Was Lee Harvey Oswald A "Terrorist"?

[David Von Pein]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

In the above article at the Wikipedia website, entitled "Terrorism In The
United States", I noticed that the assassination of President Kennedy is
classified as an act of "terrorism" carried out by Lee Harvey Oswald, who
is the person Wikipedia definitively labels as Kennedy's assassin (with no
"alleged" next to Oswald's name, which is good to see, seeing as how all
of the physical evidence in the JFK case points directly to Oswald).

I had never thought about JFK's murder being an actual act of "terrorism"
before, but I suppose when this definition of the word terrorism (provided
by Wikipedia) is used, then Lee Oswald's attack on John F. Kennedy could,
indeed, be categorized as a terrorist attack (although, since we don't
know precisely what Oswald's motive was for killing JFK, then the
interpretation of whether his act of violence against the U.S. President
on November 22, 1963, should be classified as an actual act of "terrorism"
or not remains open to debate)....

"A common definition of terrorism is the systematic or threatened use of
violence in order to intimidate a population or government and thereby
affect political, religious, or ideological change." -- From Wikipedia

Any comments?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6vs-4wUEes8/WU6--X3bouI/AAAAAAABMGY/TQ0RhLgbQF8QuJJ_br5MaPAxaValjBt2gCLcBGAs/s1600/JFK-Death-Listed-As-Terrorism-At-Wikipedia.png

[bigdog]

It all depends of course on how one defines terrorism. I wouldn't consider
it an act of terrorism. To me terrorism consists of acts intended to
strike terror into the minds of the public by showing them that an act of
violence could be committed against them anytime, anywhere. I don't think
that Oswald's assassination of JFK made anyone in America think that they
were any more in danger of becoming victims of a random act of violence.
It was a violent act targeting a specific individual.

To illustrate this, the city of Columbus has for about 30 years staged one
of the biggest fireworks shows in the country, usually on July 3, call
Red, White, and Boom. It draws tens of thousands of people downtown every
year to see the fireworks show which is staged along the Scioto
riverfront. I hadn't been to it in about 20 years because getting out of
downtown after the show can be quite a hassle. I was thinking about
attending this year but all the random acts of violence which have
occurred around the world in recent years has given me pause. The Red,
White, and Boom celebration would make for an inviting target and it would
be very difficult to police. Many people come early for the parade and
other festivities and they bring coolers and backpacks. You have lots
people crammed into a very confined area. It would be quite easy for even
a lone wolf terrorist to plant a bomb or commit a suicide bombing and kill
lots of people. Just that threat has given me second thoughts about
whether I want to expose myself to such a risk. That is what real
terrorism can do.

[claviger]

It was definitely an act of terrorism to fire on two US political leaders
inside the Presidential Limousine in front of so many cheering citizens
watching the parade. It shocked and horrified Americans that a fanatic
would shoot anyone with wives so close by who were splattered with blood.
It stunned citizens of the NATO alliance that two Leaders of the Free
World could be ambushed so easily and the chaos that ensued after the
ambush. This American tragedy sent an appalling message no one is safe in
spite of numerous bodyguards or even in police custody.

[BOZ]

Here is the etymology of the word terrorism.



terrorism (n.) Look up terrorism at Dictionary.com

1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign
of Terror in France" (March 1793-July 1794), from French terrorisme, from
Latin terror (see terror).

If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its
basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without
which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be
impotent. [Robespierre, speech in French National Convention, 1794]

General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first
recorded in English 1798 (in reference to the Irish Rebellion of that
year). At one time, a word for a certain kind of mass-destruction
terrorism was dynamitism (1883); and during World War I frightfulness
(translating German Schrecklichkeit) was used in Britain for "deliberate
policy of terrorizing enemy non-combatants."

[BOZ]

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 12:08:54 AM UTC-3, David Von Pein wrote:

Could the following be the origin:

Quran 8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those
who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every
fingertip of them”

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Along with the (unknown) motive question - fame? nihilism? despair? -
there's the question of denial or lack of accountability. Oswald didn't
take credit for his act and without that, it seems to me, we can't
describe it as terror. To put it otherwise: Can an act be one of terror if
no one takes responsibility for it? I think not since it removes the
purpose behind the act, i.e., to promote a cause through fear or
intimidation. You can't be intimidated by "A" if "A" says he didn't commit
the intimidating act, right?

