I don't know if it's terrorism or run of the mill mass murder...but does the motivation of the bastard killer(s) really matter?  Not to the victims...

there are 32 people dead, as many
as 20 more injured.

i do understand points about gun-vio-
lence, and i do understand the impor-
tance of comparing it to bagdahd, and
i do agree that the experience would be
terrifying in the extreme. . . i also
agree that we do not yet know whether
the shooter's intent was to make a
political, as opposed to simply randomly,
insane terorrizing, killing moment unfold.

i also agree that mr. bush talks alot
about making things safer and does little
to actually acheive that end.

okay -- may we, the collective "we",
now -- please stop parsing statutory language?

there are at least 31 families whose losses
are not larger, nor smaller, for all your
efforts, here, gentlemen.  to my eye, the
entire discussion looks to lack a little
"real-peoples' concerns" perspective.

but that is just my perspective, here. . .

how about both of you simply offer your
concern for the families, and the victims,
and hold on to the lawyers' quibbles for a
few moments/days/weeks. . .

He had freshly bought weapons and ammo, plenty of it.
He bought chains and padlocks to secure doors, a sign certain he intended to kill as many as possible.
He left an 8-page note, not something you do on short notice, so again, planning shows intent.
He did kill as many people as he could before committing suicide.

Now it is revealed that he made a rather traditional "death tape" that he had already mailed at the time of the shooting, the same type of death tape made by suicide bombers.

So, if any of y'all can tell me the difference between a planned suicide shooting and a planned suicide bombing, both intended to strike terror in the hearts and minds of so many, I might allow as to maybe have misspoken. But I did not misspeak, the filters of my life-experiences kicked in immediately and I know an act of terrorism when I see one.

Some of you here got it, some of you don't want to see the holy oxen of bush/cheney gored. These are the people who have so distorted the use of the words terror, terrorism, and terrorists that textbook and time proven analysis of the facts that define terrorism have become twisted and meaningless.

This was an act of domestic terrorism falling four square into the parameters marking domestic terrorism as defined by the statute supplied by Gabrial above.

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that--
     (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
      (B) appear to be intended--
        (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
         (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
         (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
      (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Four square under the law. An act of domestic terrorism. So, vilified or not, I was entirely correct in my assessment, but I ain't gonna hold my breath waiting for any of y'all to admit you were wrong.

To review: The perp planned well in advance and executed a suicide shooting, a violation of law that obviously not merely "appear[ed] to intend" but was actually intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, actually affected the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (how many agencies became involved? State, federal, local, more?), and it occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

My sympathies and heartfelt condolences to the families of the dead and wishes for a speedy recovery for those injured. This horrific terrorist attack shows again that domestic terrorists are equally as dangerous as those bush claims we are fighting in Iraq, and that all the domestic spying, phone and computer taps, and other efforts to compile dossiers on all Americans is destined to fail to identify terrorists in the future as happened here.

Bill wrote a comment entitled: "A tragic event of domestic terrorism." He then went on to call it a "domestic terrorist attack."

Wile and I asked if he had any actual reason to call it "terrorism" because that word means a system of violence in order to coerce, usually for political ends. The reason we asked (or at least, why I asked--excuse me for speaking for you Wile) is because we hadn't seen any evidence that this was part of a systematic attack or that it was undertaken for political purposes. As far as we knew at that point, it may have been a lone crazy person.

And then edger got cute. Says edger: "but surely these students were terrorised."

And, of course, Wile and I agreed: "Duh, they've been terrorised, they've been shot at!" But "terrorise" and "terrorism" are two different things.

To be honest with you, it makes me a little sick  that grown men either do not know the difference between the words "terrorise" and "terrorism" or do know the difference, but mere hours after this violence seek to use it to score phoney political points on their agenda.

"Act of terrorism" means an act of violence as defined in clause (i) of subdivision A of § 19.2-297.1 committed with the intent to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large; or (ii) influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation.

Furthermore, the United States Code (if we were interested in a more national treatment of the term) breaks the crime of terrorism into two types: international and domestic:

§ 2331.  Definitions

As used in this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2331 et seq.] --
   (1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that--
      (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
      (B) appear to be intended--
         (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
         (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
         (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and
      (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
   (2) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 USCS § 1101(a)(22)];
   (3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
   (4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of--
      (A) declared war;
      (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
      (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
   (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that--
      (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
      (B) appear to be intended--
         (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
         (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
         (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
      (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Talk about trivializing the terror and suffering.

But that event was followed by another, far more deadly shooting some hours later, in which more than two dozen people were killed by gunfire.

While questions about the details -- and motive -- of the attacks remain, police would not rule out the possibility that a second gunman was involved -- and that the incidents could possibly be unrelated.

The story that officials believed the gunman "may have left the campus or even the state" won't wash.

I imagine the survivors and the relatives of the victims will go after the assets of the university, once the insurance policy is exhausted. It is likely that Virginia Tech will go bankrupt.