Not terrorism....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2817941/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2817941/posts
Only if he had been a Baptist would anyone in the media have called it terrorism.
Only lovers of freedom and those that embrace liberty can be guilty of "terrorism" on American soil.
1st, this is old news. 2nd, from a purely technical standpoint, it was a workplace violence incident. 3rd, there is no universal definition of terrorism. Under some definitions this would be a terrorist act. By others, particularly those where terrorism is considered an attack on civilian non-combatants, it wouldn't be. So I fond it difficult to get worked up about this one. So long as the DoD recognizes the pre-attack failures and disconnects involved in this case and moves to correct them, they can call it whatever they like.
Similar threads
