• 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?

Being a "lone terrorist" seems a bit counter-productive.

Lone Terrorist: I'd like to call this meeting of the Lone Terrorist Club to order. Any new business?

Crickets.

Lone Terrorist: OK. We have a suicide mission planned for the middle of February. Any volunteers?

Crickets.

Lone Terrorist: All right, then. Meeting adjourned, and remember, due to recent developments, March's meeting is cancelled.
 
The mistake people are making here is to think that someone who is a lone nut cannot be a terrorist. It is true that when most Jihadis are typically lone terrorists because they get support and encouragement and training from other Jihadis.

But some terrorists -- most American non-Muslim ones --are lone terrorists. This is not because they don't want or need help. It's because, some people's views to the contrary notwithstanding, while there might be a fringe of those who sympathize with their ideas, there are very few white-supremacist or anti-income tax terrorist organizations. There are a few (e.g., the "Posse Comitatus", for example) but they are small and far between.

Someone who is a Muslim nut who wants to kill infidels will not find it hard to find an organization to help him and encourage him. Major Hassan, the underwear bomber, etc., show this. Someone who is a Christian nut who wants to kill feds will find it significantly harder. Not impossible, as McVeigth's case shows, but harder indeed.
 
as i said before, unless the act is motivated by a mental disorder such as schizophrenia, depression, or psychosis, any violent act that is meant to intimidate the public or create fear should be seen as a terrorist act. lone wolf yes...but still terrorist.

perhaps we should have a legal differentiation between a terrorist act that is part of a conspiracy and one that is done alone without connections to a terrorist group.
 
I don't think whether the person is a "lone wolf" necessarily defines the act of terrorism. An act of terrorism can be committed by one or more people. If one fanatical person, rather than several, had managed to high-jack a plane on 911 and completed what Timothy McVeigh had attempted to do to the WTC years ago, s/he would be a "lone wolf" terrorist under the same definition the gov't used on all the 911 perpetrators.

And mental illness can't necessarily be used to disqualify someone as a terrorist. Terrorism is an act and some or other diagnosis is a whole nother issue. What's probably true is there are terrorists who are questionable as mentally ill, and insane terrorists. Arguably many terrorists, including this lone idiot, had varying degrees of delusional thinking before carrying out their idiocy. This lone idiot terrorist had been seeing a shrink.
 
ProbeX said:
I don't think whether the person is a "lone wolf" necessarily defines the act of terrorism.
Click to expand...

The Unabomber was a lone wolf, and also clearly a terrorist. He tried to kill certain scientists and tech-related people not just to end their particular work, but to scare away others from that stuff.

Terrorism can be political assassinations, as per the Unabomber, or just flat-out (mass) murders, including of women and children, both of which to cow people down from supporting this or that thing, and is not to force capitulation of the other side, which is often ridiculously out of the question. I suppose you could suggest they also target non-military people as well.


So was this pilot's effort just also try to scare people away from whatever?
 
I have to disagree with Wildcat here. This was a act of lone wolf Terrorism.
Having said that, I think the accusations that Wildcat is a bigot and thinks that only "brown people" can be terrorists are outrageous and straw manning of the worst order.
 
i think there are current-day political reasons for not calling this pig a "terrorist". Perhaps we don't wanna make him a martyr for the Tea-Party. Better just to label him a common criminal.
 
GreNME said:
His personal beef and political motivations are not mutually exclusive. He stated clearly and in premeditated self-written text that his goal was political backlash.



Then you should be agreeing wholeheartedly instead of moving goalposts and trying to avoid admitting reality. From his own final rant:
Click to expand...
Nope. It was personal. He didn't go after rich people, or tax-exampt church buildings, or "the government".

He went after ther IRS. He burned his own house down, crashed his plane, and took his own life while attempting to take a few IRS employees with him. his was a big "F you", as he destroyed everything the IRS could take from him including is own life.

There are also references of people dying or being slaves due to the system. His narrative clearly attempts to make his act about more than his own situation. And, yes, chances are he was rationalizing his planned irrational act-- this isn't any different than what other terrorists do to rationalize their actions, and if anything is integral to the twisted thinking it takes to do this sort of thing.



"I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of **** at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along."

Yup, WildCat, you seem to have summed up his views with razor accuracy. [/sarcasm]

The FBI definition of a domestic terrorist: "the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

All anyone here has to do to show your attempts to define it otherwise, WildCat, is to look at the FBI definition and quote Joe Stack's final rant. You have nothing, zilch, zip to base your opinion on outside of creatively ignoring most of Stack's own words.
Click to expand...
That Stack wrote a rant blaming everyone but himself fort his problems doesn't change the fact that this was a personal vendetta.
 
WildCat said:
Nope. It was personal. He didn't go after rich people, or tax-exampt church buildings, or "the government".

He went after ther IRS.
Click to expand...

r u saying this was NOT an act of terrorism?

this was just a personal vendetta against the government agency that "screwed" him?
 
He wanted to change policy using terror. If only there were a word for that.
 
tyr_13 said:
He wanted to change policy using terror. If only there were a word for that.
Click to expand...
And how was the public terrorized?

"In a way it was terrorism, and in a way it wasn't," said Ami Pedahzur , the head of the Terrorists, Insurgents and Guerrillas in Education and Research lab at UT. "It was targeted at a very symbolic place — the IRS offices; clearly the method was a copycat of 9/11; and the guy left a manifesto which seems to have some kind of political agenda in it. He wanted his message out, and he wanted support for his act.

"However, if we look at terrorism as aimed at terrorizing the masses to lead to political change, that was not his goal," continued Pedahzur. "He seems to be some kind of angered individual who channeled his animosity at the government."

...
But Michael Welner , a New York City psychiatrist who heads the Forensic Panel, a group of forensic scientists who consult on legal cases, said the attack was one of "spectacle murder" and not terrorism.

"The point of terrorism is to bring life to a standstill," Welner said. "This was not to cause fear in others but to cause rebellion."
Click to expand...
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/was-attack-an-act-of-terrorism-rage-or-257971.html

Says it better than I did. Spectacle murder/suicide seems right.

I wonder how the FBI will decide?
 
The plane crash is terrorism if you use one definition. The plane crash is not terrorism if you use another.

What are we REALLY arguing over? Surely it can't be just semantics because this forum is a lot smarter than that.
 
well, next time a Palestinian suicide bomber who had a personal beef with the Israelis, targets an Israeli govt. institution, I'll make sure no one here calls it terrorism.
 
KingMerv00 said:
What are we REALLY arguing over? Surely it can't be just semantics because this forum is a lot smarter than that.
Click to expand...
What we're looking at is the PC crowd feeling the need to call everything terrorism so that nothing is.

IMHO of course.

Oh look, parky is proving my point by making this into an Israel-Palestine thread.
 
WildCat said:
Oh look, parky is proving my point by making this into an Israel-Palestine thread.
Click to expand...

many Palestinian suicide bombers have actual grievances with the IDF or the Israeli govt. You seem to be suggesting that if one has actual grievances with a govt. agency and targets that agency with a suicide attack, then it is NOT terrorism.

im just following YOUR logic, Cat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom