Anti-tax domestic terrorism? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

filtherton · 02-18-2010, 01:02 PM

Pilot Crashes Plane Into Texas Building Over IRS Woes - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Quote:

Feb. 18: A small plane crashed into an Austin, Texas, building that houses IRS offices.

Feb. 18: A small plane crashed into an Austin, Texas, building that houses IRS offices.

*
*
*

A pilot furious with the Internal Revenue Service crashed his small plane Thursday into an office building in Austin, Texas, that houses federal tax employees, setting off a raging fire.

Officials are investigating whether the pilot, identified by authorities as Joseph Andrew Stack, a 53-year-old software engineer who lived in Texas, crashed the plane intentionally. Stack was confirmed dead.

An Internal Revenue Service office is located inside the building. About 190 IRS employees work in the building, and IRS spokesman Richard C. Sanford said the agency is trying to account for all of its workers.

IRS Agent William Winnie said he was on the third floor of the building when he saw a light-colored, single engine plane coming towards the building, TheStatesman.com reported.

“It looked like it was coming right in my window,” Winnie said, according to the Web site.

SLIDESHOW: Small Plane Crashes Into Austin Office Building

Winnie said the plane veered down and smashed into the lower floors. “I didn’t lose my footing, but it was enough to knock people who were sitting to the floor.”

Stack posted a suicide note to a social media Web site, ranting against the IRS, officials confirmed.

"If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?'" the note read. "The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time...

"Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer...

"I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well," the note, dated Thursday, reads.
Related Stories

* RAW DATA: Joseph Andrew Stack Suicide Manifesto

The small single-engine plane crashed into a seven-story office building in Austin around 10 a.m. local time Thursday.

Stack took off in a Piper Cherokee from Georgetown Municipal Airport in Texas at 9:40 a.m. Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Lynn Lunsford said the pilot didn't file a flight plan.

Harry Evans, an assistant chief with the Austin Fire Department, said one person from the building was unaccounted for and that two people had been taken to a hospital.

"There may be other injuries, we are unsure at this time," Evans said during a news conference Thursday.

The Department of Homeland Security said Thursday it does not believe the crash was an act of terrorism.

"This is an isolated incident, there is no cause for alarm," a spokesman for the Austin Police Department said during a news conference.

The office fire is contained and police said the situation is "totally contained."

President Obama was briefed on the incident.

Stuart Newberg, who was in the area right before the crash, said the plane was flying low and fast, according to The Statesman.com.

“It was flying low and fast and I did a double take," Newberg said, according to the Web site.

"I thought it was a play remote control plane. Then I saw the smoke."

He told the paper he thought the plane seemed “very controlled.”

In a neighborhood about six miles from the crash site, a home listed as belonging to Stack was on fire earlier Thursday. Two law enforcement officials said Stack had apparently set fire to his home before the suicidal plane flight.

MyFoxAustin.com said firefighters reported that the entire house was engulfed in flames, including the fence, when they arrived on the scene.

Neighbors said they heard a loud explosion in the house Thursday morning right before the house became engulfed in flames.

MyFoxAustin.com reported that a 12-year-old girl and a woman were rescued by a neighbor from the $236,000 burning house which belonged to Stack. The station reported that the girl is believed to be Stack's stepdaughter. Other media reports indicated that these individuals may have alerted authorities to Stack’s actions.

A neighbor told MyFoxAustin.com that Stack was an experienced pilot who owned his own plane.

The Austin American-Statesman newspaper reported several "walking wounded" at the scene of the crash. Paramedics set up a triage center at the scene.

Heavy smoke could be seen coming from the building at 9420 Research Boulevard. Several local witnesses on Twitter reported seeing flames coming out of the building and lots of broken glass.

Dozens of fire trucks were on scene and the building was evacuated.

Early reports that the building housed the FBI field office in Austin later turned out not to be true. An FBI spokesman told Fox News that the FBI office in Austin is near where the plane crashed, but not in the same building. There are some federal offices in the building, though authorities couldn't identify which ones.

The NTSB is sending staff out of Dallas and DC to the scene.

As a precaution, the Colorado-based North American Aerospace Defense Command launched two F-16 aircraft from Houston's Ellington Field, and is conducting an air patrol over the crash area.

Witnesses are asked to contact the Austin Police Department at 210-650-6196 with any information that might be useful in the investigation.

Click here for more from MyFoxAustin.com.

NewsCore contributed to this report.

The Statesman.com and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I realize that the facts aren't all in yet, but this doesn't look good.

I think this:

Quote:

The Department of Homeland Security said Thursday it does not believe the crash was an act of terrorism.

is interesting. I wonder what constitutes terrorism to the DHS? I'm no expert, but this seems to fit the bill.

In any case, I am interested to see how this will all play out, both in terms of what actually happened (and how the usual suspects in the media will react) and in terms of whether this will mark the beginning of an increase in domestic anti-government violence.

The_Jazz · 02-18-2010, 01:14 PM

I can't really fault the DHS for that quote. Who knows when in the process it came and whether or not the FBI had notified DHS about the blog at that point. And if the person notified had kicked it up to the top so that it could trickle down to the spokesman. Now, if they made that statement tomorrow, that would be something different, but only a few hours after the fact, it's a little unfair. It makes them look stupid, but since we don't even know when that statement was made, even that stupidity is only at face value.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

Interestingly enough, the government terrorism insurance pool is only for foreign terrorism on US soil, and it has to be certified by the Sec. of State, if I'm not mistaken. Domestic terrorism (which is what this would be) isn't covered.

If you read the blog before it got taken down, it's the ramblings of someone who wasn't all there. It's very hard to tell what his beef was.

roachboy · 02-18-2010, 01:32 PM

i thought pasting the good mister stack's manifesto here would be amusing.
the first sentence is presumably written by a fox news copyeditor.

Quote:

RAW DATA: Joseph Andrew Stack Suicide Manifesto

Thursday , February 18, 2010

Federal authorities are investigating the following Web posting linked to Joseph Stack, the pilot of the single-engine plane that crashed into an Austin, Texas, office building that housed IRS offices.

If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

How did I get here?

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.

The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.

Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.

On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.

The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.

In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.

Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer… and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.

For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (Synergistech :: Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (Synergistech :: Laws affecting brokered Independent Contractors' tax status).

SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.

(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.

