Ya ever hear of "On Line"?
http://newsok.com/
Ya ever hear of "On Line"?
http://newsok.com/
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
I think they tend to not use the term terrorism unless there's some form of conspiracy involved. It's not a definition I agree with but it has been common going back at least to the time immediately following 9/11.
I don't know the legal definition in the US is but the common definition requires that the perpetrator actions are to achieve political means. I'm not sure if you can say that here.
Whether or not this is terrorism is a different issue than whether it is religiously motivated. I don't think anyone denies that this attack is at least partially motivated by religious ideology.
To add to the previous post, I just looked up the legal definition on FBI.gov. It does not require any form of conspiracy but for whatever reason they're hesitant to label actions by individuals as terrorism.
I don't know or even care what the official definition of terrorism is, but absent a state of war by a sovereign nation, I would consider any act that seeks to harm people or property for the sole purpose of furthering a social, political, religious etc. agenda as terrorism.
how about oil or economic reasons?
Metaphors be with you!
[QUOTE=olevetonahill;4855645]Ya ever hear of "On Line"?
http://newsok.com/[/QUOTE)
Rilly? Aw, why would I do that when I can wait and see who will tell me what
I need to know....
Awww, we went and wrote a nice letter to those mean old terrorists, complete with "academic language", (big words), and an "Executive Summary", (2 or 3 item bulleted list with LARGE FONT) to show them how confused they are.
Did we sign it XXXOOOXXX???