Terrorist? Loser.
By: Quigley
on Friday, October 11th 2002 at 12:19pm
Here are my thoughts on the sniper dude, in rough format. You can agree, disagree, question, debate, slash, bronze or disregard them as you will:
I think Morgan is right: not all killers are terrorists, and not all those even who seek to terrorize one specific person or one person at a time should be labelled as such. I think Darryl is right: this guy IS a terrorist. He isn't just killing because he enjoys bringing harm to the person he's shooting at the time; he's killing because he loves having the power to say to the world, "I'm going to break all of your most sacred rules, and there's nothing you can do to stop me." I think the Tarot card is indeed related to the case, specifically because of the words "I am God."; it fits perfectly with the personality type involved. I believe he is likely a he. Women are more prone to crave, enjoy and abuse power, but men are far less pragmatic and far more likely to consider themselves too clever to get caught. I think he is clever, certainly. He is not intelligent, in my opinion, because I define intelligence as the ability to accurately recognize, analyze and manipulate one's own environment, and therefore no person who cannot see the clearly evident reality that they are no more important than any other human, and do not have the right to infringe upon the rights of other humans, will ever be intelligent, as hard as they may try.
Those people who wish so dearly to bring pain and death to others in this act of deviant defiance are doing so because they are fed up of living at the bottom of the ladder. They have never been as good as others, they have never been able to win at sports, to get the girl/guy, to be top in the class, or to be best at anything, and they somehow hold the belief that this is not their own fault, but rather the fault of everyone around them. We have words for these people. They are called psychopaths. To me, they are also known as losers. This man is a loser.
As all other people, losers have rights, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of other people. This man, however, has indeed done so. In a healthy society, everyone near the scene of the crime would hop in their cars and speed after his van. They would ambush him, trap him, drag him from his vehicle and quite literally tear him to pieces. At the very least, they would try. No healthy, self-respecting individual will leave their safety and the safety of their children up to somebody else in such dire circumstances, if they have a chance to stop evil. It just isn't responsible to leave this matter entirely to the poor overworked police, who may not happen to be where he's going to strike next. This man has become a threat to all people, and if anyone witnesses his van speeding off after a shooting, it is their responsibility to follow it at the very least.
It is a very sad, unfortunate thing when the ease with which we live, and live comfortably, and the watering down of the gene pool to which it leads, produces a person who cannot make the grade in society, physically, mentally, spiritually, psychologically, sexually or otherwise. It is up to us to refrain from teasing and belittling these people, and to treat them as well as we would treat any other, not only to avoid creating more monsters, but because it simply is not fair or just to do so. It is NOT, however, our responsibility as citizens to supply them with entertainment, pleasure or mirth at our own expense. When people go bad like this, they pit themselves against the world, not by choice of the world, but by their own choice. He is waging war on the world, and it is up to the world to reach out its hand, wrap it in a fist around his throat, and surely, methodically, crush the life from this pathetic individual. Beat him down, stomp on him, kick him. Destroy him. Not because it is enjoyable to do so; it should not be. Destroy him, because it is necessary. Because he seeks to destroy us.
To enjoy preying on those weaker than yourself, to target them when they are helpless to stop you, is not a sign of strength but of weakness. While it may make you feel stronger, you know deep down in your heart that it means you are a weakling, and a loathsome one at that. People hate you, and with good reason, and you should hate yourself also. Hate yourself until the hate consumes you, and die. Do as you please, but do not come knocking on my door looking to victimize me for your pleasure, because if I can, I will crush you, fool, like the loser that you are. I will do so without pleasure, and without mercy, and so thoroughly that you will not live to see another day.
Those people who lack consideration for life outside of themselves are the only things in the world that I truly hate, but I do hate them, with passion and sincerity. To all those who qualify, I urge you, for your sake and mine, do not infringe on my life, and do not let me catch you bringing harm to another living thing. My blood is up, and if you push me, I will disregard self-safety, law and consequence in the pursuit of revenge.
Other Articles
Next: I'm a fucking moron... from Quigley
Next: Those suckers are going down! from thunderchicken
Previous: Notes on Juice Ingredients from Quigley
Previous: Shit from Anesthetic
Comments for Terrorist? Loser.
prev . 1 . next
10 Comments
p-rok Wrote...
Saturday, October 12th 2002 at 11:53am
this post reminds me of metallica, dont ask why, probably the whole "seek & destroy" attitude. sweet. i like metalllica
Quigley Wrote...
Sunday, October 13th 2002 at 4:21pm
Sweet. So do I. Can you tell?
Seek, and destroy, baby!
Alien Wrote...
Friday, October 18th 2002 at 10:13pm
Now, please don't think me ignorant for asking: "You're talking about that sniper dude, no?"
Whether I'm right or wrong about your topic, you've thought about this heaps.
But try living in Australia just at the moment. You begin to wonder if the terrorism is just the will of one man, or many intolerant morons.
Rest in Peace, Bali.
Ak0dem1x Wrote...
