If they weren't planted, they aren't sleepers. You're spending more time shoehorning people into TV-word boxes than you are in understanding them. I've seen th

If they weren't planted, they aren't sleepers. You're spending more time shoehorning people into TV-word boxes than you are in understanding them. I've seen this before - people fighting to justify calling someone a Lone Wolf despite their having outside assistance. Why? Because it sounds dangerous. It's a trial and judgement all in one. "There, I labelled Osama as 'crazy', I've done my part." Maybe after the fact you can sort people by how radical they seem (it's a subjective measure), or how much outside support they had, but it's a worthless thing to think about beforehand, and anyone who does it is absolutely disconnected from making anything more secure. > And it's not just a TV term, the FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup agencies use these terms, so I don't really see your point. The FBI is dangerously worthless in this regard. If they say something and someone on TV latches onto it you can be assured that it's wrongheaded. To the degree that their profiling could actually be useful, it has to ignore epithets. (Yes, you hate terrorists, you're a good citizen, I get that. But stop insulting them long enough to actually study their actions.) Real security doesn't involve labeling people, it involves looking for flaws in defenses, etc.