davjohns

Sigh... I wasn't trying to pick a fight. Too much of that on here for me. I was just noting that you added fear, public, and policy to the definition. None of those are in the definition I found and you re-posted. I think his actions were clearly unlawful and a use of force and violence. He clearly intimidated and coerced a segment of the government (Soldiers and civilians). Political and social objectives are the only part that can be argued. Given his targeting of military and previous statements / emails, I think we have to say it was not an attempted mugging. He had a political / social objective. The only thing I was pointing out to you was that making it fear, public, and policy related changed the definition. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

That still doesn't make it terrorism. He had to have been trying to create public fear and influence policy through the creation of terror for it to have been terrorism. Maybe he was doing that, I don't know. Either way, what difference does it make? He acted alone. What was going through his mind when he acted shouldn't influence us as a nation, unless you believe we should bow down to "terrorists". You substituted your own definition of terrorism. Fine with me. It's just hard to have a discussion when you change the terms of reference. I'm not sure how much it matters what it is called. It does, however, change what resources are applied. Terrorism would receive attention from DHS, FBI, etc. Workplace violence is a local issue...in this case, just a Military Justice issue. I didn't see it in the OP query, but you asked, so I threw out that idea. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I can see your point, but I look at it a bit differently. If this were a postal worker that went into work and made it a point to only shoot the postal employees and not the civilians in line, would you label it the same way? What about someone who went into their office and shot all managers but left the worker bees alone? I am not saying your analysis is incorrect, just not necessarily a given. You are correct. But you had to add facts that are not in evidence. If he shot everyone in the office, he could have been motivated by pressures at work. He worked with military and civilians but avoided shooting the civilian co-workers. If he shot only his supervisors, we could have concluded he felt he was being treated unfairly by management. There is no evidence he did so. If it was people who taunted him, people with red hair, etc., we could find a different conclusion. Like I said, there may be a reason he had it in for Soldiers. Maybe he saw someone in uniform key his car and he over-reacted. However, taken in context with his previous words, emails, and actions, it is clear he had an issue with the military for religious reasons. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

My first thought on this was to be annoyed that the complaint wasn't gender neutral. Advocating violence is not a funny subject. However, after viewing the material, I can see that some people think targeting those who are weaker (females, in this case) is a source of amusement. Some people need to have their eyes beat closed. I saw absolutely no humor in any of the pictures. I might have seen a slight bit in the Chris Brown piece, but I was already disgusted by the time I got to it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You understand correctly. I think the fact that he had a specific target set indicates it was not merely workplace violence. It was not merely a warped mind (unless you get into the radical Islam = warped mind debate). In military planning, we pick specific targets to achieve a specific effect. He chose specific targets for a specific effect. He was sending a message. Taken in context with his recent communications and actions, he was attacking those he saw as the enemies of Muslims. He was trying to intimidate or coerece a segment of the population, using violence, in support of his personal views. His actions meet the definition of terrorism. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Done mulling. I have decided that there is a fact in there that is pretty decisive. He avoided killing civilians and targeted military. It is too easy to couple this to his recent radicalization as reported by co-workers, emails with a radical Imam asking if killing innocents was ok, his comments about Muslims killing Muslims, his concern about deploying to Afghanistan and supporting a fight against Muslims, etc. It creates a clear pattern. But even if you threw out the known history...you can't escape the one point. He targeted military. He was sending a message. He had an agenda. It was terrorism. If it was merely insanity or workplace violence, there was no reason for him to walk past cowering civilians without engaging them. He was killing the people that he likely saw as killers of Muslims. He grew more radical, armed himself, trained himself, went to a place where there were Soldiers and civilians, and started killing the Soldiers after a brief prayer and yelling "Allahu Akbar". Now, it is possible his wife told him she was screwing a Soldier at his work, but not which one, and he was a patient and thorough fellow. But lacking evidence of such unusual circumstances, the facts clearly indicate he was motivated by radical Islam and targeted US Military personnel based on his beliefs. As to who was intimidated? It was the most deadly killing spree on a US Military post. It was conducted by a US Army officer. He was a counselor who was supposed to be trustworthy with people's most intimate thoughts and feelings. He targeted Military personnel in an environment where they were supposed to be relatively secure. Let me make this perfectly clear...there certainly is such a thing as a dumb question. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I remember twice taking a new firearm into my boss to show it off and seeing him rub it on his crotch. I have been known to lay a new firearm in the bed next to me and sleep with it. I think gunlust is a prefectly good term. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'll have to mull this one over. I don't know of a way to make 9/11 clearly an act of terrorism. It could have simply been the criminal acts of a lone group of men. Since they all died in the acts, it is hard to be certain what their intentions were. ETA: Did some quick research. It appears to me that he was motivated by extremist Islamic views...and mental problems. Found this definition: "There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)." I think the known facts and circumstances suggest his actions were consistant with this definition. The fact that he also had mental issues does not change that. It does bring up a huge discussion about religious extremism and mental health, however. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Sounds libertarian to me. Welcome to the club. All we want is to be left alone. Lots of other people seem to hate that. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Brits have a hard time with my humor. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