Note:

Â· “another person” is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.

Â· “taxpayer” is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.

Â· “individual”, “employee”, or “worker” is you.

Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.

Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.

Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.

By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.

To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.

So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.

When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.

This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. 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 fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

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 shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)

02/18/2010

FOXNews.com - RAW DATA: Joseph Andrew Stack Suicide Manifesto - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

the good mister stack was a kind of metonym (a part that stands for the whole) for the tea party movement.....this text is an interesting statement of where that general cloud of thinking lands people.

he's kinda lucid and alot fucked up---but the alarming thing is the way in which the teaparty worldview streams this combination platter.

i'm not drawing any particular conclusions yet--beyond the metonym claim, which you can dispute if you like. and i'm NOT claiming that everyone who's sympathetic with that snippy conservative movement of sorts will fly a plane into a building. but still.....

Plan9 · 02-18-2010, 01:42 PM

Only law enforcement and the military should have [planes].

...

Yeah, our homeboys at the NTSB are usually in charge of mopping up these kind of messes. Even if they have to use tweezers.

I'd imagine victims aid may come from the state faster than the feds because it wasn't an "accident" per se. We've got a lot of OVC programs, stuff like ITVERP, to cover Americans overseas but not a whole lot for domestic terrorism because it's such a foggy thing. AEAP may be available.

...

Didn't some kid in Florida crash a Cessna into a building pre-9/11 for no good reason? Hardly terrorism.

...

One man's terrorism is another man's pointless loss of life and damage to property.

And this T-word nonsense is killing me. Blog ("Manifesto!") + (minor) violent act = terrorism? DHSigga, puhleez.

"Terrorist Attack in the Heartland: Boy with steak knife threatens bullies at school. Emo journal discovered in locker."

The_Dunedan · 02-18-2010, 02:02 PM

Terrorism...no. Terrorism is the use of violence against non-combatant targets in order to bring about an atmosphere of terror and force political change.

Assuming that this manifesto is accurate (and given our current Gov'ts penchant for "black bag" operations it may not be), an IRS building hardly qualifies as a "non-combatant target" in this whackjob's mind. The IRS is an armed agency of the State, with statutory powers to rob, kill, and kidnap people for what amount to grade-school paperwork errors. It's easy to see how a person, doubtless functioning under a great deal of stress and not gifted with great gobs of intelligence or discrimination, would do this kind of thing. Unintended consequences, as it were...but even the good Mssrs. Bowman, Kane, et al...made a point that it was stupid, counter-productive, inefficient and WRONG to go after the "worker bees." Additionally, he acknowledges that he will -not- bring about political change, so this cannot be his motive. Ergo, I don't think this could be called terrorism per se.

Suicide? Certainly. Attempted murder, in the hundreds of counts? Almost equally certainly, especially with regards to his attempts to burn down his house, wife, and daughter. It certainly indicates an unbalanced mind and severe issues with both target selection and impulse control. But I doubt terrorism.

dippin · 02-18-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Terrorism...no. Terrorism is the use of violence against non-combatant targets in order to bring about an atmosphere of terror and force political change.

Assuming that this manifesto is accurate (and given our current Gov'ts penchant for "black bag" operations it may not be), an IRS building hardly qualifies as a "non-combatant target" in this whackjob's mind. The IRS is an armed agency of the State, with statutory powers to rob, kill, and kidnap people for what amount to grade-school paperwork errors. It's easy to see how a person, doubtless functioning under a great deal of stress and not gifted with great gobs of intelligence or discrimination, would do this kind of thing. Unintended consequences, as it were...but even the good Mssrs. Bowman, Kane, et al...made a point that it was stupid, counter-productive, inefficient and WRONG to go after the "worker bees." Additionally, he acknowledges that he will -not- bring about political change, so this cannot be his motive. Ergo, I don't think this could be called terrorism per se.

Suicide? Certainly. Attempted murder, in the hundreds of counts? Almost equally certainly, especially with regards to his attempts to burn down his house, wife, and daughter. It certainly indicates an unbalanced mind and severe issues with both target selection and impulse control. But I doubt terrorism.

The pentagon and world trade center were not "non combatant" targets in the eyes of Bin Laden either (and Ward Churchill got in trouble for pointing out that precise idea).

Plan9 · 02-18-2010, 02:08 PM

So... based on the first part of your response, Dunedan... you gettin' your pilot's license soon?

...

And what a pussy. Guy totally should have used a bigger plane. Nobody is ambitious anymore.

Willravel · 02-18-2010, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the good mister stack was a kind of metonym (a part that stands for the whole) for the tea party movement.....this text is an interesting statement of where that general cloud of thinking lands people.

he's kinda lucid and alot fucked up---but the alarming thing is the way in which the teaparty worldview streams this combination platter.

I don't get that at all. What I get from this note is a sense that Stack's been getting screwed by the powerful, both public and private, and finally lashed out. Of course this reaction is foolish, and frankly won't do a think to further his cause, but I don't get "Tea Partier" at all. I get "poor". His direct attacks on GM, the Bush administration and the rich are anything but Tea Party.

One thing is for sure: this guy absolutely sucks at picking targets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Terrorism...no. Terrorism is the use of violence against non-combatant targets in order to bring about an atmosphere of terror and force political change.

Terrorism is the use of violence (crashing a plane into a building with people in it) against non-combatant targets (the IRS is not a military or intelligence target, they are unarmed) in order to bring about an atmosphere of terror (scared of planes crashing yet? You should be) and force political change (did you read his letter? He wants political change).

The_Dunedan · 02-18-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

So... based on the first part of your response, Dunedan... you gettin' your pilot's license soon?

So...based on this, you completely missed the parts where I described the alleged pilot as a "whackjob" who was "not gifted with great gobs of intelligence or discrimination," and where I described such actions as "stupid, counter-productive, inefficient and WRONG"? Or the part where I described his actions as attempted murder in the hundreds of counts?

Please. If somebody like me decides to take on the IRS, you'll know it when senior agency brass (not "worker bees" or everyday field agents) start mysteriously dropping dead. Until then, you're dealing with garden-variety morons, murderers and yes, sometimes terrorists.

