Acts of Terror on The Plains

[Stinky The Clown]

Here are the terrorists:

Larry Mattlege of Crawford, Texas .....


...... and Larry Northern, also, presumably, from Crawford, Texas ......


One shot off his rifle (shotgun, whatever) in an attempt to intimidate demonstrators. Because he was on his property, and in Texas, this firearm discharge was a legal act. But was it? Was there an intent to intimidate?

The other one hung some fencing on the bumper of his Cowboy Cadillac and purposely drove over a display set up on public property in protest of actions by the president of the United States - a constitutionally guaranteed right. Were his actions reckless? Were they also intended to intimidate? Did they violate anyone's civil rights?

To defend or condone either of these acts is to condone and defend terrorism.

Larry and Larry ...... American terrorists.

Where is the Justice Department on this? Where is FaterLandSekurity?

I want to see these two motherfuckers strung by their balls to a car bumper and dragged like others in Texas have been dragged ... to their deaths .... by those who hate ......

God forgive me ..... I hate these two scumbags.

But unlike them, I will contain my hate, choosing instead to turn it to the fight ahead ... the fight we must all wage .... for the morals and morality of this once great nation.

So no ... while I hate them (and make no mistake ... I do) I will instead use the vigor of that hate for good. To wrest power legally and peacefully from the knuckle dragging mouth breathers who now hold sway.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Larry Northern is from Waco

[havocmom]

2. When we use language inaccurately, we do not help the cause

and we do give the RW pundits fuel for arguments against us.

These two are troublesome. They are NOT terrorists. To insist they are demeans victims of REAL terrorists.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. How are they not terrorists?

This wasn't some kid lighting a firecracker under the bleachers. These were acts of terrorism as certain as if they had a bomb. It is not a matter of degree or visciousness.

From dictionary.dot.com .......
'The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.'
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

[havocmom]

4. They are bullies, sad, scared bullies reacting badly.

Terrorists have an agenda and plan things carefully. These two are not terrorists. They are hot headed and not overly rational when angered. They don't have a cause just reactions.

Terrorists they are not

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Parse out the definition cited .....

... and I think they fit the definition pretty damned well.

Are they the equal of bin Laden? Of course not. Do thyey fit the definition? I think they do .... if intent can be shown.

[BoneDaddy]

8. Agreed

We do not need to become like them my friends. When we lose our compassion and our understanding of these people we have become as guilty as they are.

I don't hate these men, I pity them. To be so angry and afraid all the time. It obviously drove them to irrational acts.

Are they terrorists? no. Fools and ignorant men, yes. Should they be prosecuted for what they have done? you bet your ass. A harsh punishment is in order.

One of my biggest concerns in liberal progressive message boards (I am a self proclaimed lib/prog myself) is that we have enough hate in this world. For us to HATE means we give up one of the main hallmarks of what it means to be liberal. That doesn't mean I condone the behavior and I think individuals such as the above mentioned need to be made examples of, in order to stop any further action against the protestors, but I do not hate these men.

Hate is a funny thing. It harms you more than it harms the person you hate. We cannot be self-righteous about our own hate, while condemning the hating of the repubs. We are bigger than that.

[FrenchieCat]

11. But, but, but, ....

One's terrorist is someone else's Freedom Fighter.

The real terrorists are who, these days?
the Iraqis?
those who don't support Bush's war?
those who do?

OSB and Al Queada are not the only ones this gov has determined to be "terrorists".....

So I guess we can define whomever we want....as well.

[AValdoux]

5. Don't forget ...

...the college student who got caught with a pipe bomb in his bag trying to borad a plane in Oklahoma. Homemade bombs are one of his hobbies and he forget he had one left in his bag when he tried to board a plane.


AValdoux

[Gregorian]

6. Almost total agreement. But for the hate.

Not only do I agree, but I will up the ante, and say that the behavior of our misleader breeds and condones this behavior. Climb the ladder of terrorism, and you'll see Bush right at the top rung.
But you cannot create good with hatred. As nearly impossible as it may be, loving your enemy is most effective. I think we all need to try it. See our ways through understanding and love. Hate and love are like magnetism. North on north only results in greater distance. North on south bring together. Love is trying. Hate is easier. Let's take the hard road. Let's work to get The Larries to understand us. Let's find out what they want. Then go from there. Let's do what sounds wrong. Let's hear them. Then they'll hear us. And once we do that, and only when we do that, can a decision be made. But to fall into the same pit they are in won't do any good. I believe we are all flexible. I believe if we do it right, The Larries will be on our side. There's the challenge.
Let's rise above. I love this group. You're fighting for good. I love it.

[uppityperson]

9. Violent yes, vandals but not terrorists

go ahead and hate them, but don't call them terrorists.

[Sparkly]

10. Terrorists use violence to create fear.

The degree may be different, but that's all.

[uppityperson]

12. Violence is to create fear. Doesn't make it terrorism

Dogs are animals, cats are animals, dogs aren't cats.

[Sparkly]

13. Terrorism is a tactic: Violence -> fear -> change in actions.

That's my view. What's your definition?

[uppityperson]

15. It is a matter of degree.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." per dictionary.com

It is a matter of degree. Of course violence is to induce fear and change actions, but all violence is not terrorism and to call this such seems hyperbole and will work against the cause of getting the troops out of Iraq.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I see differently.

[Sparkly]

17. "All violence is not terrorism"

I agree that not all violence is terrorism. How would you alter the dictionary definition?

[Stinky The Clown]

14. I love you all and respect you all, but to me .... this was terrorism

That's not hyperbole. It is honestly how I see it.

Low grade terrorism, maybe? Small scale terrorism, maybe?

But terrorism.

I know some of you don't agree. And I can respect that.

But this is how I see these acts.

Now .... I can also see the other side. If we call this terorism, we tend to minimize bigger, more egregious acts of teror. If we call thsi terrorism, we risk being called wackos by the other side.

But let's go back to that definition I posted earlier, upthread ...... and parse it a bit .....

The unlawful use or threatened use of force (one guy used force - his truck .... the other guy used a gun) or violence (both acts were violent ... with the turck being the most violent .... unless a bullet from the gun went astray) by a person or an organized group (here we have two persons ... and no group we know of ... so far) against people or property (who owned the crosses? and who was the gunshot intended to affect?) with the intention of intimidating (the magic word ... intimidate) or coercing societies (Mrs. Sheehan and her group are part of the larger anti-Iraq-War society) or governments, often for ideological (if this wasn't for some twisted ideology, then what was it for?) or political reasons.

[theboss]

16. By your definition, school yard bullies are terrorists

These guys are probably something I would call "drunks."

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Actually ...... no

First off, it isn't 'my' definition.

Next, a schooyard bully is one person against another for lunch money. Not a group or individual against a society or government.

But I get your point ..... and for me, this is a borderline terrorist thing at best. But there **is** a line. In my view, these two crossed it.

What this was not was childish prank!