We can add the factor that terror targets have to be civilians, don't
they? JFK was a political figure, the commander in chief and I'm not sure
killing a head of state can be defined as terrorism.

[Beyond Wikipedia]

In America you're considered a terrorist if you pee behind a trash can
when nobodys looking.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/24/2017 11:08 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States
>
> In the above article at the Wikipedia website, entitled "Terrorism In The
> United States", I noticed that the assassination of President Kennedy is
> classified as an act of "terrorism" carried out by Lee Harvey Oswald, who
> is the person Wikipedia definitively labels as Kennedy's assassin (with no
> "alleged" next to Oswald's name, which is good to see, seeing as how all
> of the physical evidence in the JFK case points directly to Oswald).
>

Yeah, no bias there!
You can't just go around changing definitions of words to sound cool
Don't be a Harris.
You could call every murder of a black person terrorism and that
trivializes the problem.
The problem with the JFK assassination is that the moment you call it
terrorism you are applying a politic motive to it. You are not allowed
to do that if you want to be a WC defender. There must not be ANY
motive. It just has to be a random crazy with mo motive and no planning.
What do you want to do, start WWIII?

> I had never thought about JFK's murder being an actual act of "terrorism"
> before, but I suppose when this definition of the word terrorism (provided
> by Wikipedia) is used, then Lee Oswald's attack on John F. Kennedy could,
> indeed, be categorized as a terrorist attack (although, since we don't

> know precisely what Oswald's motive was for killing JFK, then theS

> interpretation of whether his act of violence against the U.S. President
> on November 22, 1963, should be classified as an actual act of "terrorism"
> or not remains open to debate)....
>
> "A common definition of terrorism is the systematic or threatened use of
> violence in order to intimidate a population or government and thereby
> affect political, religious, or ideological change." -- From Wikipedia
>
> Any comments?
>

Systematic? You claim that Oswald had a system? Let's hear your case.
Start with the backyard photos and "Hunter of Fascists." Then add in the
attempt to assassinate Walker. Is it Politically correct this year to
call that an assassination attempt? Or do you need to call it a random
shooting. Pull a Claviger and claim that he was cleaning his rifle and
it went off accidentally. Yeah, that's it!
How about the meeting with Kostikov? OOPS. Can't talk about that. It
might start WWIII. Gotta keep the cover-up for another 1,000 years.


> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6vs-4wUEes8/WU6--X3bouI/AAAAAAABMGY/TQ0RhLgbQF8QuJJ_br5MaPAxaValjBt2gCLcBGAs/s1600/JFK-Death-Listed-As-Terrorism-At-Wikipedia.png
>


I think you enjoy being ridiculous just to show off. What I'd liked to see
you do is accidentally slip up and claim that Oswald was a traitor for
defecting to Russia and offering military secrets. Then I can mention
Flynn, which McAdams would not let me do otherwise. He goes way off-topic
to spew rightwing hatred and then when I ask him to clarify whom he wants
to send to the concentration camps he says my message is off-topic and he
shuts down the thread.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 10:08:54 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

And of course, since LHO was never convicted of anything in a court of law
(he wasn't allowed to live long enough to stand trial) the term 'alleged'
should have been added to the Wiki entry. So we can take sides, but there
is no legal answer.

However, perhaps we can all agree that the assassination of a head of
state, in this case, JFK, most certainly qualifies as an act of terror,
and anyone with direct connection to it, including knowledge before-hand,
can be classified as a 'terrorist'.

