So when exactly is it terrorism?

[Skeptic]

living in poverty and misery,

How much was there in Arafat's Swiss bank accounts, again?

having to go through demeaning checkpoints daily,

That might have something to do with a few thousand dead your suicide bombers sent when there were no checkpoints.

 

[GreyArea]

...or eco-terrorists, are much more systematic and organized. There is usually a group or organization with an organized political theme or agenda behind the terrorists or acts.

Which brings up a new question: Where is the line between sabotage and terrorism?

Guess what England called those who supported independance in some thirteen colonies a couple of centuries back.

I don't think the term was coined until the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution of 1789.

 

[GreNME]

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.

This would make sense if being able to channel the dead were a possibility and you happened to be someone who could do it-- but you can't. Instead, we only have his words to go by:

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.

He expresses a clear desire to inspire more like action, and while they're avoiding condoning the violence (at least not officially), right-wing populist groups are eating it up. Whackjob politicians are attempting to capitalize on it (and King isn't the first). Despite your consistent ignoring of the resurgence in anti-tax and anti-government wingnut extremism-- which shouldn't even be difficult to identify after all the stupid Paultards in 2008's Republican primaries-- the connection to the growing populist anger is not only obvious, it's thick enough to cut with a knife. While it would be a mistake to make this about partisan politics-- Stack's confused and self-contradictory rant doesn't fall neatly into Democratic or Republican stereotypical molds-- the rant is still highly political, with a clear anti-government and anti-tax motif throughout. I'm aware that he also clearly uses his own experience as his baseline for his anti-tax and anti-government rage, but so do all of these groups who rally populist anti-tax sentiment-- they all personalize the problem to make it seem like the government is out to get them in typical schizoid reasoning. Stack's rant is no different, and at its core it basically plays by these nutballs' playbook in terms of reasoning. You're blatantly ignoring this in order to write it off as "personal." And despite what you claim, he did go after "the government" with his attack, and encourages more with his rant.

That Stack wrote a rant blaming everyone but himself fort his problems doesn't change the fact that this was a personal vendetta.

Bullcrap. If he'd have ended his rant with "Allahu Ackbar" you'd be singing a different tune and you damned well know it. You may not be calling him a hero like some out there are doing, but you're advocating completely ignoring the FBI definition of terror on this because the political reasons this whackjob used as his justification are currently being pandered to by one of the political parties in government.

 

[uruk]

Which brings up a new question: Where is the line between sabotage and terrorism?

I don't think that sabotage has quite the same connitations as terrorisim. A counrty or organization may proudly say that it engages in sabotage of an opponents plans but you usually you don't hear about a country or organization proudly proclaims that it engages in terrorisim.

I could be wrong.




[/quote]I don't think the term was coined until the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution of 1789.[/QUOTE] My bad. I seem to remember to have read a book where King George and parlament described the revolutionists as terrorists.

Again, I could be wrong.

 

[ProbeX]

The definition you get out of a dictionary

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." - American Heritage 2009.

Second definition: "the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization"

How is what this guy did not an act of terrorism in the "academic" sense, especially based on the contents of the guy's letter and his terrorizing people at the IRS by flying into them with tons of steel set to smash them into high hell?

Yea, but the type of terrorisim we are more familiar with are conducted by radical elements, such as islamic extremeists or right/left wing extremeists such as McVeigh or eco-terrorists, are much more systematic and organized.

I think you mean "the type of terrorism most reported lately". Here you have essentially admitted that Stack represents one form of a terrorist. And that is where we agree. And the focus of this thread isn't what type of terrorist Stack is, but whether or not he is one.

As I mentioned before Stack's suicide note indicated that his actions were more motivated by personal revenge than a political agenda. Stack just threw in the political mumbo jumbo to make his act of personal revenge something a bit more noble or political motivated.

You have no way of knowing he "threw in the political mumbo jumbo to make his act of personal revenge ... more noble ... ". Besides, for all we know, revenge is more a factor for most politically-motivated terrorism than not. Regardless, the point is, as you admitted, that it was terrorism in Stack's case. We have to look at his actions first and foremost: he had an anti-government message and transformed it into a violent political act of terrorism by flying an aircraft into a government-related building. All his words and actions satisfy the definition of terrorist (see definition above), regardless of what you think his "true" motivations were in acting as a terrorist.

A traditional individual terrorist may be pathological but his motives are still politicaly based. The act is done for an agenda greater than his personal interests.

And that is what appeared to have happened with Mr. Stack the terrorist.

Stack crashed his plane into the IRS building because he felt he was personaly singled out by them. He says as much in the first paragraph of his statement. The political mumbo jumbo was a red herring.

You aren't capable of mind-reading. You obviously hear "political mumbo jumbo" in that letter, but I hear the same thing when Hamas issues political statements about their acts of blowing up buildings. Killing a gaggle of people (or attempting to) with a "mumbo jumbo" political message behind it is still terrorist behavior.

Terrorists usually don't consider themselves terrorist.

Who cares? A person's terrorist actions is what makes him or her a terrorist. I could care less whether or not they identify themselves as terrorists or not.

 

[Thunder]

lets be clear: right-wingers who hate the IRS do not think it its terrorism to target the IRS for mass murder.

 

[ProbeX]

lets be clear: right-wingers who hate the IRS do not think it its terrorism to target the IRS for mass murder.

I don't think hatred of the IRS is just a right wing thang Parky.

