Was the Campus Attack Terrorism?

My position is that one sentence does not constitute sufficient evidence, that we need to know more, that we need more evidence regarding motive.

You know, we seem to have gotten a bit more evidence regarding motive, and I would have to say the scales are starting to tip in a particular direction.

I would also say that if "hit-and-run" was an inappropriate label on Friday when we knew that this was an intentional act, an attack, it's certainly an inappropriate label today.

Comments

[Ron Hardin]

It seems more like nutballism. Common terms that you'd never hear on the news cover things pretty well, very often.

[Bob]

Now, wait a minute. Back when starting our brief on-line "seminar" on _Inside Terrorism_, a key element of the definition was the requirement for an organized group. My counter-example of the Unabomber was excluded from the definition. OK, so in this case we have the motive, but still no evidence of an organized group. I still think we need to look at what may become more common, as this seems to be another example like the Beltway Sniper.

[daniel]

I have the suspicion that whatever the motive, the Federal government will not recognize this isolated incident as an act of terrorism for the simple fact that it would refute the administration claim that there has been no attack on US soil since 9/11, 2001.

[flackcatcher]

This has more in common with the lone gunman(or women)taking their revenge at various open areas. No reason needed, just raw rage. Much like the spate of shooting that happen in large office settings back in the late 80s. Most of those killers were white males who walked into the work areas and began shooting. We may be looking at another cycle of such shootings. I hope not.

[dauber]

Sorry, I thought I answered and I guess it didn't take. My thinking here has evolved, and I think we need to reconsider what a "lone" individual is. With al Queda interested in becoming a "virtual" movement, recruiting, training, motivating, over the web, it's entirely possible that they may motivate, inspire, and train "lone wolf" attackers that they not only will never meet, but may never know of before the attack. If someone is inspired by a global movt. and trained by materials they have developed for the purpose (and, again, I'm not saying we can know that's what happened here, particularly since he's presumably Shia, I'm answering your question regarding our disucssion of the Hoffman book) can we truly say that attacker is an "individual" in the same way the Unabomer was? (Are you buyin' this? because I just thought of this argument.) As for the Feds. I'm not sure they're relevant. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me Federal terrorism statues are primarily relevant if you catch someone before the act, which was the whole pt of developing them: they are tools for trying to make the criminal justice system apply, when the criminal justice system is really a tool for dealing with consequences AFTER something is happening. In this case, we got the guy after comething happened so we can just charge him with what he technically did.

[Bob]

Me, I like the way your thinking is "evolving." I concur that we may need to reconsider what it takes to make an organized group in the internet age. (Maybe Glenn Reynolds' book, _Army of Davids_, will address this, but I haven't gotten my copy yet.) I think that a lot of nut cases, who are looking for headlines and will grab any cause that will earn them attention, will likely jump on the bandwagon even without being particularly dedicated to the cause in question, but even so, it should still count as terrorism because it has the same effect on the populace and the cause. And it should surely count if the nutcases become more "effective" (in a bad way) because of training materials provided on the web by the terrorist masters.

[Subsunk]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...... Perhaps if it squeals like a cowardly terrorist pig before it runs over 15 people in the name of Allah's revenge on the infidels, it just might be...... a silk purse???? Or not!

Terrorist. Just because the FBI only has enough resources to investigate only organized groups don't mean he ain't a scum-sucking terrorist dog who deserves the lash. I vote for 100 lashes with the rotan (Singapore's older method of caning for punishment which incorporates glass and metal shards on the whip. The whip is then wielded to wrap itself around the body with each lash and be pulled back by the "punishment agent" to remove a couple of layers of skin with each lash. After the target passes out from the extreme pain, the punishment is suspended for a hospital visit to heal by the prisoner. Once healed, the punishment resumes until all the lashes have been administered. Imagine how long you will be punished if you can't take the pain.) Am I a bit harsh?

You bet.

Subsunk