Pamela Brown
ss100.com

[David Von Pein]

But, John, I think a strong argument can also be made (as Vincent Bugliosi
did) that when Oswald took those shots at JFK, he was "aiming at the
United States of America", and therefore, in a larger sense, Oswald was
not just aiming at one specific individual named John F. Kennedy.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are wrong, moosebreath.
If the terrorist blows himself up then how can you say no one takes
responsibility? How about if he shouts out "Allah Akbar" just before he
pushes the button? You can't figure out all on your own that it is
terrorism? You just call it suicide or a prank when he kills dozens of
people? What do you call that? Collateral damage to his suicide? Like
the kid who closed the garage door and stayed in the running car until
hs killed himself by carbon monoxide poisoning? What if he didn't notice
his cat was also in the garage and it died? How many times has ISIS used
carbon monoxide poisoning? Do you think Isis was behind the defective
airbags killing so many people?
China is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans with Fentenyl and
you don't call that terrorism?

> purpose behind the act, i.e., to promote a cause through fear or
> intimidation. You can't be intimidated by "A" if "A" says he didn't commit
> the intimidating act, right?
>

Hey, how about just causing deaths?

> We can add the factor that terror targets have to be civilians, don't
> they? JFK was a political figure, the commander in chief and I'm not sure
> killing a head of state can be defined as terrorism.
>
>

Are you nuts? So, you think it is OK to assassinate a world leader and
you don't call that terrorism?

[Anthony Marsh]

Hypocrite. Every religion misuses God to defend its crimes.
And you can see plenty of genocide in the Old Testament and even some in
the New Testament.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/25/2017 11:32 PM, BOZ wrote:

You're quoting Robespierre? Gross.

> General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first
> recorded in English 1798 (in reference to the Irish Rebellion of that
> year). At one time, a word for a certain kind of mass-destruction
> terrorism was dynamitism (1883); and during World War I frightfulness
> (translating German Schrecklichkeit) was used in Britain for "deliberate
> policy of terrorizing enemy non-combatants."
>
>

Terrorism is often attacks by individuals or groups against a country or
government they hate. Not always. Sometimes governments hire or sponsor
terrorists to attack their enemies instead of making direct attacks of
their own.

[Anthony Marsh]

Some political commentators have called it the Day that Innocence Died.
How about if no one is safe BECAUSE of numerous bodyguards and being in
police custody?

Does anyone remember who assassinated Indira Gandhi? Does anybody even
know what Singh means?

We have one kook here who thinks that a Secret Service agent shot JFK in
the head.

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't even going out shopping every day because some terrorists are
waiting to kill you. That is the point of terrorism.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

If the purpose of terror is to terrorize or frighten/intimidate others to
acquiesce to your demands - political, religious, ideological - then how
is killing the head of state an act of terror?

What demands are being made through the act? What policy of the government
is the assassin demanding be changed?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:50:18 PM UTC-4, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

If Hinckley had succeeded in killing Reagan was that an act of terror?
Simply for killing a head of state?

The evidence is that Hinckley wanted to impress Jodie Foster with the act.
Surely killing Reagan to impress Foster wasn't a terrorist act? I don't
see how it could be.

If LBJ killed JFK because he wanted to be President or he wanted to stop a
criminal investigation into his alleged corruption was he a terrorist?

Without a clear motive behind and for the act we can't, it seems to me,
call it a terror attack.

I think we're throwing the terror label around a bit loosely here.

[bigdog]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:50:18 PM UTC-4, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

Is John Wilkes Booth the ALLEGED assassin of Abraham Lincoln? I see no
difference between him and Oswald.

> However, perhaps we can all agree that the assassination of a head of
> state, in this case, JFK, most certainly qualifies as an act of terror,
> and anyone with direct connection to it, including knowledge before-hand,
> can be classified as a 'terrorist'.
>

I don't agree for the reasons I spelled out in a previous post.

[bigdog]

That is true but while the assassination was a traumatic event in most
people's lives, I doubt very many people felt that their own safety had
been compromised with the possible except of those who thought it might be
a prelude to a Soviet attack. On the other hand with modern day terrorists
and their random attacks, they are sending the message that anyone could
be a victim anytime, anywhere. Any one of us could be in the wrong place
at the wrong time and become a victim. The fact that the terrorist targets
ordinary people is what makes them dangerous to us all.

[BOZ]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 12:34:20 AM UTC-3, Beyond Wikipedia wrote:
> In America you're considered a terrorist if you pee behind a trash can
> when nobodys looking.

