Wonder what would be said if the shoe was on the other foot...A pro-choice extreemist walked into a Catholic church and killed a pro-life docter....

I would bet there would be some major outrage!!!!!

Come on Thomas3474 answer that one!!!!

i would agree if they went to the clinic (and bombed it or sprayed it with gun fire) not caring who they kill

but they went to kill a specific person and not harm anyone else

yes it is scary and can create fear but as for ti being a terrorist act no

to make every crime a terrorist act would give the govt unbridled power over the people since the passage of the patriot act and the the anti-terrorist act b4 it

would you consider a bank robber a terrorist those in the bank could be anyone

---------------------------------

Main Entry:
ter·ror·ism Listen to the pronunciation of terrorism
Pronunciation:
\ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist Listen to the pronunciation of terrorist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic Listen to the pronunciation of terroristic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

-------------------------------------

what was the systematic action involved in this murder

not since the patriot act

to open every crime to be a terrorist act (read previous posts)

legal definition of a terrorist act:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/terrorist+act

Is this thread like hooked on phonics? everyone providing definitions???

fran..you know people shout...prove it

"""against persons"""

he only shot one person (and hunted that one person down)

it was not an act against the clinic he worked in he was not even in the clinic and they harmed no one else thus

it was more of an act of retaliation by a fanatic that felt he deserved to die for his actions

which was not coercion to change political opinion or policy as it has been done in the past and nothing changed imo

it was murder not terrorism

adj...regardless...we can agree it was wrong

psst...the definition (hehehe) of persons used here is "In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers."

but regarless...it was wrong

yes it was wrong no doubt

but terrorism i think not

will repost my edit here



your defintion used



which is a lil dif than websters

that i posted a lil earlier

i think the issue of whether it is a terroist act vs murder....is the sentencing. i BELIEVE (don't quote me on this) that the sentencing is different...probably harsher for a terrorist. with murder, there is 1st degree, manslaughter, etc

This is a terrorist act, it was politically motivated. Meant to SHOW those of differing views what happens if you do not bend to the others way of thinking.

the difference (at least one of them) is that the govt would not have to give him a trial he could go directly to jail does not pass judge nor collect a verdict from a jury

if it is terrorism

lumping things into terrorism gives the gov to much open power and the opportunity to abuse said power

murder can get you life or death in death penalty state how much worse can he be punished

??????????????????

other than not getting his day in court

to say that is to say any crime is a terrorist act

due to the political situation i am broke and you have income thus you have money and i am going to pick your pocket

no it is not a terrorist act

it is pick pocketing

and the guy committed murder not a terrorist act

It is a terrorist act. It was politically motivated. Had it been because he slept with the others wife or something then it would be a crime of passion but it was politically motivated thus making it a terrorist act.

no it was retaliation for actions that the murderer disagreed with

his act will not change the laws nor effect them in any way

thus it did not coerce the political scheme of things which per rose's def is a need to make it terrorism

it has been done in the past to no avail there is no reason to think this event would be any different

How do you know what the murder was thinking?

He could have been thinking what Dragoness said, "Meant to SHOW those of differing views what happens if you do not bend to the others way of thinking."

He could also have thinking what you said, "it was retaliation for actions that the murderer disagreed with".

Just saying.

which creates reasonable doubt

thus not guilty of terrorism

thank you winx yer my hero

The word "terrorism" first became popular during the French Revolution, when the régime de la terreur was initially viewed as a positive political system that used fear to remind citizens of the necessity of virtue, " wrote Raymond Bonner in the New York Times. "The use of violence to "educate" people about ideological issues has continued, but it has taken on decidedly negative connotations - and has become predominantly, though not exclusively, a tactic deployed by those who do not have the powers of state at their disposal."
-------------------------------------------------

I would disagree with that completely. WE've come full circle. It has become THE tool of the State.

And yet they try to label the resisters as the terrorists. So yes, we have to be VERY careful how we use their term.

This was nothing compared to the crimes THEY have perpetrated.

And I'll just throw in this. Remember Moses killed the Egyptian who was abusing the slaves. Apparently God didn't consider that to be murder because he still used Moses greatly.

Just food for thought.

Oops...I said murder instead of murderer.

We don't know what he was thinking.

If I was to guess, though, I would go with what Dragoness said. Then again, I see that it possibly could be what you said.

but if you think it could be what i said

then you have reasonable doubt

and if this was a jury your correct verdict on the charge of terrorism would be not guilty