I'm not certain whether those injured and killed at the Unitarian Church were far left by your standards...but they did hold liberal views. The only thing they are weeping about are their injuries and their loved ones lost. Had they been members of Jerry Falwell's Church, they would be safe.

You are asking a neo-con to show compassion for other human beings, CG, and that isn't going to happen. They don't even mourn the loss of our troops, or at least I have never heard one word of sorrow or anger about it from that branch of the Republican party.

What contemptible nonsense, Dax...

What always bothers me about these 'hate' crimes? How to the haters know where to find the hated? I figure they must spend a bunch of time exploring and experimenting within that community.

People who randomly shoot up a mall have more credibility than this guy.

Closet gay? Very, very likely.

Please note! I am anti gun, anti violence, but shoot, some people seems to know exactly where to find their targets. How so?

Really? Show me on this board, since you're always so interested in people proving their arguments, where one neocon post has ever expressed a feather's weight of sympathy for, or compassion for, the dead troops, the injured troops, the dead Iraqi civilians, the families of the dead and wounded.

One will do, and I'll buy what you've said, that I'm speaking contemptible nonsense. What's contemptible is your defending these assholes.

Exactly Tutti! The "killer" had a motive or trigger, he had intent,(clearly seen by his planning), he was dissatisfied with the status quo...the behavior was the consequence of others, etc. etc. etc...

Question:
What is the difference between this intolerant and crazed jerk in Tennessee....and an intolerant, crazed A-Q terrorist?

Maybe LM can weigh in on this one... "What exactly MAKES a terrorist, LM?

LM wrote in The Making Of A Terrorist:
In all these cases, we see some sort of trigger or motivating factor that caused the individuals involved to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo by engaging in terroristic acts of violence. The behavior was the consequence of the activities of others, typically those in positions of authority from which they could impact the actors. None of that suggests the terrirstic activites were justified but only that it is possible to divine a precipitating factor for the activity after the fact. The key here, and the point of this discussion, is to try and divine such factors BEFORE they trigger a terroristic act.
he also had intent. He planned where, when and whom he would kill. He expressed his dislike for liberals and their views.

I cannot speak for Lawmage, but in my opinion this guy was not a terrorist because his intent was not to cause terror in the population at large to advance a political cause, but to get what he thought was "revenge" against a society he felt had wronged him.

It was an "I'll show them" instead of a "Look at this"

Indeed, DAx. What distinguishes the terrorist from the common criminal is the matter of intent. I have previously provided the definition of terrorism under US law and this guy does not fit. It does not mean he is not a criminal...just that this particular act was not terrorism.