Not funny.

[David Von Pein]

I want to thank everyone for their comments in this thread (except for
Tony Marsh, that is, whose comments don't deserve any thanks or praise,
because they're just stupid, as per the Marsh norm).

But aside from Anthony's ridiculous drivel above, I have enjoyed reading
everybody's very good thoughts. Much obliged. :-)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1252.html

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:50:18 PM UTC-4, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

Pam,

Your "SS 100" link isn't the right one in your last post. You forgot the
"X" in the URL....

http://ss100x.com

http://ss100.com takes you to a site all about Suffolk sportscars.
(Obviously not Pamela's limo site.)

So, the byword is ---- Remember The X! (Without it, the world is pure
chaos.) :-)

[claviger]

LHO changed the US Government. LBJ was a very different leader than JFK.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I'll just take one of these:

Are you nuts? So, you think it is OK to assassinate a world leader and
> you don't call that terrorism?

Nowhere, Mr. Marsh, did I say it was "OK." I mean, you really are quite
reckless.

As to whether it's terrorism: If Hinckley had succeeded in killing Reagan
because he (Hinckley) wanted to impress Jodie Foster - that is, he was
insane - was that an act of terrorism? Of course not. Hinckley was
mentally sick; he was not trying to terrorize anyone.

If an insane person - with no political, religious or ideological motive -
kills himself and three others is that an act of terrorism?

Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Giffords, killed a federal judge and
wounded numerous other people. He targeted political figures. Was that a
terror attack? No, he was insane.

We have workers who have been fired from jobs who return to their place of
employment and shoot a number of people. Is that terrorism? Is there a
ideological cause for the act?

Unless we have some idea as to the motive behind the act we cannot say
terror is the reason behind it just because it was multiple deaths or just
because the person targeted was a political person.

[Anthony Marsh]

True to a certain extent. Rarely does terrorism single out a specific
person the way assassination does.
But Oswald did try to kill other public figures like Walker and Nixon.
I personally do not have to worry about ISIS trying to kill me, but
terrorism did strike close to my home.
But the Tsarneav brothers did not pick their victims and they did not
personally attack my friends in Watertown.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/27/2017 12:06 PM, bigdog wrote:

Well, I can see 2 major differences. First, Booth was identified during
the assassination. Second, Booth confessed. But they were both killed
before they could be tried. In both cases there were rumors of conspiracy.
In the case of Booth, the government actually followed up and charged
other people with conspiracy, convicted them and hanged them. I think it's
a little too late to do that in the JFK assassination due to your cover-up
to protect the conspirators.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you have to PROVE conspiracy to call it terrorism? Can one person
conspire to commit terrorism?

Would you call the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand an act of
terrorism?

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe the assassination is made to facilitate the change they want? Like
sending in ground combat troops to Vietnam?

[BOZ]

Watch out for those Amish terrorists. Who was Aisha? How old was she?

[BOZ]

Two Sikhs.

[BOZ]

Read THE REAL LINCOLN by Thomas DiLorenzo.

[Anthony Marsh]

The X is in the wrong place. You're digging in the wrong place!

One thing I've often wondered about is how the InterNet knows to correct a
capital X to a lower case x. I've seen people forget if a web site is .com
or .net so I use a redirect to point people to the right page no matter
which they try.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/27/2017 3:12 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> I want to thank everyone for their comments in this thread (except for
> Tony Marsh, that is, whose comments don't deserve any thanks or praise,
> because they're just stupid, as per the Marsh norm).
>

Amazing how McAdams allows you to say stupid, but forbids me from saying
stupid. Proof that you are a minion.

[Anthony Marsh]

You didn't see that movie, did you? I think it was on Discovery Channel.
Aisha was one of Muhammad's wives. She was probably only 10 when he
married her. Some guess maybe 6 or 7 because records were not kept and
others guess 13 or 14 because of historical events.

[Anthony Marsh]

Pretty close. But you can't rule out an insane person as being part of a
plot. Maybe they can get off legally, but it would still be a
conspiracy. BTW, Cutler had conspiracy theories about the Reagan
shooter, even claiming there was a second shooter. But I was able to
show him that the shot hitting Reagan in the front was just a ricochet
off the limo.

