Terrorism is the use of violence against innocent civilians in order to advance a political, social, or religious aim. So, we won't know if the beltway sniper is a terrorist until he is identified and his intent can be assessed. If he's trying to damage our economy to please Allah, then he's a terrorist. But if he's only trying to gratify a twisted ego, then he's an ordinary serial murderer, like David Berkowitz, for instance. Either way, he needs to die!
Mr Greene is not the brightest bulb in the string, especially for a wordsmith. He needs to be more discriminating in his use of words.
No kidding. Leonard Greene calls the below a quote. The only quote I see is "no evidence at this point". The rest are Greene's words. What's up with that?
There is "no evidence at this point" that the gunman picking off unsuspecting bystanders like bucks in the woods is a terrorist.
I think Greene was overly discriminate in his choice of words. As in, he chose the necessary words to deceive the reader.
He would be a terrorist if he were trying to please any religion.