Quote:

(the IRS is not a military or intelligence target, they are unarmed)

BS. They, like most LEO agencies, are armed to the friggin' teeth. This is a country where every small-town hick Sherriff's Dept. has a 12-man SWAT team with APCs. The FBI just purchased two NTW-20 20mm anti-materiel rifles last month. What kind of toys d'you think the Infernal Revenue Service has to play with?

Quote:

(scared of planes crashing yet? You should be)

Why should I be? It's a rare occurance, with or without terroristic/criminal help.

Quote:

(did you read his letter? He wants political change)

Wanting something and expecting to get it are not the same thing. The 9/11 hijackers were attempting to bring about specific political changes which they believed they would receive. Likewise the IRA, ETA, FARC, the Stern Gang, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Irgun, and other terrorist groups. This fellow's actions seem more to me to be an act of grandiose despair and suicide. He does not expect the changes he desires to take place: in fact he even refers to the fact that his death will insure such changes DON'T take place. This is the act of a psychotic or a depressed suicide, not a terrorist.

filtherton · 02-18-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I don't get that at all. What I get from this note is a sense that Stack's been getting screwed by the powerful, both public and private, and finally lashed out. Of course this reaction is foolish, and frankly won't do a think to further his cause, but I don't get "Tea Partier" at all. I get "poor". His direct attacks on GM, the Bush administration and the rich are anything but Tea Party.

One thing is for sure: this guy absolutely sucks at picking targets.

It's been my impression that "screwed by the powerful" is one of the central tenets of the Tea Party movement. I don't think it would exist if people didn't feel like they'd been screwed by the powerful. Obviously, most of them don't lash out.

The Tea Party mythos does do a great deal to harness and encourage a sense of persecution among its members. I predict that unless things improve economically for these folks, we'll see more of this type of thing as more folks get more desperate and lash out.

The_Jazz · 02-18-2010, 02:34 PM

Y'know, Dunedan, I was all ready to jump down your throat like everyone else until I reread your first post and got what I missed on the first pass - "in this whackjob's mind". With that phrase, you pretty much took the fight out of me. You're right - in his mind, the IRS seems to be the root of All That Is Wrong With The Government.

But that said, I think that there's a political bent here that just can't be ignored. As misguided as he was, I can't help but think of this as a terrorist act. A rather pathetic one in the greater scheme of things, but a terrorist act nonetheless. He's in the same vein as that idiot that shot up the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church last year during a children's play or The Weathermen.

Plan9 · 02-18-2010, 02:43 PM

Joking, joking. I like jumping down Dunedan's throat because he reminds me of my junior year Homeland Security: Current Threats and Response prof.

...

So... do we define terrorist acts by their intent or their results?

FoolThemAll · 02-18-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

(and Ward Churchill got in trouble for pointing out that precise idea).

From what I recall, he got in trouble more for his nutty phrasing of that precise idea.

Willravel · 02-18-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

BS. They, like most LEO agencies, are armed to the friggin' teeth. This is a country where every small-town hick Sherriff's Dept. has a 12-man SWAT team with APCs. The FBI just purchased two NTW-20 20mm anti-materiel rifles last month. What kind of toys d'you think the Infernal Revenue Service has to play with?

The IRS generally farms out for security, actually. We're not talking Blackwater, we're talking people with certified guard cards and walkies. In an emergency, they call the local police. My high school had more security than your average IRS building.

It's fun to pretend that the government has Jack Bauers at every government building with more than a dozen offices, but the truth is that kind of security is difficult to budget for. It's much easier for them to hire rent-a-cops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Why should I be? It's a rare occurance, with or without terroristic/criminal help.

We've just had a domestic terror attack in which a private citizen gets into a plane and flies it into something he doesn't agree with. In what way is that not supposed to scare people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Wanting something and expecting to get it are not the same thing. The 9/11 hijackers were attempting to bring about specific political changes which they believed they would receive. Likewise the IRA, ETA, FARC, the Stern Gang, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Irgun, and other terrorist groups. This fellow's actions seem more to me to be an act of grandiose despair and suicide. He does not expect the changes he desires to take place: in fact he even refers to the fact that his death will insure such changes DON'T take place. This is the act of a psychotic or a depressed suicide, not a terrorist.

Translation: it's only terrorism when it comes from an organization. That argument doesn't work, though.

Based on the note, this is cut and dry terrorism. He attacked a government building in a spectacular way with the intent of furthering his political ends. The only practical difference from the 9/11 hijackers is he worked alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

It's been my impression that "screwed by the powerful" is one of the central tenets of the Tea Party movement. I don't think it would exist if people didn't feel like they'd been screwed by the powerful. Obviously, most of them don't lash out.

The massive, bureaucratic government, the pandering liberal media, the ivy league elites and the Hollywood elites are the persecutors du jour for the Tea Partiers. I've never heard a Tea Partier decry private power like the richest Americans or GM or Wall Street. It seems those set this man apart from the conservative movements.

The_Dunedan · 02-18-2010, 03:07 PM

Quote:

So... do we define terrorist acts by their intent or their results?

Intent. Otherwise Richard Reid would have been tried to attempted arson.

Quote:

I like jumping down Dunedan's throat because he reminds me of my junior year Homeland Security: Current Threats and Response prof.

I will accept this as the greatest sort of compliment. My thanks!

Quote:

The IRS generally farms out for security, actually. We're not talking Blackwater, we're talking people with certified guard cards and walkies. In an emergency, they call the local police. My high school had more security than your average IRS building.

It's fun to pretend that the government has Jack Bauers at every government building with more than a dozen offices, but the truth is that kind of security is difficult to budget for. It's much easier for them to hire rent-a-cops

I was not referring to the building security, I was referring to the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. And if you expect me to believe they're -not- armed to their eyeteeth, when they're the bastards tasked with throwing people out of their homes and taking everything they own, we must have -very- different views of how Fed-level LE agencies "take down" their targets.

Quote:

We've just had a domestic terror attack in which a private citizen gets into a plane and flies it into something he doesn't agree with. In what way is that not supposed to scare people?

Because this sort of "terrorism" frightens only those people too dumb to realize they're more likely to die of snakebite or lighting-strike. It doesn't mean you play golf in thunderstorms, or leave your snakebite kit at home while hiking, it just means it isn't something to overly worry about.

Quote:

Translation: it's only terrorism when it comes from an organization. That argument doesn't work, though.