> If an insane person - with no political, religious or ideological motive -
> kills himself and three others is that an act of terrorism?
>

I'm sure that some Muslims who are simply insane or stupid think their
attacks are supporting ISIS or al Qaeda or some terrorist organization.

> Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Giffords, killed a federal judge and
> wounded numerous other people. He targeted political figures. Was that a
> terror attack? No, he was insane.
>

Again, there is a slight difference between a legal defense and
historical fact.

> We have workers who have been fired from jobs who return to their place of
> employment and shoot a number of people. Is that terrorism? Is there a
> ideological cause for the act?
>

Not usually ideological.

> Unless we have some idea as to the motive behind the act we cannot say
> terror is the reason behind it just because it was multiple deaths or just
> because the person targeted was a political person.
>

Something like that.

>
>

[BOZ]

They picked the runners as their victims because they were jihadists.

[BOZ]

Marsh you couldn't tie Von Pein's shoelaces as a researcher.

[BOZ]

Aisha was 6. The marriage was consummated when she was 9. Mohammed was a
pedophile.

[Anthony Marsh]

I suspect it's a little more complicated than that. Maybe you missed the
article in the April 2017 issue of Boston Magazine.
Terrorist.
Murderer.
Federal Informant.

Some day the CIA will have to tell the truth and admit that they were
the first to support Jihad and we quite happy paying Muslims to attack
Russia.
Read the book Maximum Harm.

[Anthony Marsh]

Most people agree, but some scholars do not.
If a man marries a 12-year old girl where that is the legal age, does
that still make him a pedophile? Is Trump a pedophile because he raped a
15-year-old girl where the age of consent is 14?
It's fun to call Mohammed a pedophile, but you don't have the guts to
call Trump a pedophile. He might sue you!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/30/2017 9:52 AM, BOZ wrote:

Is he a registered researcher at the National Archives or JFK Library?
Did the archivist at College Park ever ask him to come down and help
catalog their photographs?

[BOZ]

Marsh what is the word for a 53 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old
girl?

[BOZ]

Marsh was Mohammed an adult when he was 53? Marsh was Aisha a child when
she was 9? Marsh Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old girl.

[Anthony Marsh]

Again, as I said, most people agree that Aisha was too young. But it was
accepted at that time and place as normal.
Again, you don't dare call Trump a pedophile.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/1/2017 10:46 AM, BOZ wrote:

>>>>>>> Quran 8:12 ??? ???I will cast terror into the hearts of those

>>>>>>> who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every

>>>>>>> fingertip of them???

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hypocrite. Every religion misuses God to defend its crimes.
>>>>>> And you can see plenty of genocide in the Old Testament and even some in
>>>>>> the New Testament.
>>>>>
>>>>> Watch out for those Amish terrorists. Who was Aisha? How old was she?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You didn't see that movie, did you? I think it was on Discovery Channel.
>>>> Aisha was one of Muhammad's wives. She was probably only 10 when he
>>>> married her. Some guess maybe 6 or 7 because records were not kept and
>>>> others guess 13 or 14 because of historical events.
>>>
>>> Aisha was 6. The marriage was consummated when she was 9. Mohammed was a
>>> pedophile.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Most people agree, but some scholars do not.
>> If a man marries a 12-year old girl where that is the legal age, does
>> that still make him a pedophile? Is Trump a pedophile because he raped a
>> 15-year-old girl where the age of consent is 14?
>> It's fun to call Mohammed a pedophile, but you don't have the guts to
>> call Trump a pedophile. He might sue you!
>
> Marsh was Mohammed an adult when he was 53? Marsh was Aisha a child when
> she was 9? Marsh Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old girl.
>

How come you never talk about the Amish pedophiles?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/1/2017 10:46 AM, BOZ wrote:

Pedophile.
What is the name for a business Mogul who rapes a 15-year old girl?
Pedophile.

[BOZ]

As I have said before, the allegations are categorically untrue and an
obvious publicity stunt aimed at smearing the greatest President since
George Washington.