Saturday, October 19th 2002 at 9:47am
"Here are my thoughts on the sniper dude, in rough format." Thank you, Mr. Lincoln, for the wonderful use of the "thesis statement." If you're not sure what he's talking about, check again.
Alien:
I'm quite sure that you haven't elaborated on your thoughts adequately for me to really respond. If I were to say something, though, it would be that an act of terror has less to do with the number of people committing that act than it does with their intentions. When Henry Kissinger decided to bomb Cambodia in the early seventies to "communicate" (as he put it), that was TERRORISM. Hamas, and every other terrorist network in Israel, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, & Co.?? Terrorists. Yes, even that lone sniper in Maryland. Why? Well I'd be willing to bet that he's getting his rocks off watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and every other network news channel covering his daily sport. His motive isn't simply the sick need to kill, to remove the body parts of young females of a certain phenotype and store them in his freezer, but also to derive fear and recognition from the populace that is his prey.
As strange as it might sound, I do not believe that death toll is the measure of an act of terror. Why not? Again, motivation. For what it's worth, we're put off just a tad bit more by shootings in Israel, the attack on the U.S. last September, what has recently happened in Australia, etc. than we ever were by the fact that we killed upwards of 200,000 Japanese civilians in less than two weeks in a warm summer month of 1945. For those A-Bomb Crusaders out there who think it is their duty to defend the scientific/technological advancements of mankind at all costs, including the justification of a wholly unnecessary weapon of mass destruction, please look to the bombing of Dresden which resulted in the death of some 135,000 civilians. No big bomb there. Just lots of little ones to achieve the same effect! I'm not saying good or bad about the decisions to kill those people, just that my country has a funny way of legitimizing the murder of other peoples while simultaneously defending her sovereign right to get really pissed off whenever anybody has a problem with that and tries to strike back. We think our motivations are somehow superior, right, "good," hence USA the benevolent hegemon (vis-a-vis the US public relations machine) while all other motivations are inferior, wrong, "bad," hence terroristic.
So, my point is this: The US killed lots and lots of people through the use of sophisticated weapons technology in World War II. That was not "terrorism" because our motivations were allegedly in the interest of humanity. (We were, after all, fighting several tyrants who posed a legitimate risk to certain freedoms world wide.) If, however, you believe that the judgement of an action rests not only in its outcome but also in the process of attaining that outcome, you might ask how it comes to be that killing 335,000 humans is in the best interests of humanity. Got me there!!!!
Conversely, in some twisted calculus, one man in the states of Maryland and Virginia systematically killing "innocent"** civilians with a rifle IS terrorism. It's not not terrorism because he didn't kill 3,000 people, but because of WHY he's killing them... and perhaps, most importantly, the imact these deaths has on a community. So, had the motivations of certain Allied governments in WWII been pure and wholly well-intentioned, and had their policies reflected this, the fact that more people died wouldn't have constituted an act of terror. What matters are their motivations.
** Quick remark on "innocent." FUCK OFF!!! You're not innocent - the day you were born into this world, you became subject to all of the arbitrary uses of human power, random displays of natural force, and my favorite - the Cosmic Shit Hammer. Your birth certificate is proof positive that your ass is just as guilty as mine, so let's cease with all the meaningless psycho-babble redundancy. Besides, is there any such thing as a "guilty civilian?"
In short, no I haven't begun to wonder if an act of terrorism is the will of one man or many morons. It always has been, and will continue to be, BOTH!!!
Quigley Wrote...
Sunday, October 20th 2002 at 11:16am
You made many good points in that last one, Akk1e (can I call you that? hehehehe), but one in particular: perhaps we should refer to "undeserving" citizens? :)
Ak0dem1x Wrote...
Sunday, October 20th 2002 at 11:52am
Thanks. You can call me anything 'cept late for dinner. And, undeserving though they may be, this is a pretty random and arbitrary world. As the sagacious redneck once said: "Shit happens."
Quigley Wrote...
Sunday, October 20th 2002 at 3:37pm
Is not the objective of nearly everything we do to shelter and protect ourselves from the randomness to which you refer, and to master our world? That certainly is one of my primary objectives, and I'd be quite pissed if someone were to get in the way.
The world will be random and there is little we can do about that save to hide from it, which has served us well so far. People in a society cannot be allowed to be random, or you cannot really call it a society.
That's my thought, anyway. Hehehe... back to work...
Ak0dem1x Wrote...
Sunday, October 20th 2002 at 9:28pm
Agreed. I am an optimist. My optimism stems from the belief that all people have the ability to treat each other with kindness and a certain degree of order & consistency. Yet, some people create disorder, or are inconsistent in their actions - and one of life's lessons is the ability to cope in such situations. Should we have to? Is it fair? Of course not, but shit happens. And, it happens to all of us.
Claytijandro Wrote...
Tuesday, October 22nd 2002 at 2:30am
They create disorder, and they are killed as a result. That is my plan anyway.
prev . 1 . next
10 Comments
You must be Logged in to leave comments.
Ak0dem1x Wrote...
Friday, October 11th 2002 at 3:42pm
Word.