Ballocks. BS. Strawman. I never said such acts had to come from an organisation. By your reasoning, I would hold Tim McVeigh to be a non-terrorist, an hilarious and insane position to take. If you'd read my post -before- filtering it through your prejudices, you'd have realised that my point dealt with mindset. A terrorist commits his crimes in furtherance of what he regards as feasible political change. The alleged pilot in this attack manifestly did -not- regard the changes he desired as feasible. Ergo, IMO, he is simply a grandiose suicide with severe target-selection issues; more akin to Killdozer or Karl Drega than Tim McVeigh.

Quote:

I've never heard a Tea Partier decry private power like the richest Americans or GM or Wall Street. It seems those set this man apart from the conservative movements.

Then you clearly haven't been paying attention.

Baraka_Guru · 02-18-2010, 03:10 PM

Terrorism is one of those funny words. The kinds that are difficult to define because they're subjective: like freedom and justice.

I think, simply put, terrorism is the use or the threat of violence to support or advance a cause. Yes, this is subjective, but that's often the way of the world. We do not control how terror works.

Yes, even schoolyard bullies can be little terrorists. But I don't think they're so much of a concern to require entire state departments to monitor and act against them, nor do I think they pose a threat to the very fabric of nations. But that doesn't change the meaning of terrorism to me.

The meaning we derive from it is ultimately a question of scale.

Plan9 · 02-18-2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The meaning we derive from it is ultimately a question of scale.

Bingo.

And as is the case with the prevelance of today's "lone wolf" nutjobs (McVeigh, underwear bomber, this moron, etc.) that may (directly/indirectly) or may not (isolated) be inspired by larger "organizations," we have to ask ourselves: Has one man become an "army" in our eyes and is it justified?

I worry that the media has turned terrorism into a problem that requires the Ghostbusters and that DHS is following their lead.

ObieX · 02-18-2010, 03:32 PM

Sounds like a dude who got bullied and bullied and finally said "enough". The IRS was a bully and he gave them a bloody nose at the expense of his own life.

I'd have to say that this is NOT terrorism. With terrorism you pretty much have to expect something like this to happen again from the same person or group.. or really anyone else. This is probably just gonna be a one-off thing, unless it inspires nuts to copy-cat.

percy · 02-18-2010, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Terrorism is one of those funny words. The kinds that are difficult to define because they're subjective: like freedom and justice.

I think, simply put, terrorism is the use or the threat of violence to support or advance a cause. Yes, this is subjective, but that's often the way of the world. We do not control how terror works.

---------------------------

The meaning we derive from it is ultimately a question of scale.

Saying we do not control how terror works is plausible at the street level but I think many powerful governments in the world do control how terror works. But we at the street level do not see that because we live by the notion of good versus evil (us against them,..with us or against us) believing that terrorism is one sided and acted only against us. Many governments use and threaten violence to advance or support a cause.

And yes the meaning derived is a question of scale and also a question of intention.

Willravel · 02-18-2010, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

I was not referring to the building security, I was referring to the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. And if you expect me to believe they're -not- armed to their eyeteeth, when they're the bastards tasked with throwing people out of their homes and taking everything they own, we must have -very- different views of how Fed-level LE agencies "take down" their targets.

Have you ever been evicted for tax issues? My understanding is that the police are the ones armed to the teeth. And the police are not the IRS.

if you don't pay your auto registration, eventually an armed police officer will pull you over and your car will be impounded. Does this make the DMV a legitimate military target?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Because this sort of "terrorism" frightens only those people too dumb to realize they're more likely to die of snakebite or lighting-strike. It doesn't mean you play golf in thunderstorms, or leave your snakebite kit at home while hiking, it just means it isn't something to overly worry about.

I thought you said it was intent that matters. My mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Ballocks. BS. Strawman. I never said such acts had to come from an organisation.

Look at what you wrote. The subtext is so obvious a blind person could see it.

Give me an example of a single person not associated with any organization who fulfills your very specific definition of terrorism if I misread what you meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Then you clearly haven't been paying attention.

I've been to several Tea party protests and I have photographic evidence to prove it. How many have you been to? How many people have you talked to at actual Tea Party protests?

Baraka_Guru · 02-18-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by percy

Saying we do not control how terror works is plausible at the street level but I think many powerful governments in the world do control how terror works. But we at the street level do not see that because we live by the notion of good versus evil (us against them,..with us or against us) believing that terrorism is one sided and acted only against us. Many governments use and threaten violence to advance or support a cause.

By stating we cannot control how terror works, I mean that we cannot artificially reproduce the emotions associated with terrorism, nor can we ignore these emotions, nor can we associate other emotions with them. Feelings of terror cannot easily be forced into a state of happy thoughts—and some would argue it is impossible. Though we can reproduce the conditions that trigger these thoughts, and I think this is what you were referring to with regard to government actions (this applies, as well, to individuals and groups in general when it comes to triggering terror responses in people). This is why I said that it's subjective how we define "terrorism."

When a violent act (or threat of violence) is carried out to support or forward a cause, it tends to be terrorism when it works against us specifically (in most cases, both the violence and the cause). When it works to our benefit (and especially when the violence is completely detached, e.g. in a foreign land), it's not likely going to encourage a response of terror within us.

So, yeah, terrorism and how we define it is subjective, and it is a question of scale and, as you say, intent (or purpose).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

And as is the case with the prevelance of today's "lone wolf" nutjobs (McVeigh, underwear bomber, this moron, etc.) that may (directly/indirectly) or may not (isolated) be inspired by larger "organizations," we have to ask ourselves: Has one man become an "army" in our eyes and is it justified?

Nutjobs acting on the behalf of organizations and nutjobs acting in the name of organizations are two completely different nutjobs.

The_Dunedan · 02-18-2010, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Have you ever been evicted for tax issues? My understanding is that the police are the ones armed to the teeth. And the police are not the IRS.

No, but numerous customers of mine have. Your understanding is incorrect. Local LEOs may assist, but such actions are undertaken with the "authority" of, and accompanied by, an agent of the IRS-CID.

Quote:

if you don't pay your auto registration, eventually an armed police officer will pull you over and your car will be impounded. Does this make the DMV a legitimate military target?

Potentially. The military and moral viability of a target must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Quote:

I thought you said it was intent that matters. My mistake.

