The fact that this man was in contact with known terrorists and had a real potential to be used/abused by them into thinking this may have been a "good thing" leads me to consider the alternative. All the investigations being done by the various agencies also makes it obvious that there may be something to it.
To try and make all the smoke just "go away" for political reasons before finding out the truth is even worse.

Its possible. But even if he was influenced by a terrorist group, unless there is a larger strategy behind the killings, I think it should still not be labeled as a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack is some aggressive behavior by a group trying to influence a society by the use of fear.

If he was trying to scare the military personal, it seems that he has miserably failed. The only success I see from this, from the terrorist perspective, is that many are now trying to discriminate against Muslims because of this, polarizing Muslims, and making them choose from being loyal to a society that treats them as second class citizens or fighting against them (that is Al Qaeda's grand stategy IMO). But that still is a massive stretch.

@ Bruce's pic....:thumb:

Which is precisely what I consider this to have been. "Group" is not necessary to the definition, you will note on reflection -- Sirhan Sirhan and the late Timmy McVeigh come to mind.

And among the punditocracy: Obama's Wakeup Call?

"Group" is certainly necessary in the definition of a terrorist act under US law, as is a political motivation or intent to intimidate or coerce.

MCVeigh was not tried as a terrorist, but as a mass murderer. He acted alone (or with one co-conspirator) and there was no evidence of it being a political act.

And the evidence embodied in his picking a government target doesn't factor into it? I think it does. McVeigh was known for political thinking, however warped and mishandled and misconceived -- too weird for the militia, remember? -- and his motivation so far as we can determine was entirely political. He wanted to blow up lots of U.S. government in order to accomplish some, um, change of behavior on its part. Politics by disreputable means?

As you said, ". . .political motivation or attempt to intimidate or coerce." I'd count a large explosion as intimidating, particularly so if it's downtown. And would it necessarily have to be thought out in any organized or complete fashion before the guy starts building his car bomb or dragging his footlocker full of guns and ammo to the top of that Texas tower?

Trying him for mass murder simply indicates that we don't have or take political prisoners in our system. This will likely also be pointed out in the upcoming KSM-et-alia trial if that attempt to try POW's ever gets going. I don't see the good in that, except perhaps the negative result of showing an entire generation that the law-enforcement paradigm should not substitute for the war-fighting paradigm.

There was no threat of further action, no claim that the bombing was in response to......or demands for the US government to...(pick one - release prisoners, withdrawal US troops from anywhere, end its support of Israel, or even more localized demands like providing better health care and/or jobs to homeless vets,....).

There was no strategy to use the bombing to further any political goals, either personally or of an organization.

It was an act of an angry or emotionally unstable man (men).

Just because the motivation was political doesn't mean it is equivalent to something like the 9/11 attacks. For example, let say we have a kid who gets bullied a lot at school, so he breaks down, gets a gun, and shoots up the school. Then, another kid with the same situation, finds his three biggest bullies, hangs them in front of the school, and says anyone else who bullies will get the same fate. Both had the same cause and motivation but the second had an actual strategy to change the social setup of the school using fear. There is a clear difference and the second is much more dangerous because it attempts to control others.

I did not see any strategy related to McVeigh even if the attack was political in nature. Same with the Fort Hoot shootings. Al Qeada wants to US to keep attacking Islamic countries, forcing pro-Western Muslims to choose between those two identities, causing a war between the west and Islam. That is much more dangerous then anything McVeigh did or what happened at Fort Hood.

I don't see that as such a stretch. . . Would you have even considered the coordinated attacks including 9/11 as a "massive stretch?" If not, then you are in the very small minority.

I worded that badly. Of course some people are going to discriminate against Muslims because of this. But, I believe it is a stretch that the attack was made for the strategy of getting non-Islamic westerners to discriminate against Muslims. There are other and much more effective methods. Random shoot ups are rarely strategic. Bombs, gas, etc, work much better.

no no no - The radicals may have seen this as an opportunity to gather more support for their cause and help unite their brethren in America.
I don't think this had much, if anything to do with discrimination.

judgment from on high? Maybe Allah is paying attention after all.

Which "forcing" doesn't seem to be a matter of much moment to the pro-Western Muslims in question.

Frankly, where's the downside in making anti-Westernism extinct by shortening its practitioners' lifespans? Can anti-Westernism endure a thousand years of pruning? I doubt it. The arrogant anti-globalist, woman-abusing Islamofascists cry out for divine punishment. Let´s punish, and punish, and punish, until it is no longer fashionable in any circle to remain stupid. Let us provide our death-loving opponents with a glut. Show the world their unprofitability.

They're actually doing a pretty fair job of this already. The working definition of a terrorist is somebody whose ideas are so unpopular he can only press them by violence. The terrs are spending more time and explosives blowing their co-religionists up than anything else. In the name, apparently, of scaring off the West.

What happens to those guys if the West doesn't scare, but comes a-hunting?

A rope and a lamppost, I think.

\facepalm

At last, your god-delusion is exposed ;)

Seriously, in reply to
The downside is for every extremeist we kill, two of his cousins swing from sympathiser to activist, and five of his neighbours swing from neutral to sympathiser. Just like fighting the Hydra, cutting the heads off one at a time doesn't get you anywhere.