So when exactly is it terrorism?

[The Fallen Serpent]

The way I have used the word terrorism I would consider murdering judges over a ruling to fall within my usage. Trying to separate out crimes by motive leaves gray areas and room for different interpetation. I am fine with people disagreeing with how to define it. I just feel most of us have been inconsistent and go more by emotion than careful consideration in determining where the line is. Partially because we want to disassociate our own actions from terrorism while clearly labeling others as terrorists.

Wildcat, the reason I find issue with your definition is because I think individual terrorists will more than likely have a personal reason to be doing what they are doing. They may be delusional, misled or whatever but I still think the various Islamic fascist terrorists had personal feelings about the US and felt personally threatened by the US in addition to thinking they were promoting their cause.

 

[Skeptic]

Certainly this guy was a terrorist, if a lone one.

I would say:

Professor who killed three a few days ago -- not a terrorist.

This guy -- a terrorist, but a lone one.

The five soldiers arrested for poisoning the water supply, Dr. Hasan shooting up 13 people -- terrorists that are (unofficially, at least) part of the larger Jihadi organizations.

 

[Darat]

Motive. Personal revenge.

...snip...

That doesn't really clear up anything.

 

[Thunder]

Unless the act is motivated by some intense psychological disorder, like schizophrenia and halucinations, I think lone-wolf politically motivated attacks should be considered acts of terrorism.

Home-grown yes, lone-wolf yes, unassociated with terrorist groups yes, but still terrorism.

The Austin guy sought to intimidate the IRS and the American people. that is one of the clear goals of terrorism.

 

[Skeptic]

For once I agree with parky.

 

[WildCat]

That doesn't really clear up anything.

Are you confused over what I mean by "personal revenge"?

 

[WildCat]

Unless the act is motivated by some intense psychological disorder, like schizophrenia and halucinations, I think lone-wolf politically motivated attacks should be considered acts of terrorism.

I really don't see this as a political act. He hated the IRS because they forcibly collected taxes from him. It was personal, not political.

Now, if he had did what he did because he was upset over how the IRS treated people in general, or certain groups of people, I'd agree he was a terrorist.

But to me it's obvious he was upset at the IRS because in his view the IRS was taking his money/property.

 

[Thunder]

But to me it's obvious he was upset at the IRS because in his view the IRS was taking his money/property.

pretty much all anti-FED/IRS conspiracy nuts believe these institutions are trying to take their money/property.

 

[Darat]

Are you confused over what I mean by "personal revenge"?

No - I am still unsure whether "lone nut" is part of how you define whether someone is not a terrorist.

 

[leftysergeant]

If a lone nut bar decides to take to heart something that an agitator proclaimed as the way to take back America, and perpetrates an act that might be considered an act of terrorism, it is terrorism, and at least as organized as a guerilla terrorist organization can be. That is part and parcel to the small-cell principle of terrorist organizing.

 

[jammonius]

A terrorist acts on behalf of others, for a larger cause. Not because the intended victims screwed him out of money/job/wife/etc.

This guy had a personal vendetta. It wasn't terrorism any more than the nutty Alabama professor shooting was terrorism.

wildcat,

Haven't you omitted consideration of the effect of xenophobia?

The factors you mention are almost never analyzed when the perp is Middle Eastern or African (as in Fort Hood and as in Underwear). Terrorism is assumed when the perp is Middle Eastern and a Muslim and little else needs to be established. Instead, every possible form of link, indirect though they may be, will be patched together to make sure a larger cause and a larger group are found and identified.

If the person is Oriental, terrorism may be suspected, but the factors you mention do get taken into consideration and are legitimately looked for, rather than presumed to exist. Recall Virginia Tech, for instance.

If the person is African American, the situation can go either way, depending on whether the person is Muslim and African American. When the perp is a white American, then, chances are, your factors (behalf of others and a cause) will need to be established pretty definitively before suspicion of terrorism can attach. Further, there will be no presumption of terrorist intent and no attempt to frame the person up as a terrorist.