Again, turn off your filters, -then- read. Intent (including the known, acknowledged potential viability of one's desired result) is what matters in determining whether a given act of violence was Terrorism, or simple Criminal Assholery. The reactions of people unconnected to and removed from the attack or event itself are irrelevant.

Quote:

Look at what you wrote. The subtext is so obvious a blind person could see it.

Give me an example of a single person not associated with any organization who fulfills your very specific definition of terrorism if I misread what you meant.

I already did; Timothy McVeigh. If you believe the official version (a version propagated by an intently hostile adversary, at that), Mr. Mcveigh acted with (at most) a small group of conspirators to carry out an act of murderous violence which was perceived as potentially having the desired results. Another classic, perhaps -the- classic, is the Unibomber, aka Theodore Kaczynski. Other potential examples would be the Manson Family (and arguably Mr. Manson himself) and the "Helter Skelter" murders which were intended to ignite a "race war" and usher in Manson's utopia. Likewise Bufurd Furrow and the recently convicted anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder.

Quote:

I've been to several Tea party protests and I have photographic evidence to prove it. How many have you been to? How many people have you talked to at actual Tea Party protests?

At which you saw, photographed, and remembered those things which you wished to see, photograph, and remember. Your responses to this very thread bear out your inability to separate "that which you wish to see" from "that which is being, or has been." I see no reason to further respond to a dishonest question which exists only to validate your irrational prejudices. You will obviously discount whatever answer is given, so why should one be forthcoming?

dogzilla · 02-19-2010, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

he's kinda lucid and alot fucked up---but the alarming thing is the way in which the teaparty worldview streams this combination platter.

Oh please. Trying to associate this whackjob with the Tea Party group is like trying to claim that the SDS and the Weathermen were representatives of the left back in the 60's and 70's.

I have a couple cousins who have participated in Tea Party gatherings and I know a few other people who fall in the same category. None of us would blow something up or kill people any more than you would.

We're more likely to take out our frustrations at the voting booth than anywhere else.

roachboy · 02-19-2010, 08:38 AM

when i wrote that the good mister stack is a metonym for the tea party, i meant in the specific, incoherent kinda ï'm bad as heck and not gonna take it any more" kinda way...the way the rather empty sentiment "i don't like taxes" gets routed through some strange critique of the catholic church then to the modern state as such then to the republicans who were in power in the past---all of which/whom are equivalent somehow because they were either ways of thinking about or part of the Persecuting Apparatus...because that is the political core of the teabaggers...the sense of Being Victimized and Being Snippy about it.

that's the only thing that holds together the various groups/tendencies that are crawling out from under the rocks on the right.
where the positions differ is on the "explanations" for this Victimization.

in other words, i think this guy connected the dots that lead him to rationalize flying a plane into a building using a way of thinking that's emblematic of the teabagger perspective. what i did NOT mean--like i said initially---was that therefore all tea party people will inevitably fly a plane into a building.

but he clearly stages himself as a political martyr and martyrdom is theater so requires an audience and in this case the audience for is fellow tea partiers.
he came out of that political context, he operated in that context, he spoke to that context in framing his suicide, he is that context.

dippin · 02-19-2010, 11:50 AM

It is always interesting to compare the reactions to this incident and the Fort Hood shooting, and how completely different they are...

dogzilla · 02-19-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

It is always interesting to compare the reactions to this incident and the Fort Hood shooting, and how completely different they are...

As far as that goes, why haven't the Fort Hood shooter (or the underwear bomber) been executed yet? It's pretty clear that in both cases they committed the acts they are accused of.

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

when i wrote that the good mister stack is a metonym for the tea party, i meant in the specific, incoherent kinda ï'm bad as heck and not gonna take it any more" kinda way..

If it's legitimate to associate Mr. Stack with the Tea Party, then it's equally legitimate to associate the left with the SDS, the Weathermen, and the acts of terrorism those groups committed, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

Apparatus...because that is the political core of the teabaggers...the sense of Being Victimized and Being Snippy about it.

I don't know about you, but I get kind of cranky when I find out that I have to work until sometime in April or May to pay the taxman (combined federal state and local taxes and probably even longer when I consider all the hidden taxes). Then Obama and the democrats go on a drunken spending spree, ballooning the deficit over $1 trillion dollars for several years and now claiming they are going to reduce the deficit to only $600 billion by 2015. That several trillion dollars more in federal debt is something that those of us who actually pay taxes are going to have to pay back with interest. Unless Obama has a hidden diamond mine somewhere, that means my taxes are going to go up. No, I don't make $200K/year, but neither do I expect the corporations that are going to have to pay all those new taxes are just going to absorb them instead of passing them on to teh working guy.

I have to hand it to Obama. I used to be pretty politically passive, but the deficit bubble has gotten my attention.

MSD · 02-19-2010, 05:05 PM

While my initial thought was that this is an act of terrorism, I've backed off on that. Stack's manifesto and past actions suggest an obsessive personality guided but ideology. His actions in burning down his house with wife and child inside, then targeting a building that housed (according to Google Maps' result for 9430 Research Blvd in Austin) not only IRS offices, but the offices of over 60 additional unrelated businesses suggest the mental snap of a spree killer/mass murderer (which are manifestations of the same psychological phenomenon,) not the cold-blooded, ideology-driven actions of individuals we label as terrorists.

The_Dunedan · 02-19-2010, 06:24 PM

Quote:

It is always interesting to compare the reactions to this incident and the Fort Hood shooting, and how completely different they are...i

What's -truly- interesting is comparing the reactions to this and the recent Alabama Uni. shooting. The suspect was, in fact, a strident and aggressive leftist; an Obama sycophant to such a degree that it is described as "off-putting" even by her friends, colleagues, and family. She was an unbalanced and unstable personality who had already probably murdered one person, may have attempted to murder another, and on at least two other occasions assaulted others in public, yet had potentially escaped consequence through the influence of well-connected family. She then proceeded to go on a killing spree when denied tenure, possibly because she was even too partisan and obnoxious for academia (if such a possibility exists.) Her tirades in public, frequently punctuated (according to witnesses, not always reliable) by declaring her name and various degrees as if demanding deference due to Rank, seem to indicate a profound sense of entitlement as a member of an "elite," a common complaint against the high-handed and patrician tactics and objectives frequently attributed to the Left. Yet nobody calls her a left-wing terrorist; they label what she is: a whack-job. A lunatic of some very dangerous and manifestly vicious sort. Her grudge was against her department; she attacked her perceived persecutors. This man's grudge was against the IRS. He attacked his perceived persecutors.