 

[GreNME]

I don't think hatred of the IRS is just a right wing thang Parky.

Precisely. It's not necessarily right-wing or left-wing to hate the IRS. Now, it is worth noting that the more right-of-center party in US politics is pandering to the anti-IRS crowd, but that's not quite the same as saying that being anti-IRS is flat-out a right-wing thing. The same applies to most populist tropes (which again are primarily being courted by the minority party right now).

 

[psychictv]

If Stack was part of some group that was agitating against taxes, there would be a stronger argument.

So he wasn't a registered Republican?

 

[Tricky]

I don't think hatred of the IRS is just a right wing thang Parky.

No, not "just" a right wing thing. But it has a high correlation with right wing politics. Almost all of the Teabaggers are either registered Republicans or lean heavily toward conservative causes. Probably a high percentage favor libertarian sentiments, but in general, the are very very anti-left.

Speaking as one "leftist" who is in a fairly high tax bracket, I have few problems with the IRS. True, I'd make some changes if I were in charge, but I recognize that citizenship in this country that I love comes at a price. And part of that "price" is in dollars. I think that the percentage of us Libruls that share this view is far higher that that of conservatives. Do you disagree?

 

[ProbeX]

Precisely. It's not necessarily right-wing or left-wing to hate the IRS. Now, it is worth noting that the more right-of-center party in US politics is pandering to the anti-IRS crowd, but that's not quite the same as saying that being anti-IRS is flat-out a right-wing thing. The same applies to most populist tropes (which again are primarily being courted by the minority party right now).

Agreed.

 

[ProbeX]

No, not "just" a right wing thing. But it has a high correlation with right wing politics. Almost all of the Teabaggers are either registered Republicans or lean heavily toward conservative causes. Probably a high percentage favor libertarian sentiments, but in general, the are very very anti-left.

Speaking as one "leftist" who is in a fairly high tax bracket, I have few problems with the IRS. True, I'd make some changes if I were in charge, but I recognize that citizenship in this country that I love comes at a price. And part of that "price" is in dollars. I think that the percentage of us Libruls that share this view is far higher that that of conservatives. Do you disagree?

You're making no sense at all here. Just kidding. I agree with you

 

[GreNME]

If Stack was part of some group that was agitating against taxes, there would be a stronger argument.

From his rant:

"My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done."

And that was just his attempt to claim religious exemption. That doesn't cover his learning to try the whole "file as a corporation" scheme that he only mentions passingly later.

Seriously, guys: read the damned rant-- it's posted all over the web. Read it without the DailyKOS or LGF filters trying to interpret for you. The reason he gives the history is to point out that he's actively done these standard tax protester activities with others in the past, and been burned for it. He did the whole tax protest song-n-dance, got hit with his back taxes as a result, and turned around and blamed the IRS in typical paranoid conspiracy theorist rationale. He uses this paranoid rationale as his argument for doing what he did, and openly states that he hopes to be a martyr for this "cause" and to inspire others to do the same. It's all right there in his rant. Did he plan this out with others or come up with this act inside of a group? No, probably not, though if he did the FBI will likely find out and report otherwise. That doesn't change his clear connection to tax protester groups that he admits himself, nor does it change his stated objective for crashing the plane into the building where the IRS offices were. By the FBI's own definition of terrorism, this qualifies without question.

Tim McVeigh doesn't qualify as a terrorist because two other guys were involved in his plot. McVeigh qualifies as a terrorist because of his connections to anti-government groups (militia or otherwise), and for the reaction he hoped to get from the action (which he explained himself, though in different ways than Stack).

 

[Thunder]

its only terrorism if you like the person or entity that was targeted.

 

[ProbeX]

Nice touch Parky

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I'm sure many of you are already familiar with the actions of Joseph Stack.

If not, here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html

What I find peculiar is the way administration officials were so quick to point out that this wasn't an act of terrorism. The reluctance of government and media officials to explicitly call this 'terrorism' is documented here.

As a result, I have two main questions:

1.) Was this a terrorist act? Why or why not?

2.) Assuming that this was not a terrorist act due to lack of any evidence to prove it so, would we have been so reluctant to call him a 'terrorist' if he were an Arab/Muslim, despite similar lack of evidence?

Right wingers dismiss terrorist acts commited by right wing white Christians as being terrorism. It was without question an act of terrorism, but to the rapture right, white people are not terrorists.

 

[Mumbles]

Right wingers dismiss terrorist acts commited by right wing white Christians as being terrorism. It was without question an act of terrorism, but to the rapture right, white people are not terrorists.

That's not true at all. They also consider white people terrorists if they set bombs, and then decades later meet a black guy who eventually goes on to become a prominent politician.

 

[Thunder]

if the act is committed by a Jew, it is due to mental disease or emotional suffering caused by a previous terrorist act.

if the act is committed by a Muslim, it is due to the violent and extremist nature of Islam and Arab culture.

if the act is committed by a Christian, an attack against an abortion clinic or IRS office is NOT terrorism, while attacking a WASP church or GOP office is terrorism.

 

[OneShotKi11]

When are you going to provide the examples I asked for? I have no interest in arguing your hypotheticals.

This is one of the most annoying defense mechanisms used on the forums. As if it invalidates the POINT if an individual does not go out of his way to find one for you.

 

[tyr_13]

That's not true at all. They also consider white people terrorists if they set bombs, and then decades later meet a black guy who eventually goes on to become a prominent politician.

Oh, clap clap clap. Nicely done.