Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Sunday, July 22, 2012


Conchobhar: I've checked my email. Thank you for the article.

Normally I have a policy about talking politics relevant to a specific tragedy so soon after it happens. After the massacre at Virginia Tech (my alma matter) in 2007, my in-box was flooded with emails saying one of two things, either: "This is why EVERYONE should carry a gun, and the policy of no guns on campus is BULLSHIT!" (which is completely idiotic) to "This is why we need to ban handguns!" (which is equally idiotic.) (Note: There were precious few moderate emails calling for 'common sense' legislation that would have made a difference at Va-Tech because under Virginia State Law at the time, Sung Hui Cho SHOULD NOT have been able to acquire a firearm!) In any case the lesson that I took away from it was, "No, you're BOTH wrong! And THIS is why you don't politicize tragedy!"

A friend of mine, who's a lawyer, (and one who predicted ahead of time that Justice Roberts would be the deciding vote in UPHOLDING the Affordable Care Act no less!)(we all thought she was CRAZY for making that prediction) (we listen to her more carefully now! LOL) put it a different way: Tough cases make bad laws.

And that was why, even though I saw the article the same day [Conchobhar] sent it, it didn't read it and didn't comment on it.  BUT... I'll have to admit that this one is a little bit different. It's not overly political, in terms of pending, partisan legislation anyway, and it brings up an interesting question:

How do you define "terrorism?" 

Which an important question, because it's kind of like defining "pornography." (You can't quite  DEFINE it, but you know it when you see it!) And it IS a label that is often used self-centeredly but the media and politician with a certain agenda.  For example: I just could see the Fort Hood shooting as "terrorism." I don't know why, exactly, but for some reason that label just didn't seem right. (Question: Would they have called it terrorism if he'd been a Christian? Or was not or middle-eastern decent?)

And, for me anyway, the idea of "state sponsored terrorism" just seems to be a contradiction in terms. Like... "Moderate Republican" or "Biblical Scholar." See... From my POV any violence carried out on the orders of a Sovereign State are acts of WAR.  But that just my own opinion. That's not legally binding or anything. (Of Course.) But it's a CRITCIAL QUESTION, and one worth thinking about, because the answer can get you killed.

So... In the comments section, please let me know what YOU THINK a good, working definition of TERRORISM or an ACT OF TERRORISM is.  What defines it for you?

For my part...

1) There must be SOME FORM of agenda in play.  This excludes MOST random, psychotic, spree-shooters, although the jury is still out on this asshole in Colorado.

2) It must NOT be "state-sponsored."For me, that makes it an act of WAR.

3) If the targets are CIVILIAN, that helps clarify it. Which is not to say that MILITARY targets can't be victims of Terrorism, but other factors must be considered in those cases. I think this is why I didn't see Fort Hood as "terrorism," but I'll admit that I couldn't exactly argue WHY I felt this way. After all, terrorists attack Military targets ALL THE TIME.

4) I'd also like to see a weapon that goes beyond a mere handgun or even rifle. I'm not saying it HAS to be BOMB, per se... (no bombs were used on 9/11 after all!) but... IDK... A guy with a gun... once shot or apprehended? The threat is OVER. But a bomb goes off in a theatre? (Or planes are crashed into buildings?) That shit reverberates for a WHILE after the event.  The point here is this: Was John Muhammad more a terrorist or a serial killer?  And, more importanly, WHY do you feel that way?

And in the end it still all adds up to an issue of JUDGEMNENT. Subjective judgment.

So... I'm curious. What, in all y'all's minds, constitutes an acceptable definition of "terrorism?"

And also... How does the idea of "insanity" play into it? I didn't touch that, though it's a big theme in the article Conchobhar sent me, because I'll admit... I just don't know how to consider it? I have a hard time believe that ANYONE who would hurt or kill people for a cause - who aren't even involved in opposing said cause - cannot possibly be in their right mind.  But that's not even close to the CRIMINAL definition of "insanity," let alone a useful one for use in terror case.

So I'm curious: What does the word "terrorism" mean to you, and how do you define it?

NOTE: Please do not use this forum to discuss GUN CONTROL issues, or "What should have happened" in Colorado. I don't want to say that I will delete such comments, but I would appreciate not being put in that position!


