Replies

>>Occam's razor says this is terrorism.<<

In no way, shape or form does this resemble terrorist attacks.

Terrorists blow up discos, bars, embassies, apartment buildings. They go for crowded areas and try to kill as many people at one time as they can. They claim responsibility because they want publicity.

They have political goals that cannot be achieved by legitimate ends because their views are too extreme for the general populace.

The DC sniper is hiding, hitting people from afar. He's got a lot in common with the guy who got up in the bell tower in Austin, Texas, but he doesn't have a death wish.

He's a psychopath, but his head is warped in a completely different manner than a terrorist.

My two cents.

Apparently you discount the training manuals found in Afghanistan as insignificant. I do not.

Was the Anthrax last year terrorism? I think so.

Plus, as several have pointed out, it distracts the LE community from other things, so it may be part of a larger plan.

It's my opinion, only, of course. You could be right. I guess we will have to wait and see.

But there must have been some reason that cell in Oregon was practicing shooting.

Oh, I don't know. Al-Qaeda operates quite differently from other terrorist groups.

This is definitely somebody who is determined to frighten the populace, either for the sheer physical rush he must get from having the "power" of life and death over anybody he targets and controlling the movements of so many people, or else his purpose may be to frighten people into not leaving their homes, thereby disrupting the economy.

This could very well be an organized Islamist terrorist campaign, some Islamist freaks acting on their own initiative, or it could also be a homegrown nut a la the Unabomber.

Either way, this ain't no Agatha Christie novel, and these people (I happen to believe there are at least 2 involved) are going to screw up sooner or later. I think they've already started to screw up in that they haven't struck the last two victims in the head.

I agree in theory with the people on this thread who are saying that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a good marksman, but I also think that killing another person does require a certain amount of skill and discipline, because you have to marry the basics of shooting with the will to kill. I doubt any of our FR sports hunters could calmly and accurately fire on a human target they know to be innocent.

IMO, these snipers do not view their targets as human beings, or else they have convinced themselves that the victims are "guilty" of something and therefore deserve to die. For whatever reason, they have the will to kill innocent human beings, which I don't think the FReepers most experienced with firearms and hunting possess.

Without a description or more information, we are all speculating of couse, but after reading Steven Emerson's excellent book American Jihad, I have come to realize just how many sleeper cells there are in this country and how a single Muslim extremist could very likely be behind these killings. Emerson details in his book, and the feds have long agreed, how other single events in this country were in fact committed by Muslim extremists. We have just been blind to it prior to 9/11.

This guy may not be an al-Qaeda terrorist and may not blow up discos like Hamas, but he is certainly a terrorist nonetheless. Picking off people at random like this causes far more fear and chaos than if he had simply blown up one target. Snipers are the cheapest and most effective terror tool known. One or two guys with a rifle and a vehicle have tied up the capital's LE community and petrified millions. I spoke with a guy from DC this morning and he said they are even worried now about this guy going up on the rooftops, everybody was walking around looking up at the sky. This is the very definition of terrorism.

In no way, shape or form does this resemble terrorist attacks.

We surprised the terrorists last year by shutting down the skies to all air travel, thereby squelching all their well-laid plans. I believe the anthrax attacks were probably terrorist, and although a few people did die, our postal service managed to get a handle on that situation. The US has the capability to respond quickly to these mass-type attacks. Therefore, maybe they've had to change strategy and turn to a more personal attack MO. I agree that on the surface this does not appear to bear the terrorist imprint. However, given their lack of success in previous endeavors, I do not think we should rule this out as a terrorist plot in a change of tactics. I'm not convinced it is terrorist-related, but I'm certainly not convinced it's not!

In no way, shape or form does this resemble terrorist attacks.

Whether or not this is terrorism, it is alarming how the so-called "experts" resist thinking outside the box, while clinging fiercely to pre-conceived theories. Carl Cameron on Fox last night reported on the thinking of the Feds in these shootings. He said some officials at the DOJ are concerned that those in charge seem to be ruling out the possibility of terrorism, then went on to say that people from Homeland Security more or less echoed your sentiments: no one taking credit means no terrorism.

This morning Fox had some criminology professor on who was not very eloquent, but his point seemed to be that we can't rule anything out, including terrorism, because there's not enough information to rule anything out. They quickly shuffled him off the air, since that wasn't provocative enough for television, but it's the most honest opinion I've heard so far.