It appears they hit him with their car, got out and started stabbing/hacking at him while dragging him into the middle of the road where they left the body. They then just stood about waiting for the police, who they appear also to have intended to attack. They did not appear to pose any threat to members of the public, who they spoke with while awaiting the police. There's no report of anything precipitating the attack or leading them to target this individual in particular, beyond the fact that he was a soldier. The attack itself appears to have been premeditated based on the fact they had tooled up and driven to the barracks. From their comments to bystanders (much of which were filmed - not sure if any of the footage has been shown in the States but it's all over the net) it appears clear that it was an orchestrated, politically motivated attack. So...road rage? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Back on topic - There is not enough information to determine whether the cop took reasonable action. What was the environment? Could he have taken cover and controlled the situation until help arrived? Which of the 8 rounds hit the girl? What did the suspect do after being hit? What was the nature of the headlock (high, low, standing, sitting, etc.) How accurate is the officer with his service weapon? How confident was the officer that the suspect was about to fire? I have a background in LEO, Military, combat shooting, etc. I have not seen enough facts in this matter to offer much in the way of an opinion. I really don't think anyone else here has, either. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Punny I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

If he can live without his head, it would be a miricle Many politicians seem to be without a brain. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

1. There are two sides to this. Some people want to play down the Islamic element and therefore do not call it terrorism. But it is. I also note that the British did not prosecute IRA for terrorism when that battle was ongoing. They treated them purely as criminals. It kept their cause from taking on legitimacy. Perhaps it is more insulting to this guy to just treat him as a criminal. Worse, suggest that his jihadist perspective is the result of mental defect. Hmmmm.... Personally, I just want to refer to it all as, 'the circumstances precipitating his execution' as soon as possible. 2. I'm still trying to figure out why it took the administration so long to call the Boston Marathon bombing 'terrorism'. Surely nobody thought it was a pick pocketing gone horribly wrong? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I would like to do away with the word 'fair'. It has been so poorly used that it has become an anti-word. It now means anything except what it appears to mean. Then, there's all the references to someone being 'wing' if they disagree with you. Left wing. Right wing. Anyone who doesn't agreee with the speaker must be 'fringe'. The speakers never seem to consider the possibility that they are the actual fringe element... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Well, my screen name is one given me based on my name. David Johnson. I guess if it will guide my future career as a serial killer, I would have to exclusively target men named John who are members of the Disabled American Veterans. Do I have to bring back the people I killed before I knew this was my limiting characteristic? I'm not sure I remember where I put all the bodies. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Democracy. Sometimes you vote with a check mark. Sometimes you vote with a dollar. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I was at the commissary a couple of weeks ago and passed by the deli. They had made bread with lots of cheeses and jalapenos in it. I saw it and instantly knew it needed tomato soup and a glass of red wine. I got some and fixed it all up that evening. Added lots of stuff to the tomato soup (fresh diced garlic, fresh diced onion, fresh cracked pepper, etc.), but that's often how I do things. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Anyone from around here? I saw the trailer and it was obvious skydivers were involved. Looking forward to those scenes. Hope they don't involve five minute freefalls and conversation en route. Kinda distracts me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You guys remind me of the song... "I ain't as good as I once was. But I'm as good once as I ever was." I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Thought the first one was masterful. Liked the second one, but it had the typical 2nd film slump. Not as many fresh takes on things the second time around. Looking forward to the third. I will try to see it on the big screen. There have been plenty of films lately that I prefer to see the first time on the big screen. 'Avatar' set a record for me. I actually saw it three times in the theater. The Ironman series, Avengers and such work well on the big screen. The reboot of Star Trek worked great when you could hear and feel the engines, rockets, and such all around you. I can watch dramatic films on my TV. The content is the point. But when you are dealing with epic proportions, enormous vehicles, and such...it just helps for them to be bigger, doesn't it? Films about people and life work well in my livingroom at life size. larger than life films deserve a larger than life venue...at least the first time. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

"No respectful southern gentleman would have breakfast without properly cooked grits." ~My Cousin Vinny Wow! Thanks. Not sure how I missed grits. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Personally, I love breakfast. Sometimes, I fix breakfast items like eggs for dinner. I was surprised to find it is so much different in Europe. My French buddy tells me a proper Frenchman has a croissant and black coffee. My English buddy described the versions of a 'Full English' breakfast to me. I experienced it firsthand last weekend. Egg, has browns, sausage, bacon (looked like ham to me), mushrooms, beans and toast. Some areas have variations that might include black pudding. I'm used to a Southern breakfast that is usually bacon, eggs, and toast. There are lots of different things you COULD have, of course. What's the tradition in your neck of the woods? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Go with MY suggestion and there will be prayer all during the race! Throw in the hot chicks in tight jeans like the movie while you're at it. I promise this will sell. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.