The difference in treatment is telling, yes?

filtherton · 02-19-2010, 06:43 PM

Except that this lady didn't seem to be spouting off typical lefty rhetoric as a motivation for the shooting. She didn't write a long note on a website about how she was going to start shooting people. She didn't blindly target people who had nothing to do with her being denied tenure. If she was a real lefty she'd have organized a protest.

That and your conception of academia, while possibly accurate in some circumstances, seems like an outtake from Glenn Beck.

dippin · 02-19-2010, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

What's -truly- interesting is comparing the reactions to this and the recent Alabama Uni. shooting. The suspect was, in fact, a strident and aggressive leftist; an Obama sycophant to such a degree that it is described as "off-putting" even by her friends, colleagues, and family. She was an unbalanced and unstable personality who had already probably murdered one person, may have attempted to murder another, and on at least two other occasions assaulted others in public, yet had potentially escaped consequence through the influence of well-connected family. She then proceeded to go on a killing spree when denied tenure, possibly because she was even too partisan and obnoxious for academia (if such a possibility exists.) Her tirades in public, frequently punctuated (according to witnesses, not always reliable) by declaring her name and various degrees as if demanding deference due to Rank, seem to indicate a profound sense of entitlement as a member of an "elite," a common complaint against the high-handed and patrician tactics and objectives frequently attributed to the Left. Yet nobody calls her a left-wing terrorist; they label what she is: a whack-job. A lunatic of some very dangerous and manifestly vicious sort. Her grudge was against her department; she attacked her perceived persecutors. This man's grudge was against the IRS. He attacked his perceived persecutors.

The difference in treatment is telling, yes?

Please show me where she wrote a manifesto, attributed any of her actions to politics, or targeted who she targeted because of political reasons. Better yet, show me where she was active in any particularly left leaning organizations or forums. Sure, someone in Huntsville, AL anonymously said she was a "far left" person who liked Obama. But the connection between that (if true) and the shooting? Can you show that?

Of course you can't, because this is just more of the typical "omg academics are elitist left wingers," which tells me more about you than her.

The comparison between Hasan and Stack are much more straightforward: both targeted the organizations and their members that they thought were unfairly persecuting them or people like them. Both had expressed their views before. One apparently yelled Allāhu Akbar as he did his thing, the other left a manifesto. And yet the treatment was vastly different.

The_Dunedan · 02-19-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Please show me where she wrote a manifesto, attributed any of her actions to politics, or targeted who she targeted because of political reasons.

I can't because, as usual, you've misread and overshot my point by filtering it through your own stereotypes and prejudices. My point was precisely that which you have just made: SHE DID NOT DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. SHE IS NOT A TERRORIST, SHE IS A MURDEROUS WHACK-JOB, AS I SAID BEFORE. JUST LIKE THIS SCREWHEAD WITH HIS AIRPLANE. YET DESPITE THE FACT THAT NEITHER OF THESE PEOPLE BEHAVES AS A TERRORIST, ONE IS BEING ACCUSED OF SUCH AND THE OTHER IS NOT. THE REASON FOR THIS IS VERY SIMPLE: ONE WAS A LEFTIST, ONE IS A RIGHTIST, AND THE POPULAR MEDIA AND ACADEMIC DISCOURSE IN THIS COUNTRY EXAGGERATES THE TERRORISTIC POTENTIAL OF THE ONE WHILE DENYING OUTRIGHT THE SIMILAR POTENTIAL OF THE OTHER. THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT. TRY READING IT THIS TIME.

Quote:

Of course you can't, because this is just more of the typical "omg academics are elitist left wingers," which tells me more about you than her.

Based upon my personal experience of academia, a great many (though by no means all) of them are, and (again in my experience) the loudest and most strident of these were also those most likely to demand deference "due to rank," to become emotionally overwrought and irrational, at times to the point of hysteria and bullying, when argued against or contradicted in public, and to act in unpredictable and at times vindictive ways. They were also the most likely to "spike" people's careers due to political differences; a very popular Anthropologist at my Uni, an expert on Native Americans, lost his job when he rubbed the politics and "Noble Savage" stereotypes of the Dept. Chair the wrong way in public, and the only reason a similarly popular History prof. at the same institution still has his job is that his research makes him untouchable. This is all observed during my 6 years and two degrees-worth of coursework.

Quote:

The comparison between Hasan and Stack are much more straightforward: both targeted the organizations and their members that they thought were unfairly persecuting them or people like them. Both had expressed their views before. One apparently yelled Allāhu Akbar as he did his thing, the other left a manifesto. And yet the treatment was vastly different.

Because the cases were vastly different. If, as alleged, Maj. Hasan was a neo-Islamic totalitarian radical, he undertook his actions in a frame of mind within which his actions might lead to a desired-for political/social change. If he was simply reacting against perceived persecution, of which I have never seen any indication, it calls his moral culpability as a terrorist into question. The alleged pilot of this suicide attack appears, from his own words, to have despaired of even this possibility. His rant, though political in its' nature, betrays neither the hope nor the belief that what he intends will bring about whatever it is he desires.

Notice in particular that he never describes what he wants. Terrorists -always- describe what they want. Al-Qaeda and Muslim terrorists desire various religious and political goals which they openly propagate, as did Maj. Hasan if the testimony of his classmates is to be believed; so did the IRA, the Unabomber, Charles Manson and Josef Stalin. This fellow doesn't seem to have described a desired end, just a crushing sense of persecution and despair.

dippin · 02-19-2010, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

I can't because, as usual, you've misread and overshot my point by filtering it through your own stereotypes and prejudices. My point was precisely that which you have just made: SHE DID NOT DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. SHE IS NOT A TERRORIST, SHE IS A MURDEROUS WHACK-JOB, AS I SAID BEFORE. JUST LIKE THIS SCREWHEAD WITH HIS AIRPLANE. YET DESPITE THE FACT THAT NEITHER OF THESE PEOPLE BEHAVES AS A TERRORIST, ONE IS BEING ACCUSED OF SUCH AND THE OTHER IS NOT. THE REASON FOR THIS IS VERY SIMPLE: ONE WAS A LEFTIST, ONE IS A RIGHTIST, AND THE POPULAR MEDIA AND ACADEMIC DISCOURSE IN THIS COUNTRY EXAGGERATES THE TERRORISTIC POTENTIAL OF THE ONE WHILE DENYING OUTRIGHT THE SIMILAR POTENTIAL OF THE OTHER. THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT. TRY READING IT THIS TIME.