[Jonny Mayer]

No of course he wasn't David. They hadn't invented them yet.

[Anthony Marsh]

So indeed you will support Trump no matter what crimes he commits.
He could go down to 7th Avenue and shoot 5 babies and you'd still
support him.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 6:22:20 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> No of course he wasn't David. They hadn't invented them yet.

I wonder what post Jonny's responding to here? I certainly haven't the
foggiest notion. ~shrug time~

[BOZ]

JEFFREY EPSTEIN?

[BOZ]

Only if Trump shot the babies in self defence

[Jonny Mayer]

I meant your original post sorry.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I think he's referring to the term "terrorist."

As in, since at that time "they" hadn't been invented, Oswald couldn't
have been one.

I think it was tongue in cheek.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States
>
> In the above article at the Wikipedia website, entitled "Terrorism In The
> United States", I noticed that the assassination of President Kennedy is
> classified as an act of "terrorism" carried out by Lee Harvey Oswald, who
> is the person Wikipedia definitively labels as Kennedy's assassin (with no
> "alleged" next to Oswald's name, which is good to see, seeing as how all
> of the physical evidence in the JFK case points directly to Oswald).
>
> I had never thought about JFK's murder being an actual act of "terrorism"
> before, but I suppose when this definition of the word terrorism (provided
> by Wikipedia) is used, then Lee Oswald's attack on John F. Kennedy could,
> indeed, be categorized as a terrorist attack (although, since we don't
> know precisely what Oswald's motive was for killing JFK, then the
> interpretation of whether his act of violence against the U.S. President
> on November 22, 1963, should be classified as an actual act of "terrorism"
> or not remains open to debate)....
>
> "A common definition of terrorism is the systematic or threatened use of
> violence in order to intimidate a population or government and thereby
> affect political, religious, or ideological change." -- From Wikipedia
>
> Any comments?
>
> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6vs-4wUEes8/WU6--X3bouI/AAAAAAABMGY/TQ0RhLgbQF8QuJJ_br5MaPAxaValjBt2gCLcBGAs/s1600/JFK-Death-Listed-As-Terrorism-At-Wikipedia.png

Interesting albeit long piece on Garfield's assassin Charles Guiteau.

From this account I don't think even Guiteau could have fully explained
why he shot Garfield. Personal grudge seemed to be the major one although
he believed Garfield had betrayed elements of the Republican Party that he
supported; but he clearly was mentally unbalanced. A mixture of personal
and political.

Sounds familiar.

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean just like the white cop shooting the black kid walking in the
street? I guess Jaywalking is a capital offense in that town.

[BOZ]

Define mentally unbalanced. Define mental disease. Did Oswald know the
difference between right and wrong. Yes, that's why he fled the TSBD
after he killed JFK. Are university professors with phds who indoctrinate
their students with Marxist ideology mentally unbalanced or politically
unbalanced?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Forgot to include the link to the Guiteau story. For anyone interested.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/guiteau/guiteauaccount.html

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 11:32:34 AM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> I meant your original post sorry.

OK.
Yeah, that makes sense now. So sorry.

[Anthony Marsh]

Define existence. Can you prove that you exist?

[Anthony Marsh]

Republicans mentally unbalanced? Say it ain't so, Joe.

[BOZ]

Why are you responding to me if I do not exist?

[Anthony Marsh]

I am not responding to YOU, I am reply to the alias.

[claviger]

Yes and he made a conscious decision to do the wrong thing against the
society he was born into. Free enterprise is based on competition and he
could not compete. Therefore he struck a blow against that economic
environment. LHO wanted a society of much lower standards to accommodate
him. He found it in the Soviet Union with enforced mediocrity, the boring
environment he was searching for, and then wanted out. Back in the USA he
fell back into his old bad habits with a bad attitude.

> Yes, that's why he fled the TSBD after he killed JFK.

I don't think he expected to make it out the front door. When he did he
had no escape plan other than a gun in his pocket.

> Are university professors with phds who indoctrinate their students
> with Marxist ideology mentally unbalanced or politically unbalanced?

Yes, and ethically unbalanced too.