  1. I think that article was stupid and clearly shows where liberals get their prejudicial ideals from.

    There is no actual definition for 'terrorism'. That would take away the liberals ability to use it as they please to call any murder of a left-wing ideologist a terrorist. And their ability to NOT call left-wing murderers terrorists. Otherwise the current and published definition would be acceptable: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

    Since left-wingers never prefer to have set standards, to have an actual definition of 'terrorism' would take away their ability to be hypocritical and call it 'compassion for the oppressed'. As an example I saw no references to the unibomber or weather-underground or black panthers in that article. All would be considered terrorists except for the fact they were left-wing ideologists.
    You aren't looking for a working definition of terrorism. You are looking for a definition of terrorism you can make work against right-wingers and not left-wingers.

    You want another example? How about your own words: "For example: I just could [not] see the Fort Hood shooting as "terrorism." I don't know why, exactly, but for some reason that label just didn't seem right. (Question: Would they have called it terrorism if he'd been a Christian? Or was not or middle-eastern decent?)"

    You think the Ft Hood shootings shouldn't be called a terrorist act even though he was following the systematic terror plan of a larger Islamic group that promotes terror. Yet you question whether a Christian would be called a terrorist (for instance the Norwegian incident)? There is a good example of the prejudices of the left-wing. Because normal-thinking people would call both terrorist acts.

    If you want to call any murder a terrorist act then you've become so isolated from reality that your opinion would no longer be valid and you should probably be taken to the looney bin. Was John Wayne Gacy a terrorist? Or just a child murderer? Are John Muhammad and Lee Malvo murderers or terrorists? I think left-wingers will label them terroristic or not depending on who they can blame for the crime. If they can blame a right-winger then they will do what they can to call it terrorism. If there is a left-wing ideal at fault it will be called an isolated incident by the left-winger. Which is why they resist calling Islamic terrorism just what it is ... terrorism. And also why they resist calling terrorism against the Jewish people terrorism. Ever notice you seldom (if ever) call a Palestine a terrorist? And how about the terrorism that occurred in Iraq? You people kept calling the terrorists 'freedom fighters' or some such crap.

    Are you really searching for a working definition of "terrorism" or just another way of using the word to further your ideals?

  2. Blah, blah, blah, I hate Liberals, blah.

    Funny… Even when I SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR YOUR OPINION concerning a working definition of terrorism, for the precise reason that MANY GROUPS tend to politicize it, and we need to AVOID DOING THAT, you still can’t string together a series of coherent thoughts long enough to do anything but (1) show what an absolute fucking moron you are, and (2) remind us, once again, that you hate Liberals, to the extent that you apparently can’t think strait, or continue to speak sensible fucking English, when one asks you a direct, if not “simple,” question.

    Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    1. I answered your damn question: there is a definition in place that precisely describes what terrorism is. What part of that did you not understand?
      It seems you are wanting people to adjust their thinking to fit in line with your political views and if they don't well ... "fuck them"? Is that what you intended from this thread? A complete agreement with everything you say simply because you said it? I saw some quite definite anti-right-wing diatribe in the spew your article. Was I not allowed to reply to it in like comments?

      Of course I hate liberals, they show the same disdain for right-wingers I show for left-wingers. But ... nooooo ... how dare I say so on your world-wide available blog. Right?

      BTW, God does have mercy on my soul. As much as you hate that to happen, He gives mercy to anyone who seeks it.

  3. "There is a definition in place that precisely describes what terrorism is."

    I assume you are refering to: "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears 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 assassination or kidnapping."

    Yes? (if not, please PROVDE the "well established definition.)

    OK, so let me aks you something, becuase you've said in the past tha tyou believ the policy to be justified... Why was Bush's bombing of ANY TARGET in Iraq NOT an act of terrorism?

    (a) it was a violent act, dangerous to human life , that woudl be deamed illegal in at least SOME sovereign states.

    (Read it carefully! "Or of ANY STATE." So... IRAQ, for example? AND there were others. How is DROPPING BOMBS on people NOT illegal, I wonder?)


    (b-ii) was ABSOLUTELY intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation. (I believe the exact wording was "shock and awe.")

    So... was that terrorism?

    And before you go on another petulant tirade about Liberals, let me remind you that YOU are the one who provided the definition here. I'm just putting a certian policy that you are on record as having said is justified to the test that YOU provided.

    Thank you, once again, for making it so easy. Your move, fly-guy.

    1. I'll respond, hopefully with something worth reading, on Saturday afternoon, Eddie. My week has filled up and I'm too knackered to do the topic justice before then.

      I do have to observe, however, tired as I am, that our sweet William seems to have gone off the deep end both here and on the 'Conservative Christians Create Atheists' thread. Such foaming at the mouth! I hope he's had his rabies shots.

      As for his confidence in his celestial prospects, he puts me in mind of one of Mark Twain's zingers: "I'll take heaven for the climate, and hell for the company."