Based upon my personal experience of academia, a great many (though by no means all) of them are, and (again in my experience) the loudest and most strident of these were also those most likely to demand deference "due to rank," to become emotionally overwrought and irrational, at times to the point of hysteria and bullying, when argued against or contradicted in public, and to act in unpredictable and at times vindictive ways. They were also the most likely to "spike" people's careers due to political differences; a very popular Anthropologist at my Uni, an expert on Native Americans, lost his job when he rubbed the politics and "Noble Savage" stereotypes of the Dept. Chair the wrong way in public, and the only reason a similarly popular History prof. at the same institution still has his job is that his research makes him untouchable. This is all observed during my 6 years and two degrees-worth of coursework.

Because the cases were vastly different. If, as alleged, Maj. Hasan was a neo-Islamic totalitarian radical, he undertook his actions in a frame of mind within which his actions might lead to a desired-for political/social change. If he was simply reacting against perceived persecution, of which I have never seen any indication, it calls his moral culpability as a terrorist into question. The alleged pilot of this suicide attack appears, from his own words, to have despaired of even this possibility. His rant, though political in its' nature, betrays neither the hope nor the belief that what he intends will bring about whatever it is he desires.

Notice in particular that he never describes what he wants. Terrorists -always- describe what they want. Al-Qaeda and Muslim terrorists desire various religious and political goals which they openly propagate, as did Maj. Hasan if the testimony of his classmates is to be believed; so did the IRA, the Unabomber, Charles Manson and Josef Stalin. This fellow doesn't seem to have described a desired end, just a crushing sense of persecution and despair.

Amazing how you contradict yourself in the very first paragraph. If, again, it was only a matter of being a rightist or a leftist, where are her comparable manifestos, letters, etc? In fact, my initial comparison wasn't even about left or right, as i don't think there is any record of mr. Hasan being some sort of leftwing radical.

And everything you said about mr. Stack applies just as well to mr. Hasan. Which is why, again, it is such an interesting parallel. In fact, mr. Stack was a lot more explicit about his goals and reasons that mr. Hasan ever was.

The_Dunedan · 02-19-2010, 08:58 PM

Sigh.

I'm done. You're not even trying to read what I'm saying. It's like trying to talk Anthropology with a Klansman.

dippin · 02-20-2010, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Sigh.

I'm done. You're not even trying to read what I'm saying. It's like trying to talk Anthropology with a Klansman.

First, note that I did not at any point actually say that mr. Stack was indeed a terrorist.

I just said that it was interesting to compare the parallels between how his actions were portrayed and how those of Mr. Hasan were portrayed. In the latter case there were a few witnesses that he had a certain set of views regarding American policy, the non prosecution of possible war criminals, and certain possible terrorists. In the former, there was a very clear message regarding why he was targeting the IRS. Both cases were treated in the media and by the government very differently, even though there was the same sort of speculation that the cause of the actions was a lashing out against certain particular institutions of the US government, in reaction to certain particular policies.

And those are the reasons why there are parallels between the two: known overt acts or statements against the policies of the particular branch of government they targeted.

In this attempt to create some sort of equivalence between "right" and "left," you came up with these sorts of ridiculous caricatures of academics that, true or not, are irrelevant. I posted that there was an interesting parallel between Hasan and Stack because there is somewhat credible evidence that their acts were motivated by certain policies.

You claimed that Amy Bishop's case was a more interesting parallel. But other than the fact that they killed or tried to kill a number of people, you've yet to establish why. All you have is an anonymous source that claims she was a leftist, and a stereotype of academics. There is absolutely no evidence that her attack was motivated by politics, by a reaction to a policy, or aimed at a particular branch of government. So, other than the fact that someone she knew felt it relevant to mention that she was a leftist, politics has played no notable role in her decisions. This isn't to minimize what she did, but to point out that the reason people reacted differently to her actions is because there isn't really a parallel.

And none of this is to claim that right wing terrorism is any more or less likely than leftwing terrorism, or to embark in any of the sort of fallacious attempts to achieve some sort of moral equivalency/superiority between some abstract right or left. That mr. Stack's political leanings put him more to the right than to the left is irrelevant. Heck, he even seems pretty positive regarding communism at the very end there, at least in relation to capitalism.

The point I was getting at is the moral relativism of the definition of terrorism, one that is tied up more in the identity of the attacker than the act itself. Muslim/foreign, against American and/or Israeli interests or citizens, etc.

And this goes beyond semantics. It goes to current policy and debate regarding how to try and treat "terrorists," as opposed to criminals.

MSD · 02-20-2010, 05:02 PM

What a typical right-wing manifesto, all but outright demanding healthcare reform.

Plan9 · 02-20-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

What a typical right-wing manifesto, all but outright demanding healthcare reform.

Yeah, I was hoping for my racism / xenophobia myself.

02-18-2010, 01:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I can't really fault the DHS for that quote. Who knows when in the process it came and whether or not the FBI had notified DHS about the blog at that point. And if the person notified had kicked it up to the top so that it could trickle down to the spokesman. Now, if they made that statement tomorrow, that would be something different, but only a few hours after the fact, it's a little unfair. It makes them look stupid, but since we don't even know when that statement was made, even that stupidity is only at face value. ---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ---------- Interestingly enough, the government terrorism insurance pool is only for foreign terrorism on US soil, and it has to be certified by the Sec. of State, if I'm not mistaken. Domestic terrorism (which is what this would be) isn't covered. If you read the blog before it got taken down, it's the ramblings of someone who wasn't all there. It's very hard to tell what his beef was. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-18-2010, 01:42 PM	#4 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Only law enforcement and the military should have [planes]. ... Yeah, our homeboys at the NTSB are usually in charge of mopping up these kind of messes. Even if they have to use tweezers. I'd imagine victims aid may come from the state faster than the feds because it wasn't an "accident" per se. We've got a lot of OVC programs, stuff like ITVERP, to cover Americans overseas but not a whole lot for domestic terrorism because it's such a foggy thing. AEAP may be available. ... Didn't some kid in Florida crash a Cessna into a building pre-9/11 for no good reason? Hardly terrorism. ... One man's terrorism is another man's pointless loss of life and damage to property. And this T-word nonsense is killing me. Blog ("Manifesto!") + (minor) violent act = terrorism? DHSigga, puhleez. "Terrorist Attack in the Heartland: Boy with steak knife threatens bullies at school. Emo journal discovered in locker." __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 02-18-2010 at 02:02 PM..

