plane crashed in austin

netrox said:
So, how convenient that you ignore that he ALSO said, "But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change... I can only hope that the numbers get too big to be whitewashed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less."

Hello?!?! That's very much of a terrorist's mentality - he hopes that more people will do the same what he just did.

So sad you don't even think he's a domestic terrorist, considering that he intended to kill as many as he could with a clear political goal of his own.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make him a terrorist....makes him a Martyr
 
netrox said:
Businessinsider.com

REALITY CHECK: The Only Difference Between Joe Stack And Osama Bin Laden Is That Bin Laden Was Successful

REALITY CHECK: The Only Difference Between Joe Stack And Osama Bin Laden Is That Bin Laden Was Successful
Click to expand...

Ah.....some guy thinks he is a terrorist and says it in short bulletpoints.....Now I am convinced.

Like I said I choose to form my own opinions not follow the herd. His acts don't fit the definition of terrorism as I read it. I see a self absorbed whiner who thinks he got a raw deal from the government. Who wrote a wacky and rambling suicide note and chose to be weak and abandon his family. He wanted revenge. The unibomber and Rudolph knew as individuals they would have to strike several time to create the fear they wanted to create. Suicide bombs rest in the knowledge that there are others to advance the cause.

This guy created no terror. He was a nut that flew a plane into a building...An isolated event by an individual. Terrorists don't "hope" others will follow. They KNOW others believe the same way and will follow..

People were scared to get gas due to the DC sniper......First responders were in fear due to Rudolph. People feared unexpected packages due to the unibomber. People feared tall buildings and mail thanks to Al Queda. I don't think anyone is going to skip work tomorrow worrying that some nut is going to fly an itty bitty plane into their building, Not even if he had killed 100, because the threat died with him. That is why it is not terrorism.
 
IMO, no, don't think he was a terrorist. He just went over the edge....still a very selfish act he did. I've been fighting IRS (Internal Revenue) or "the Infernal Revenue"....for years! They keep saying, "this won't go away"...and I said, "perhaps not, but you can't bleed blood from a turnip." I just make my "little monthly payments", for an oversight in 2002, that was their fault for not informing me. Long story.
 
netrox said:
hahaha, i mean, seriously, it's so funny because we don't even have a clear cut on definition of terrorism! :)
Click to expand...
Yes actually we do have a definition on terrorism. I've already gave a definition of terrorism defined by state department in Fort Hood shooting thread. here it is again -

Definition of Terrorism from US Department of State
Definitions

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

* The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
* The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
* The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on US interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism.

/*/ For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following US military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, US defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the Labelle discotheque bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty US Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.
Click to expand...

netrox said:
Ok, let's see... violence is an act of terrorism so we know Joe did that.

Psychological impact and fear - we know that he's doing it for a psychological impact.

Political goal - we know he already wrote a manifesto for that - bombing a federal building with a plane that has accelerant fuel

killing civilians - we know he has every intention to kill innocent people

So, why is it not considered a terrorist attack considering that his manifesto is clearly idealogical?

Suppose he killed 100 people, is he considered a terrorist? Suppose we change his name to Mohammad and does it in name of Allah, is he considered a terrorist?
Click to expand...

he does not have a religious, political, or ideological goal in nature. and you actually call his note as manifesto? not a suicide note? How did you come up with that?

and I'm confused by your stance in this. You did not consider Fort Hood shooter as a terrorist and now you're calling this IRS killer as a terrorist? :confused:
 
All of us are now aware of the Texas man who yesterday flew his private plane into a 7-story Austin office building. Apparently, he intentionally crashed his plane into the building to target the IRS offices that were housed inside the facility.

As I am writing this column just hours after the event took place, there has not yet been a lot of time for the major news media talking heads to spin the story. By the time this column is released on Friday, however, I'm sure we will all have been inundated with copious references to this man, Joe Stack, as being "off his rocker," or similar assertions. Perhaps our friends at DHS will label Stack a "right-wing domestic terrorist." However, Mr. Stack apparently left behind a "suicide manifesto" explaining his actions. After carefully reading Stack's manifesto, I am quite convinced that he was not crazy, and he was not a "terrorist." However, he was angry.

A lot of us are angry--and for many of the same reasons that Mr. Stack was angry! While I would certainly take exception to some of the things Stack says in his manifesto, he said things that many of us are feeling.

Oh, Joe! I wish you had not killed yourself.

Long but good article link by Chuck Baldwin ...

Chuck Baldwin -- I Wish Joe Stack Had Not Killed Himself
 
He was more than angry--he was irrational and self-centered. Rational people can express anger in a non-destructive way. People who care about more than their own self-centered beings won't endanger other people the way he did. People who commit murder suicides don't care about how their actions impact others. They are seriously disturbed individuals. We shouldn't give any credence to their so-called manifestos. They are perhaps an insight to their thought processes but in the end, we shouldn't use their rantings as any kind of guide for own actions. If anything, they could be a warning to us to not focus on "oh, poor me" so much.

Whatever life's problems are, once a person "ends it all" the problems are only just beginning for other people their actions have touched.
 
Jiro said:
Yes actually we do have a definition on terrorism. I've already gave a definition of terrorism defined by state department in Fort Hood shooting thread. here it is again -

Definition of Terrorism from US Department of State




he does not have a religious, political, or ideological goal in nature. and you actually call his note as manifesto? not a suicide note? How did you come up with that?

and I'm confused by your stance in this. You did not consider Fort Hood shooter as a terrorist and now you're calling this IRS killer as a terrorist? :confused:
Click to expand...

As near as I can tell, he had a grudge against the IRS but at this point he doesn't appear to have any of what I bolded as a motive so I don't consider him a terrorist.
 
Reba said:
He was more than angry--he was irrational and self-centered. Rational people can express anger in a non-destructive way. People who care about more than their own self-centered beings won't endanger other people the way he did. People who commit murder suicides don't care about how their actions impact others. They are seriously disturbed individuals. We shouldn't give any credence to their so-called manifestos. They are perhaps an insight to their thought processes but in the end, we shouldn't use their rantings as any kind of guide for own actions. If anything, they could be a warning to us to not focus on "oh, poor me" so much.

Whatever life's problems are, once a person "ends it all" the problems are only just beginning for other people their actions have touched.
Click to expand...

Yeah, definely.
 
Back
Top