Is the shooting in Dallas going to be considered terrorism?

It will probably be called terrorism but it more closely fits the bill of insurgency. Terrorism target everybody to instill fear in both the population and government. This attack was targeted to only government personnel to instill fear in the government only, although insurgents can use terrorism, their motive is to change the government and not destroy it completely like terrorist.

- LT Clardy, your comments on Bush and his family are disgusting and offensive. This forum doesn't need comments like yours!

Please check your target identification, CAPT Hiram Patterson. I have said nothing in this forum regarding any member of the Bush family.
I do intend to retract my down vote once you correct your mis-aimed accusation.

Amen SGT

MSgt Martin Okulski: "And when Sanders was asked on that very thing he either didn't have a comment or would state, "the people have spoken" and shrug as if that's an answer."

I'll be blunt -- you literally have to be either a flat-out liar or willfully ignorant of the truth to make that statement. Bernie has repeatedly made statements outright condemning violence from any party at the rallies, and you are simply full of it. In fact, both he *and Hillary* have repeatedly done so. But in your make-believe world, things like this apparently never happened:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/03/sanders-condemns-violence-at-trumps-san-jose-rally/

What's truly almost comical is that you ignore that Trump is literally the only major U.S. Presidential candidate on record repeatedly *encouraging* violence at his rallies. Or that the vast majority of violence at Trump rallies has been against *Trump protesters*. Of course, I bet that in your bubble you don't believe that either, which is why the substantial record of such violence is so important for us to remember:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/a_list_of_violent_incidents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html

MAJ (Join to see) - Well thanks for calling me "willfully ignorant".

If you think that such organized efforts just "spontaneously" occur without planned organization - I would not think that you had considered everything that is involved in logistical planning - but I wouldn't call you willfully ignorant.

If you never considered what a politician says to the public is one thing, but what he or she plans in secret might actually oppose themselves - I wouldn't call you willfully ignorant.

However, if you believe everything you read and are being told by the media // in the slant the media is putting everything - I think I would call that ignorant. Guess what!? People lie - I know it's hard to believe, but if I look for myself I'll see or I'll simply see what I want to see.

Which I believe is the fact in your case - You're just seeing what you want to see.
p.s. and then you call people names as if that means anything ........

MSgt Martin Okulski, it's an accurate term in this case. Remember what it was applied to: you made a specific, demonstrably false claim that Sanders refuses to denounce violence at rallies. I didn't say it about anything else. You also clearly track the stories on the topic, and strongly enough that it simply isn't a reasonable proposition to suggest that you wouldn't have run across the evidence, given that it was posted and linked all over the place. Given that, there's only two remaining choices: that you knew that what you wrote was false (the "liar" option), or that you make a conscious effort to avoid evidence that refutes your opinion (the "willfully ignorant" option).

[Contrary to popular thought, "ignorant" is not inherently a derogatory or insulting term -- I, for example, am plenty ignorant of the inner workings of different kinds of jet engines. The difference is that I don't make sweeping statements about jet engines because I have the sense not to step outside my knowledge base. You apparently don't feel the need to be so reserved. And because "ignorant" alone isn't the problem, what you should really be concerned about is the word "willfully" -- it is that word that exposes the mental effort one must make to shield themselves from readily evident dis-confirming facts.]

You make a lot of other sweeping statements about me, like the idea that I blindly trust the media. Of course I don't (I hate them all pretty much equally). But a verifiable fact is so regardless of its source, and I don't have to trust the media to validate that the fact checks out. (You seem to put your opinions on the media as equal to or greater than your evaluations of easily verifiable evidence, which is a whole grab-bag of faulty reasoning on your part.) And the links I provided are chock-full of verifiable facts, one being but a single example refuting your claim, and the other an extended list of the violence at rallies that is usually caused by Trump's *supporters* and often encouraged by Trump himself.

You really don't get it; it doesn't really matter what you falsely insinuate about me. It matters what you can show to be true. If you can't or won't refute the evidence that shows your claim to be patently false, YOU LOSE. And since you won't be *capable* of doing so, you can infer the result.

By the way, I love how you also had to add your conspiracies about the violence being directed by above. Sure, a protest of more than one person has to be organized at some level, but you don't get to just jump to the "directed from the highest levels" claims like Alex Jones and his "George Soros" Tourette's without providing a good reason why the claim should be treated as anything other than childish paranoid ramblings. I'll tell you what: as soon as you provide some solid evidence for that, we can talk. Until then, or until you come around to the fact that only one side (Trump) in this Presidential contest has even remotely been encouraging violence, then we don't really have anything to discuss or debate. Therefore, until then, good day and good riddance.

MSgt Martin Okulski MAJ (Join to see)
Guys, I appreciate the information and conversations on this subject, but can we please stay on topic?

Sad that you take the deaths of five police officers to make that kind of comment. Shame on you. A little respect please.

MSgt James Mullis - Again, using the deaths of five police officers to advance a political agenda is in poor taste. How about a little respect and answer the question as it is asked instead of offering this type of answer? Respect for those who lost their lives. BTW the shooter bought an AK in a Wal Mart parking lot. That ok with you?

PO3 Daniel Bishop - I believe you are responding to my reply to LTJG Robert Myles's comment on the original question. I don't see how it could be considered in poor taste. However, we all are entitled to our own opinions.

As for answering the original question, if you browse through all the responses to the original question, you'll see I made a clear and detailed response four days ago.

I also believe you may be misinformed as to where the shooter purchased his weapon. According to the Wall Street Journal, he used a Izhmash-Saiga not an AK-47 and he purchased it through a gun dealer at a gun show. He also passed a criminal background check at the time of purchase.

It was on the news yesterday that he made the purchase privately at a Wal Mart parking lot.