he hates JEWS (and by extension the rest of the WEST), got hold of a gun, shot innocents; looks like TERRORISM to me.

A few months ago in NYC, a black guy killed a white woman because he hates whites. Per your definition, his act was terrorism, which just isn�t right. When the term is stretched to include too many things, it ceases to have meaning.

Did the black guy cite a religion? Was it possible that he proclaimed that he was a Rastafarian? Apples and Oranges.

he hates JEWS (and by extension the rest of the WEST), got hold of a gun, shot innocents; looks like TERRORISM to me.

A few months ago in NYC, a black guy killed a white woman because he hates whites. Per your definition, his act was terrorism, which just isn't right. When the term is stretched to include too many things, it ceases to have meaning.

We are seeing a trend here in the United States of a bunch of folks who intend to commit mass murder and mayhem who are spurred on by their belief in Islam and jihad. That's not something that should be trifled with. Saying that these are isolated in....

For that matter, there can simultaneously be an organized conspiracy while individual acts are not part of it. For example, there are numerous street gangs consisting mostly of black or Hispanic Americans; yet, most murders committed by black and Hispanic Americans are merely isolated crimes. There are Italian, Russian, and Cuban mafias; most crimes committed by Americans of Italian, Russian, and Cuban descent, however, are not under the umbrella of �organized crime�. There are white supremacist groups comprised of white Americans; yet, most anti-black race crimes are committed by lone malcontents. Why, then, is it so difficult to believe that a given Muslim man who hates Jews enough to kill them is nonetheless singularly responsible for his actions?

Ostensibly, this is a fairly reasonable question.

However, I will direct a question back to you, James; How many of these murders that you theoretically cite, are done Blacks, Christians Jews, etc.. By comparison, these are few and far between.

Some 'moderate' YOU are.

"Lone nut" is a term we use for individuals acting pretty much on their own. Michelle wants to imprison and maybe gas anyone who met him while deporting every other Muslim in the area. Most of us want some perspective. Michelle thinks that if you're a good Filipino who talks like a kluxer they will like you.

However, I suggest to you that since the law in fact doesn't work that way, it does matter to those of us who were still alive. Because as Fers points out, that legal definition is the difference between such people being on the street or being locked up, where society will be protected from their actions.

Even with that need more solidly identified, however, we are still left with a question of where to set that legalistic wall.

Yes, of course, if the law worked that way, you'd wonder why the distinction mattered. I guess that's my point.

Your point about a paper trail is well taken.

However,

I guess part of the problem here is a rather variable definition of 'sanity'.

Fers, (who also blogs at BitsBlog,) myself, and DavidL, (who ALSO blogs at Bistblog,) have had a running discussion on this for some time, within the context of the recent verdict of Not Guilty by reason of insanity, in the Andrea Yates case. I bring it up here because it clearly draws the lines of the discussion, here;

DavidL opines that:

I am real troubled by any arguement that the crime itself proves the actor insane. By that logiic, it would mean that Eric and Lyell Menendez were insane, because only an insane person would murder their parents.

Now grant that Mrs. Yatea was depreseed. Then that could because she was married to a jerk. Yet Mrs. Yates knew enough to plan her crime when her mother, or mother-in-law, wouild out of the house. She clearly knew that killing her children was wrong. I don't buy the insanity defense, not in this case.

I respond with:

I'm not overly comfortable with the verdict either.

On the other hand, we're left with the question, " What sane person does that'?"

I rather suspect that the police brought up the subject of insanity because they know that's the only logical course for any defense attorney to take who is taking on such case. And as with the Yates case, granted that there is probably some mental disturbance going on. The question becomes at what point does he become clinically insane? Is it at the point he pulls the trigger? If that's true, then David's fears are realized.

I am equally troubled by Fersboo's comments, however, in that while he is correct that the common thread here is the 'religion of peace', there again, the question becomes 'where do you set up the legal wall?'

We already have people among the The social left in this country claiming that religion, particularly the overt variety, is a sign of mental illness... as Fran over at Eternity Road has eloquently written recently. Frankly, I think that misidentifies the cause of the problem,(As does Fran) but there it is.

At the same time, we are left with the only logical conclusion being that the only organization that runs common through all these threads of air of violence, is Islam.

We have not dealt with this as a matter of law previously, simply because of the fact that the definition of sanity was driven as much by cultural guidelines as anything else. I suggest that this is been left open as a matter of law, to some extent, because lawmakers are loathe to codify culture in the law, any longer. The fear to upset members of other cultures.

I fear we are now reaping the benefits of such lack of foresight.

In a larger sense, I think part of the problem here is that we are still under the illusion that all cultures are equal, all religions are equal, and should all be treated as such. We've been getting a rather nasty lesson lately about the fallacy in that statement.

As you see, I have more questions here, than conclusions.

Dal Seattle Times (via Michelle Malkin), la foto di Naveed Haq - l'uomo arrestato per la sparatoria al Jewish Center di Seattle - tratta dallo yearbook del suo liceo. Avete letto bene, nella didascalia c'è scritto "pace"....

Excerpt:

A Muslim man walks into not just any building in Seattle � not even just any identifiably Jewish location in Seattle � but into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, whose mission since 1926, according to the website it maintains, is to "ensure Jewish survival and to enhance the quality of Jewish life locally, in Israel and worldwide."

The Muslim man has obviously not only carefully chosen the target but cased the place. There's a security system, so he waits until someone attached to the Federation enters using her access code, then he pounces, forcing his way through the open door. He brandishes a large caliber, semi-automatic handgun. He announces that he's a Muslim angry at Israel. Then he randomly, wantonly opens fire � shooting six women, one of whom is pregnant, one of whom is killed.

Plain and simple JJ.

You know, if this was a sect of Christians murdering abortion clinic workers........

So yes, I would say that over 5,000 nutcases since 9/11 constitutes a very serious indictment against a culture, religion and society. Mask it how you like with donations of hospitals and help during Katrina from Kuwait and other Arab entities, thes.....

The police press conference used the phrase. I presume, therefore, that he has some paper trail of having been institutionalized. That the system says we can't lock people up when they're in that state of mind is a big problem, I think.

Not knowing any more than what I've seen in a couple press reports, I have no idea whether he's sufficiently "insane" to escape criminal responsibility. He probably is not.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that he's a terrorist, let alone any that he's involved with Hezbollah or some other organized group. That he's a murderer--and an attempted mass murderer--is not in dispute, however.

This is probably the story of one lone nutcase. The US has had a history of these as does every area of the world. Does that make a society all bad?

Read this post of mine before answering that question...