"? Because he didn't intend for his actions to force a specific set of desired reactions from the government and society he was attacking?

For it to be terrorism, there kinda has to be some kind of demand. Usually it's in the form of "change X or we'll blow people up". This guy didn't have an objective other than the killing. He didn't have some grand goal. He was not fighting for *anything*.

That's why he's not a terrorist. He's just a crazy guy who decided to kill a bunch of people.

Step back and apply some critical thinking skills. By that logic can't we claim all murders are "terrorism" since just because we don't understand the killers "cause" and he didn't get what we speculate he might have wanted doesn't mean that there wasn't one or at least the intent for such? It becomes somewhat meaningless, doesn't it?

How about we restrict ourselves to using the label of terrorist for people who clearly identify themselves as part of a political/social movement and who use lethal violence designed to influence citizens and government in favor of their cause as a means to further said cause?


Since that's what actually differentiates a terrorist from any other killer, right? Now apply that criteria to this case. It doesn't fit.

Nah, this guy's not a terrorist, he's a nut. I personally feel that Scott Roeder should have been charged as a terrorist, but meh, he's away for good.