I'm not sure how it's being left with Dr. Bruce Ivins. A couple of weeks ago, it was established that the FBI investigation was back at "square one" because the anthrax used in those attacks was too militarized to have been obtained by Ivins (it was from the US arsenal). But, just yesterday, it was apparently announced that the FBI had closed its investigation into the Anthrax attack and Bruce Ivins was the lone perp.

In 2001, the Anthrax attack was presumed to involve alQaeda and was used as a part of the justification for invading Iraq. Now, it has been put down to a lone person, even though the evidence shows it was a false flag op.

go figure

 

[boooeee]

It doesn't matter whether you call it terrorism or not. Really. It doesn't.

 

[jammonius]

It doesn't matter whether you call it terrorism or not. Really. It doesn't.

Hmmm, I don't know about that. If it is terroism, then, chances are, money will flow to the MIC so they can profit from the war against terrorism. If it's merely ordinary crime, then there simply isn't a lot of money to be made from it.

In each instance there might be a political aspect. If it is terrorism, then you get to blame dirt poor countries with predominantly Muslim populations. If it's ordinary crime, then you get to blame the party in power in the affected community of being soft on crime. There's more money at stake if it's the former as opposed to the latter.

 

[Tricky]

It doesn't matter whether you call it terrorism or not. Really. It doesn't.

It does matter to the courts. If it is ruled "terrorism" then it is automatically eligible for the death penalty. The Antiterrorism Act of 1996 was a response to a case very similar to Joe Stack's. Lone wolf. Grudge against the government. Planned for some time. True, McVeigh did have a couple of accomplices, but he wasn't a member of any organized group. He was a sympathizer with those who rebelled against the government in Waco and Ruby Ridge, but not a member. Joe Stack was a sympathizer with anti-tax zealots, but not, as far as we know so far, a member of any such groups.

Indeed, the McVeigh and Stack scenarios are incredibly alike in motive and politics, differing mostly in scale and planning.

Of course, since Stack is dead, the punishment aspect doesn't really matter in this case, but it seems obvious to me that if McVeigh was a terrorist then Stack was terrorist.

But I do agree with boooeee and others that applying a label to it is not that important. It doesn't make one more evil than the other.

 

[leftysergeant]

True, McVeigh did have a couple of accomplices, but he wasn't a member of any organized group. He was a sympathizer with those who rebelled against the government in Waco and Ruby Ridge, but not a member.

That is open to question. He was an associate of John Trochmann and of the Christian Identity whackos at Elohim City.

Actually, what he did had nothing to do with Waco, regardless what he claimed. He acted right according to the scenario in The Turner Diaries. Given his association with Christian Identity, he was quite probably out to kick-start the RaHoWa.

Joe Stack was a sympathizer with anti-tax zealots, but not, as far as we know so far, a member of any such groups.
But I do agree with boooeee and others that applying a label to it is not that important. It doesn't make one more evil than the other.

His motivation, given the suicide note, may have been to encourage others to take up the fight in his memory.

That is more evil than just going off on the government and murdering people.

 

[Thunder]

"lone nut" = Christian or Jew

"terrorist"= Muslim

all clear now? good.

 

[GreNME]

"lone nut" = White Christian or Jew

"terrorist"= Muslim

all clear now? good.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Peephole]

Is someone claiming McVeigh wasn't a terrorist? The IRA isn't a terrorist group?

That's just pre-9/11 thinking you're demonstrating there, WildCat.

 

[Thunder]

I really don't see this as a political act.

that's a pretty pathetic thing to say.

 

[GreNME]

I really don't see this as a political act. He hated the IRS because they forcibly collected taxes from him. It was personal, not political.

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.

Now, if he had did what he did because he was upset over how the IRS treated people in general, or certain groups of people, I'd agree he was a terrorist.

Then you should be agreeing wholeheartedly instead of moving goalposts and trying to avoid admitting reality. From his own final rant:

Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy **** up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

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.

But to me it's obvious he was upset at the IRS because in his view the IRS was taking his money/property.

"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.