02-18-2010, 02:08 PM	#7 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	So... based on the first part of your response, Dunedan... you gettin' your pilot's license soon? ... And what a pussy. Guy totally should have used a bigger plane. Nobody is ambitious anymore. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

02-18-2010, 02:34 PM	#11 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Y'know, Dunedan, I was all ready to jump down your throat like everyone else until I reread your first post and got what I missed on the first pass - "in this whackjob's mind". With that phrase, you pretty much took the fight out of me. You're right - in his mind, the IRS seems to be the root of All That Is Wrong With The Government. But that said, I think that there's a political bent here that just can't be ignored. As misguided as he was, I can't help but think of this as a terrorist act. A rather pathetic one in the greater scheme of things, but a terrorist act nonetheless. He's in the same vein as that idiot that shot up the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church last year during a children's play or The Weathermen. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-18-2010, 02:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Joking, joking. I like jumping down Dunedan's throat because he reminds me of my junior year Homeland Security: Current Threats and Response prof. ... So... do we define terrorist acts by their intent or their results? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 02-18-2010 at 02:46 PM..

02-18-2010, 02:02 PM	#5 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Terrorism...no. Terrorism is the use of violence against non-combatant targets in order to bring about an atmosphere of terror and force political change. Assuming that this manifesto is accurate (and given our current Gov'ts penchant for "black bag" operations it may not be), an IRS building hardly qualifies as a "non-combatant target" in this whackjob's mind. The IRS is an armed agency of the State, with statutory powers to rob, kill, and kidnap people for what amount to grade-school paperwork errors. It's easy to see how a person, doubtless functioning under a great deal of stress and not gifted with great gobs of intelligence or discrimination, would do this kind of thing. Unintended consequences, as it were...but even the good Mssrs. Bowman, Kane, et al...made a point that it was stupid, counter-productive, inefficient and WRONG to go after the "worker bees." Additionally, he acknowledges that he will -not- bring about political change, so this cannot be his motive. Ergo, I don't think this could be called terrorism per se. Suicide? Certainly. Attempted murder, in the hundreds of counts? Almost equally certainly, especially with regards to his attempts to burn down his house, wife, and daughter. It certainly indicates an unbalanced mind and severe issues with both target selection and impulse control. But I doubt terrorism.

02-18-2010, 03:10 PM	#16 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Terrorism is one of those funny words. The kinds that are difficult to define because they're subjective: like freedom and justice. I think, simply put, terrorism is the use or the threat of violence to support or advance a cause. Yes, this is subjective, but that's often the way of the world. We do not control how terror works. Yes, even schoolyard bullies can be little terrorists. But I don't think they're so much of a concern to require entire state departments to monitor and act against them, nor do I think they pose a threat to the very fabric of nations. But that doesn't change the meaning of terrorism to me. The meaning we derive from it is ultimately a question of scale. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 02-18-2010 at 03:12 PM..

02-18-2010, 03:32 PM	#18 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Sounds like a dude who got bullied and bullied and finally said "enough". The IRS was a bully and he gave them a bloody nose at the expense of his own life. I'd have to say that this is NOT terrorism. With terrorism you pretty much have to expect something like this to happen again from the same person or group.. or really anyone else. This is probably just gonna be a one-off thing, unless it inspires nuts to copy-cat. __________________ We Must Dissent.

02-19-2010, 08:38 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	when i wrote that the good mister stack is a metonym for the tea party, i meant in the specific, incoherent kinda ï'm bad as heck and not gonna take it any more" kinda way...the way the rather empty sentiment "i don't like taxes" gets routed through some strange critique of the catholic church then to the modern state as such then to the republicans who were in power in the past---all of which/whom are equivalent somehow because they were either ways of thinking about or part of the Persecuting Apparatus...because that is the political core of the teabaggers...the sense of Being Victimized and Being Snippy about it. that's the only thing that holds together the various groups/tendencies that are crawling out from under the rocks on the right. where the positions differ is on the "explanations" for this Victimization. in other words, i think this guy connected the dots that lead him to rationalize flying a plane into a building using a way of thinking that's emblematic of the teabagger perspective. what i did NOT mean--like i said initially---was that therefore all tea party people will inevitably fly a plane into a building. but he clearly stages himself as a political martyr and martyrdom is theater so requires an audience and in this case the audience for is fellow tea partiers. he came out of that political context, he operated in that context, he spoke to that context in framing his suicide, he is that context. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-19-2010, 11:50 AM	#25 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	It is always interesting to compare the reactions to this incident and the Fort Hood shooting, and how completely different they are...

02-19-2010, 05:05 PM	#27 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	While my initial thought was that this is an act of terrorism, I've backed off on that. Stack's manifesto and past actions suggest an obsessive personality guided but ideology. His actions in burning down his house with wife and child inside, then targeting a building that housed (according to Google Maps' result for 9430 Research Blvd in Austin) not only IRS offices, but the offices of over 60 additional unrelated businesses suggest the mental snap of a spree killer/mass murderer (which are manifestations of the same psychological phenomenon,) not the cold-blooded, ideology-driven actions of individuals we label as terrorists.

02-19-2010, 06:43 PM	#29 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Except that this lady didn't seem to be spouting off typical lefty rhetoric as a motivation for the shooting. She didn't write a long note on a website about how she was going to start shooting people. She didn't blindly target people who had nothing to do with her being denied tenure. If she was a real lefty she'd have organized a protest. That and your conception of academia, while possibly accurate in some circumstances, seems like an outtake from Glenn Beck.

02-19-2010, 08:58 PM	#33 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Sigh. I'm done. You're not even trying to read what I'm saying. It's like trying to talk Anthropology with a Klansman.

02-20-2010, 05:02 PM	#35 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	What a typical right-wing manifesto, all but outright demanding healthcare reform.