• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So when exactly is it terrorism?

Paranormal Inquirer

Critical Thinker
Paranormal Inquirer
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
282
I'm sure many of you are already familiar with the actions of Joseph Stack.

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

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

As a result, I have two main questions:

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

2.) Assuming that this was not a terrorist act due to lack of any evidence to prove it so, would we have been so reluctant to call him a 'terrorist' if he were an Arab/Muslim, despite similar lack of evidence?
 
A terrorist acts on behalf of others, for a larger cause. Not because the intended victims screwed him out of money/job/wife/etc.

This guy had a personal vendetta. It wasn't terrorism any more than the nutty Alabama professor shooting was terrorism.
 
WildCat said:
A terrorist acts on behalf of others, for a larger cause. Not because the intended victims screwed him out of money/job/wife/etc.

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

From his suicide note:

"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."

Hmm, larger cause - check.
On behalf of others - check.

Care to try again, WildCat? Yes, I realize that it was his own personal failures that he's blaming on the government, and inflating into a cause for others to join. However, a twisted take on reality is also not that much different from other suicide bombing terrorists, is it?
 
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the notion that this was a terrorist attack. If Stack was part of some group that was agitating against taxes, there would be a stronger argument. But yeah, it seems like this was a lone kook. Terrorism implies in my mind that there is a larger movement that will go on even if the individual terrorists die; see Black September, the Bader Meinhoff gang, etc, even the SLA. I don't see that here.
 
Despite the fact I use the word, I find that terrorism is problematic as a specifically defined legal term. Fear is a large part of many violent crimes. Using the standard of tying terrorism to a "larger cause" and "on behalf of others" ties in gang activity and organized crime.
 
JohnTheRevelator said:
I'm sure many of you are already familiar with the actions of Joseph Stack.

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

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

As a result, I have two main questions:

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

I see it as more terrorist than not. I consider one definition of terrorism to be attacking non-military personnel with the direct intent to change political policy.

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

How did you arrive at the point where you thought he might have been labeled differently if he were a muslim who ranted against the perceived unfairness of the IRS before crashing a plane into an IRS building?
 
I will have to do some digging about to find links to support it, but the talk on the progressive radio talk shows is that Stack was involved in tax-protestor groups before he screwed up his own life.

He was a terrorist and the dirtbags at CPAC who thought it was a proper subject for jokes are enabling other drooling lunatics like him.

Tim Pawlenty should go on a terrorist watch list now, too, after his joke about Tiger Woods' wife teaching us a valuable lesson about how to act when you have had enough.

These fools are going to have a violent revolution if they keep it up.

I hope they are in the way of the next terrorist act. They deserve it.
 
Arcade22 said:
Attacking the government or state is not an act of terrorism.
Click to expand...


Who says?

Was attacking the Pentagon terrorism?

Or the symbols of US corporate-state power?

Terrorism has dozens of different definitions, often depending on the definer's ideology.

Most popularly, it's a good excuse to take control of the huge tank of fossil fuel that many Muslims happen to live on top of.
 
JihadJane said:
Who says?
Click to expand...
I say.

Was attacking the Pentagon terrorism?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Or the symbols of US corporate-state power?
Click to expand...
Huh?

Terrorism has dozens of different definitions, often depending on the definer's ideology.
Click to expand...
Sure.

Most popularly, it's a good excuse to take control of the huge tank of fossil fuel that many Muslims happen to live on top of.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the invasion of Iraq was all about the oil.
188094b2d52bc5d842.gif
188094b75f85d8a1d1.gif
 
Why not just look at US law for the most relevant definition?

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2331

(my bold)

As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
(3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of
holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course
of -
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
Click to expand...

He fits A, B(ii), B(iii), and C. The only thing he might not fit is intimidating/coercing a civilian population. But does the "or" at the end of (ii) apply to just (ii) or also to (i)? Does he need to fulfill just one of (i) (ii) or (iii)? Or either (ii) or (iii), but also (i) in every case?
 
Actually, if I have heard correctly it is not even an IRS building. The IRS has rented offices in the building where oustide contracters handle collections. The WTC had a number of government offices in it. The WTC was also built by the government. It was as much a symbol of government influence in the corporate world as it was a symbol of private corporate power.

What exactly is the cut off between government and non-government in this definition of terrorism?
 
Dragoonster said:
Why not just look at US law for the most relevant definition?

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2331

(my bold)



He fits A, B(ii), B(iii), and C. The only thing he might not fit is intimidating/coercing a civilian population. But does the "or" at the end of (ii) apply to just (ii) or also to (i)? Does he need to fulfill just one of (i) (ii) or (iii)? Or either (ii) or (iii), but also (i) in every case?
Click to expand...

In the suicide blog he wanted his attack to spark action among the population.
 
GreNME said:
From his suicide note:

"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."

Hmm, larger cause - check.
On behalf of others - check.

Care to try again, WildCat? Yes, I realize that it was his own personal failures that he's blaming on the government, and inflating into a cause for others to join. However, a twisted take on reality is also not that much different from other suicide bombing terrorists, is it?
Click to expand...
No need to try again. A lone nut singling out those he thinks screwed him over is not terrorism.
 
JihadJane said:
Who says?

Was attacking the Pentagon terrorism?
Click to expand...
Yes, when you hijack civilian planes to do it. And it's a war crime to disguise combatants as civilians.

Or the symbols of US corporate-state power?
Click to expand...
"corporate-state power"? :rolleyes:

Terrorism has dozens of different definitions, often depending on the definer's ideology.

Most popularly, it's a good excuse to take control of the huge tank of fossil fuel that many Muslims happen to live on top of.
Click to expand...
9/11 didn't even accomplish that... how big does it have to be to "take control of the huge tank of fossil fuel that many Muslims happen to live on top of"?

Oh, I almost forgot you think 9/11 was an inside jobby job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom