• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So when exactly is it terrorism?

Darat said:
Yet the USA authorities class singletons such as the Unabomber as terrorists.
Click to expand...
He was picking random targets in academia, he didn't target a specific person or agency or institution because he felt they screwed him over.
 
So all thos who think the Stack incident was terrorism: Was the Alabama professor shooting also an act of terrorism?
 
WildCat said:
So all thos who think the Stack incident was terrorism: Was the Alabama professor shooting also an act of terrorism?
Click to expand...

Depends on the definition. Terrorism is a largely meaningless buzzword. It certainly meets the criteria of trying to enforce their will through violence and terror.
 
Dragoonster said:
He fits A, B(ii), B(iii), and C. The only thing he might not fit is intimidating/coercing a civilian population. But does the "or" at the end of (ii) apply to just (ii) or also to (i)? Does he need to fulfill just one of (i) (ii) or (iii)? Or either (ii) or (iii), but also (i) in every case?
Click to expand...
I don't think it fits "B" at all. He was taking revenge against what he saw as a personal harm, not trying to affect policy.

Thus, destroying his home, plane, and even his life before the IRS seizes them.
 
WildCat said:
I don't think it fits "B" at all. He was taking revenge against what he saw as a personal harm, not trying to affect policy.
Click to expand...

That's not what the note said. The note explicitly states that he wanted to spur more actions against the government.
 
WildCat said:
That's what makes it a case of a nut going after those who he thinks screwed him over, and not terrorism.

...snip...
Click to expand...

To make sure I understand you, when you said "A lone nut singling out those he thinks screwed him over is not terrorism." - the "lone nut" has nothing to do with whether you consider someone is a terrorist or not?
 
WildCat said:
That's what makes it a case of a nut going after those who he thinks screwed him over, and not terrorism.

Do you think the Alabama professor shooting was terrorism?
Click to expand...

I don't. She was upset at the people who denied her tenure. Terrorism involves also inciting terror. You can bet that IRS employees are more scared right now than before of getting involved in altercation, which was the intent of Joe the Terrorist, but not Amy the Nut. If you can point out to publicized writings where Amy the Nut is inciting more people to shoot university tenure committees, then she most certainly would be a terrorist.
 
tyr_13 said:
That's not what the note said. The note explicitly states that he wanted to spur more actions against the government.
Click to expand...
If the IRS wasn't after him there would haave been no incident. He may well have wanted others to take up his cause, but ultimately it was just his cause.
 
Darat said:
To make sure I understand you, when you said "A lone nut singling out those he thinks screwed him over is not terrorism." - the "lone nut" has nothing to do with whether you consider someone is a terrorist or not?
Click to expand...
Motive. Personal revenge.

daenku32 said:
I don't. She was upset at the people who denied her tenure. Terrorism involves also inciting terror. You can bet that IRS employees are more scared right now than before of getting involved in altercation, which was the intent of Joe the Terrorist, but not Amy the Nut.
Click to expand...
So Amy the Nut won't be in the back of the minds of those in position to deny tenure to other professors? Nobody in that room felt terror?

If you can point out to publicized writings where Amy the Nut is inciting more people to shoot university tenure committees, then she most certainly would be a terrorist.
Click to expand...
The motive in both cases was personal revenge.
 
WildCat said:
If the IRS wasn't after him there would haave been no incident. He may well have wanted others to take up his cause, but ultimately it was just his cause.
Click to expand...

If the US wasn't being a nation of infidels and imperialists, there would be no 'incidents' with extremist Muslim groups.


Wait, what?
 
tyr_13 said:
If the US wasn't being a nation of infidels and imperialists, there would be no 'incidents' with extremist Muslim groups.


Wait, what?
Click to expand...
Not even close.

Maybe you want to try again?
 
WildCat said:
I don't think it fits "B" at all. He was taking revenge against what he saw as a personal harm, not trying to affect policy.

Thus, destroying his home, plane, and even his life before the IRS seizes them.
Click to expand...

Haven't read his letter in a few days but it seemed an obvious declaration against the IRS i.e. a US Government system (though the IRS is a private organization [?] most of his anger was against the government, the IRS as the government's actor). He wanted to hurt the IRS, and he wanted them to change their practice. And if The Fallen Serpent is right, he wanted this act to resonate with other Americans and have them also stand up against the current IRS rules.

Did the professor leave a note saying she wanted the entire tenure system to be changed, of the entire country or even just that University, that a reason she was going to kill the administrators was that she had to stand up in the face of that corrupt system? That incident could be terrorism depending on her motivations, but they aren't clear. This plane-crasher's motivations are a lot clearer, and they're partially to affect change in government practice.

And how can you possibly say part B(iii) doesn't fit? "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and"

He wanted to massively destroy the IRS building in order to affect the IRS' conduct. There was a portion of personal revenge and hatred, but he was clearly thinking in some broader non-personal terms as well. Definitely a terrorist imo.
 
tyr_13 said:
It is exactly the reasoning you just used. It is the exact same reasoning that Jihaddist attack the US use.

How is that not close?
Click to expand...
It's not even close to "the exact same reason".

Did the employees of Cantor-Fitzgerald (and everyone else in the WTC) personally screw over OBL, KSM, and the 19 hijackers?
 
Dragoonster said:
Haven't read his letter in a few days but it seemed an obvious declaration against the IRS i.e. a US Government system (though the IRS is a private organization [?] most of his anger was against the government, the IRS as the government's actor). He wanted to hurt the IRS, and he wanted them to change their practice. And if The Fallen Serpent is right, he wanted this act to resonate with other Americans and have them also stand up against the current IRS rules.
Click to expand...
Bart Ross left a similar note before he shot himself in the head as he was about to be arrested for killing the husband and mother of a federal judge, but I don't recall anyone saying he was a terrorist at the time.

And it seems to me the only reason people are jumping on the "Stack is a terrorist" bandwagon is because he flew a plane into a building, just like the 9/11 attacks!1!1OMG!1!!!!

If he had walked into the office and started shooting I doubt we'd even have this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom