Why isn't Joe Stack being called a terrorist?

[Andrew-Austin]

Just watching the news, hearing the police speak, hearing the thoughts of random citizens... It seems like the general consensus is that this is not terrorism.

How on fucking earth could this not be considered terrorism? Are you fucking kidding me? I would have imagined there would be no deliberation in calling it terrorism, that it would have been automatic.

An act of violence combined with his political letter. He clearly didn't just choose some building at random to crash in to with his freaking plane. (geee what terrorist act does that remind you of?)

Not only is he not being called a terrorist, I saw some people on the news (News 8 Austin) actually contemplating his motivation (practically empathy as to his situation), "what could have lead him to do such a thing". This is a completely different mind set compared to what is given to other terrorist acts, such as that retard with a firecracker in his pants. Try getting people to contemplate the motivations of the 9/11 attackers, dudes who also flew planes in to government buildings. People will say, especially more closely after the attack, "they are evil, they hate our way of life". Ignorant shit like that, its hardly politically correct to even ask such a thing. We all just know that foreigners/Muslims are not people after all (sarcasm), can't even begin to imagine their alien psychology..

Is it because this a white suburb dwelling American? Must he have an unusual and hard to pronounce name for it to be considered terrorism? Must the tragedy be easy to exploit for political reasons for it to be considered terrorism?

Discuss, I think this is worthy of analysis separate from the bustle of the other threads.

[angelatc]

Oh yeah, he's a terrorist. Did you read his letter? He clearly called for others to join him in his martyrdom - even McVeigh (who they called a terrorist) didn't do that.

[tmosley]

Probably because the letter was articulate and speaks to the masses of angry people out there. They'd rather people think it was a suicide and leave it at that.

Pretend that there was no deeper motive, and try not to make the guy a martyr.

[angelatc]

Probably because the letter was articulate and speaks to the masses of angry people out there. They'd rather people think it was a suicide and leave it at that.

Pretend that there was no deeper motive, and try not to make the guy a martyr.

But then why were the 9/11 attacks terrorist attacks, if they also had no especially deep motive?

[pacelli]

He's not from Saudi Arabia, and wasn't trained to fly at a US military base.

[RM918]

It's only terrorism if he was an A-rab or a 'right-wing extremist'. Obviously.

[dannno]

But then why were the 9/11 attacks terrorist attacks, if they also had no especially deep motive?

Because their motives weren't written in english :confused:

[Seanmc30]

Why is this guys label as a terrorist important? I don't get this discussion, could someone clear this up? To me it sounds like your arguing over the definition of a word, which seems about as useful as a bidet in a gorilla cage.

Am I missing some type of lawful action that comes with the word "terrorism" or something?

[Chester Copperpot]

I was thinking that the OP was being sarcastic... But maybe not?

[angelatc]

I was thinking that the OP was being sarcastic... But maybe not?

Yeah, I think we're media mocking. Imagine that - us being sarcastic.

[Andrew-Austin]

Why is this guys label as a terrorist important? I don't get this discussion, could someone clear this up? To me it sounds like your arguing over the definition of a word, which seems about as useful as a bidet in a gorilla cage.

Am I missing some type of lawful action that comes with the word "terrorism" or something?

I'm only concerned with why he is not considered one, rather than what the definition of the word is. Though it should be pretty clear that he fits the general definition despite any lack of clarity surrounding the term (unless I'm missing something here).

Tells you a bit about "people", that this emotionally and politically charged word is not applied to him.


I was thinking that the OP was being sarcastic... But maybe not?

Sure. I mean I heard one of the cop guys refer to him as a criminal. Sure sure hes a criminal alright, can't disagree with that. But why are some people "terrorists", who could have very well done the same exact shit he just did, not called criminals?

This thread is just about in your face bullshit.

[JK/SEA]

Hey, people get mad at the IRS and act out. Go figure.

Next.

[UtahApocalypse]

Not a Muslim

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

How on fucking earth could this not be considered terrorism? Are you fucking kidding me? I would have imagined there would be no deliberation in calling it terrorism, that it would have been automatic.


Because it's not a threat to Israel.

[Maverick]

There's a media meme going on here. The use of the word "terrorist" usually flows freely in the mainstream media in a case such as this. The absence of that word in the media right now is strange to say the least. In fact, it was one of the first things pointed out to me by a friend of mine who first told me about the incident.

What it means, I don't know, but it's an odd exclusion.

[pcosmar]

Because if they label him as a "terrorist", millions of Americans that secretly sympathize with him and hate the IRS will rethink the term/label "terrorist".

The term would lose it's effect.

[xd9fan]

Probably because the letter was articulate and speaks to the masses of angry people out there. They'd rather people think it was a suicide and leave it at that.

Pretend that there was no deeper motive, and try not to make the guy a martyr.

yep this is it

[Minlawc]

The officer I heard speaking on CNN seemed not to believe in the term 'terrorism', which I agree with. As he pointed out in the press conference, all criminals could potentially be called terrorist. The federal government may still call it a terrorist attack.

[moostraks]

Because if they label him as a "terrorist", millions of Americans that secretly sympathize with him and hate the IRS will rethink the term/label "terrorist".

The term would lose it's effect.


I think you are spot on with this!

I, for the life of me, could not figure out why McVeigh was a terrorist but this guy is not being branded one. Your idea seems highly plausible.

[moostraks]

Probably because the letter was articulate and speaks to the masses of angry people out there. They'd rather people think it was a suicide and leave it at that.

Pretend that there was no deeper motive, and try not to make the guy a martyr.

well said...

[Andrew-Austin]

Okay this just in the news just quoted a Congressman Joe Degrass (spelling?) who did call it terrorism.

I'm glad we have gotten word from one of our elected officials. The police are still saying it wasn't terrorism, perhaps with the intentions of just ensuring people don't freak out.

Congressman Joe whoever said something along the lines of "this was an act of terrorism, we have criminals who commit terrorism on our streets everyday, call it what you will but"...

[angelatc]

The officer I heard speaking on CNN seemed not to believe in the term 'terrorism', which I agree with. As he pointed out in the press conference, all criminals could potentially be called terrorist. The federal government may still call it a terrorist attack.

That's only half true:

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.


terrorism:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

[GunnyFreedom]

The Obamatons in the comments at huffpo are grousing that this guy is not being called a terrorist, and speculating that it was because he was a "conservative" and they are blaming it on the tea parties :rolleyes:

[Justin D]

Did anyone here read his suicide note?

[GunnyFreedom]

Did anyone here read his suicide note?

yes.

[puppetmaster]

That's only half true:

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.


terrorism:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Hey...I think that describes the IRS to a tee! In fact probably on the job application

[BuddyRey]

I guess it's because he didn't actually kill anybody (other than himself), but it could also have something to do with him quoting Karl Marx in his letter, since CNN wants us to believe that all domestic terrorists are "right-wing Teabaggers."

[DjLoTi]

The dude flew a plane into an IRS building. He called others to follow his lead (just learned that in here (???))

Andrew-Austin, I also live in Austin, and am watching the local news. I totally agree with you, this seems like the definition of 'terrorism'. That's why I hate 'the war on terrorism'. Who defines terrorism? Crazy day for us Austinites =P

[TastyWheat]

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. He wasn't trying to frighten people (except maybe the government) he was trying to destroy the object of his frustration and hatred. If he jumped out of a plane and landed on that building without pulling his chute would that be terrorism? Is it terrorism if he straps fireworks to his chest and lights himself up in the lobby? Is it terrorism if he fires one round at the building then kills himself?

Terrorism doesn't have to do with the magnitude of damage or explosions, it's all about the purpose and the motivation.

[silus]

This incident is a good example of pointing out the double standard in many conservatives/republicans. Specifically those that attempt to empathize with this mans motives as partially originating from his frustration and anger at corruption in government....

Using their language... They are blaming America. They are making excuses for terrorists. They are saying America is the one responsible for a vicious suicide attack.

Blowback exists.

[Trigonx]

This incident is a good example of pointing out the double standard in many conservatives/republicans. Specifically those that attempt to empathize with this mans motives as partially originating from his frustration and anger at corruption in government....

Using their language... They are blaming America. They are making excuses for terrorists. They are saying America is the one responsible for a vicious suicide attack.

Blowback exists.



shhhhhh..... go back to sleep, leave the thinking up to the government please.

[ARealConservative]

Because if they label him as a "terrorist", millions of Americans that secretly sympathize with him and hate the IRS will rethink the term/label "terrorist".

The term would lose it's effect.

nailed it

[Danke]

Hey...I think that describes the IRS to a tee! In fact probably on the job application

Probably why they are having a hard time calling him a terrorist. Terrorist don't attack terrorists. ;)

[pacelli]

To me it sounds like your arguing over the definition of a word, which seems about as useful as a bidet in a gorilla cage.


Welcome to Ron Paul Forums 2.0 .. :D

[LibForestPaul]

There's a media meme going on here. The use of the word "terrorist" usually flows freely in the mainstream media in a case such as this. The absence of that word in the media right now is strange to say the least. In fact, it was one of the first things pointed out to me by a friend of mine who first told me about the incident.

What it means, I don't know, but it's an odd exclusion.

1. Because he has actually links to other organizations and they do not want to arouse suspicion in those organizations?
2. Because by not labeling it a terrorist act, certain Federal Agencies are kept out of the investigation?
This of course leads to, why would one group in the government want to keep out another group?
1a. Because this man's death was not a suicide?
2a. Because certain members in the government orchestrated this attack?

[NoHero]

I really respect these Austin cops. They also called the 24hr MSMsirresponsible for speculating terrorism before anyone knew what was going on. I think if the communist quote had not have been in the suicide letter, Olbermann would have a TEABAG TERROR crawl at the bottom of the screen right now. Also, this thread is so full of logical win that I am proud to be on these forums.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Because if they label him as a "terrorist", millions of Americans that secretly sympathize with him and hate the IRS will rethink the term/label "terrorist".

The term would lose it's effect.


paradigm: Why isn't the IRS being called terrorism/terrorist?

[jmdrake]

Probably because the letter was articulate and speaks to the masses of angry people out there. They'd rather people think it was a suicide and leave it at that.

Pretend that there was no deeper motive, and try not to make the guy a martyr.

^ This


He's not from Saudi Arabia, and wasn't trained to fly at a US military base.

^ And this.....

The fact that there trying to hide the terrorism angle means that it probably wasn't a false flag and they aren't going to try to capitalize on it. (At least I hope they don't).

[HenryAlan]

Why would you want him to be classified as a terrorist.

[silus]

Why would you want him to be classified as a terrorist.
Cause he flew a plane into a building. :rolleyes:

[DjLoTi]

Honestly it happened about 5 miles from my apt., and I'm a little freaked out. Maybe I shouldn't be overly sensitive to this kind of stuff, but I'm a little scared about the collapse of social order and ensuing chaos. I really think it's going to happen soon (er then later..)

[Andrew-Austin]

Honestly it happened about 5 miles from my apt., and I'm a little freaked out. Maybe I shouldn't be overly sensitive to this kind of stuff, but I'm a little scared about the collapse of social order and ensuing chaos. I really think it's going to happen soon (er then later..)

Where is this island of yours in upper Austin? :p

It looks nice I should like to visit a piece of Fiji without flying round the world.

Yeah I was thinking the plane could have flown over my apartment or near by it.

[cajuncocoa]

I really respect these Austin cops. They also called the 24hr MSMsirresponsible for speculating terrorism before anyone knew what was going on. I think if the communist quote had not have been in the suicide letter, Olbermann would have a TEABAG TERROR crawl at the bottom of the screen right now. Also, this thread is so full of logical win that I am proud to be on these forums.

LOL...you mean he didn't?

I told my husband this afternoon that Olbermann would label this guy the TeaBag Terrorist (before I read the suicide note though).

I don't watch Olbermann (he makes my head hurt) so I didn't get to find out if I was right or not.

[RyanRSheets]

I've been trying to get the Muslim haters to answer this question for me all day. By the legal definition, he was absolutely a terrorist. His motives were a result of domestic policy rather than foreign. If more people do like him, it will be a very real threat to the average American as they will be collateral damage.

[scoot87]

He is a terrorist in that he is trying to bring terror to the US Govt

[Rael]

Probably because so many people can relate to his frustration. Few people in this country identify with Muslims and especially with Muslim terrorists.

[Athan]

Just watching the news, hearing the police speak, hearing the thoughts of random citizens... It seems like the general consensus is that this is not terrorism.

How on fucking earth could this not be considered terrorism? Are you fucking kidding me? I would have imagined there would be no deliberation in calling it terrorism, that it would have been automatic.

You've obviously never dealt with the irs the way he did. This event is like terrorizing the terrorist.

[RyanRSheets]

Are you kidding me? How is this not terrorism?

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told a pool reporter that that President Barack Obama was briefed on the crash by his top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, who told him that it does not appear to be terrorism.

That's just ridiculous. From a legal standpoint, this is the definition of terrorism. If they disagree, they had better change that very flawed definition.

[newbitech]

Because if they label him as a "terrorist", millions of Americans that secretly sympathize with him and hate the IRS will rethink the term/label "terrorist".

The term would lose it's effect.


this

[theclip]

A person rammed an aircraft into a building and he's not a terrorist?!1
wtf!

him attacking and shooting an IRS agent would have been a different scenario but this is exactly terrorism.


edit: or maybe they are trying to invent a new label which will include both Ron Paul supporters and him.

[IPSecure]

If this guy was so broke, where did he come up with money and time to go to flight school?

Where did he have enough money to buy or rent a plane?

Will the IRS look at the reasons why they were attacked?

Will the IRS change their ways to prevent others from doing this?

[Pants]

terrorist? I would say he was. Is this any different than someone who doesn't like the Government in Iraq and blows himself up in front of a Mosque? I didn't read the entire Manifesto, it looked like the ramblings of a guy who had a life of being down on his luck.. And not knowing which way to turn. While I sympathize, it is quite sad he had to resort to this.

Thank God he only killed himself.

I personally think there are a lot of angry people. No its not teabag terrorism. Its people who lost everything, and have nothing left to lose. For a person living in a tent city in California, jail will mean food and shelter. But we're at a time when our infrastructure is crumbling from within.. Many communities having no choice but to slash jobs in Law enforcement and other services. We have angry people, no money for law enforcement, and no sign of recovery in the immediate future.

If anything the Tea Baggers have been trying to help fix this problem before it goes completely out of control.

[anaconda]

The NWO is taking the "mentally ill" approach this time. Just another tactic. There is so much anti-government sentiment right now that there is a real risk that he could become a martyr of the Tea Partiers. Instead they will brand him as an unfortunate deranged soul because of his hatred for our wonderful tax system.

[ScoutsHonor]

Who wrote his suicide note - Peggy Noonan? ;)

[DjLoTi]

Where is this island of yours in upper Austin? :p

It looks nice I should like to visit a piece of Fiji without flying round the world.

Yeah I was thinking the plane could have flown over my apartment or near by it.

You should check out my topic called 'talking to girls' you'll see where my island's at ;-)

But yeah I heard the same thing, dude would be flying over my apt in about 5 hours if it happened today.

I'm still awake, I'm totally watching whats going on. It really interests me. This weekend I'mma crash and do school work n the right thing but till friday afternoon it ain't the weekend ;-)

:) I guess I'm a nocturnal person =P but it'd be a lot better since most the crazy shit like this happens during the day. I guess I'm not always thinkin someone's gonna fly a plane into a building near-by where I live.

I mean I guess Austin it's Texas it's gonna happen it's crazy down here... but wow it's just ... amazing really it is.

[paulitics]

I agree. This was terrorism.

[MelissaWV]

Terrorism isn't about what happened... it's about the impact of what happened. After 9/11, people were wary of being at "targets" and flying. After the anthrax situation, buildings were closed down every time there was a little bit of white powder found, and mail was handled with ridiculous care. During the DC Sniper attacks, people were afraid to pump gas or be in the "wrong place."

After this, I really don't think people are going to be afraid to go work in a squat building housing Government employees. I don't think anyone's going to be more likely to quit the IRS because they're scared of being killed (well, unless they read this board). If it happens again, and again, you might see a real undercurrent of fear.

At least, that's my two cents, but I'm obviously at odds with the 'official definition' of terrorism.

[ARealConservative]

Terrorism isn't about what happened... it's about the impact of what happened. After 9/11, people were wary of being at "targets" and flying. After the anthrax situation, buildings were closed down every time there was a little bit of white powder found, and mail was handled with ridiculous care. During the DC Sniper attacks, people were afraid to pump gas or be in the "wrong place."

After this, I really don't think people are going to be afraid to go work in a squat building housing Government employees. I don't think anyone's going to be more likely to quit the IRS because they're scared of being killed (well, unless they read this board). If it happens again, and again, you might see a real undercurrent of fear.

At least, that's my two cents, but I'm obviously at odds with the 'official definition' of terrorism.

so it isn't terrorism if it isn't effective?

I don't think I can agree with that.

[paulitics]

Terrorism isn't about what happened... it's about the impact of what happened. After 9/11, people were wary of being at "targets" and flying. After the anthrax situation, buildings were closed down every time there was a little bit of white powder found, and mail was handled with ridiculous care. During the DC Sniper attacks, people were afraid to pump gas or be in the "wrong place."

After this, I really don't think people are going to be afraid to go work in a squat building housing Government employees. I don't think anyone's going to be more likely to quit the IRS because they're scared of being killed (well, unless they read this board). If it happens again, and again, you might see a real undercurrent of fear.

At least, that's my two cents, but I'm obviously at odds with the 'official definition' of terrorism.

People weren't afraid to work in a federal building after McVeigh either.

[MelissaWV]

so it isn't terrorism if it isn't effective?

I don't think I can agree with that.

No, it isn't terrorism if it doesn't have an effect on people. The guy on the plane at Christmas? It changed things for people, and may change things further on down the line even more. Terrorism.

Like it or not, terrorism is not a classification of violence like "manslaughter" versus "murder," but is instead an evaluation of the psychological impact. Did the violence towards abortion clinics make women think twice about getting an abortion? Did they make doctors feel they should get security/protection? Did some people change careers?

Do the actions of the DEA, including the raids, the unjustified overuse of violence, the undue confiscation of property, the stigma the Government makes sure follows you if they decide you are a "drug dealer"... that which is above and beyond what's written down in the laws to begin with... do those things change how people behave? Oh yes.

It's the way the violence is processed by our society, by our habits, that makes it terrorism. The ultimate goal is to make people afraid, and to use that fear to an advantage.

[pcosmar]

People weren't afraid to work in a federal building after McVeigh either.

:confused:
That is because Mc Veigh was not a terrorist either.
He was a government employee.
Terrorism is a propaganda construct. It is a "made up" term.


Because if they label him as a "terrorist", millions of Americans that secretly sympathize with him and hate the IRS will rethink the term/label "terrorist".

The term would lose it's effect.

[Petar]

:confused:
That is because Mc Veigh was not a terrorist either.
He was a government employee.
Terrorism is a propaganda construct. It is a "made up" term.

According to my own research, McVey was a stooge of criminal elements of the government, but also a terrorist himself.

Terrorism is simply an attack against civilians for a political purpose.

Joe Stack is very obviously a terrorist as well.

[ARealConservative]

No, it isn't terrorism if it doesn't have an effect on people. The guy on the plane at Christmas? It changed things for people, and may change things further on down the line even more. Terrorism.

Like it or not, terrorism is not a classification of violence like "manslaughter" versus "murder," but is instead an evaluation of the psychological impact. Did the violence towards abortion clinics make women think twice about getting an abortion? Did they make doctors feel they should get security/protection? Did some people change careers?

Do the actions of the DEA, including the raids, the unjustified overuse of violence, the undue confiscation of property, the stigma the Government makes sure follows you if they decide you are a "drug dealer"... that which is above and beyond what's written down in the laws to begin with... do those things change how people behave? Oh yes.

It's the way the violence is processed by our society, by our habits, that makes it terrorism. The ultimate goal is to make people afraid, and to use that fear to an advantage.


sorry but I don't think you have put much thought into your definition.

Do we need to ask everyone that works in an IRS building if this incident has an effect on them before declaring it terrorism?

If the intent was to cause change in people/governments, that is good enough for me to label it as terrorism.

What you are describing is just the difference between effective and ineffective terrorism.

[MelissaWV]

According to my own research, McVey was a stooge of criminal elements of the government, but also a terrorist himself.

Terrorism is simply an attack against civilians for a political purpose.

Joe Stack is very obviously a terrorist as well.

This is where the official definition and I disagree. I think you can very well hold a city hostage, and terrorize the hell out of it, without a specific political agenda.

[paulitics]

:confused:
That is because Mc Veigh was not a terrorist either.
He was a government employee.
Terrorism is a propaganda construct. It is a "made up" term.

I agree with you to some extent, but there is a difference between the guy who works for the post office and goes postal, and Mcveigh (and perhaps other perpretratrors ) who blew up the building.

Perhaps we need to invent a new term, for this category, but this will probably be more of a propaganda nightmare for those who are in the liberty movement, and every day citizens. The watered down term may lump those who are disgruntled at work, and then this will just give the government an excuse to go snooping into the lives of every day Joes who are disgruntled with their work.

[MelissaWV]

sorry but I don't think you have put much thought into your definition.

Do we need to ask everyone that works in an IRS building if this incident has an effect on them before declaring it terrorism?

If the intent was to cause change in people/governments, that is good enough for me to label it as terrorism.

What you are describing is just the difference between effective and ineffective terrorism.

Sadly, "terrorism" really has come to mean anything disruptive with a political motive, as long as the Government wants to apply the definition. This guy isn't a terrorist to me. He killed himself, made a statement, and that's that. He wasn't really going to change anything with it. It's not about whether or not the act was concluded. The guy set his own house on fire, for pity's sake. It sounds just like a lot of other people in the news, only this guy's note included something political, so suddenly he's a terrorist to some folks. In reality he's just someone who staged an arson/suicide. I don't care who the victims were, because isn't that along the lines of "hate crime" bullcrap? The letter should be taken on its own merits, and has a variety of good points. How all of this ties together and adds up to "terrorist" to some people is beyond me.

Incidentally, the dictionary seems to agree with me:


1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

So where's the intimidation and coersion? Where's the fear and submission? In my prior examples, it was there in spades, even with the threat of terrorism, or a botched plot.

We can agree to disagree, as I disagree with the oft-used Government definition of terrorist/terrorism. I'm a little surprised they're not using it for this guy, but that probably has more to do with the body count and the fear of giving the guy martyr status among some.

[Petar]

This is where the official definition and I disagree. I think you can very well hold a city hostage, and terrorize the hell out of it, without a specific political agenda.

Strictly speaking, I think you are correct also.

But if ones sole purpose is just to paralyze a large group of people with fear, then perhaps that is political in itself, in some way.

In any event, the whole question makes me think of someone like Nero.

[pcosmar]

According to my own research, McVey was a stooge of criminal elements of the government, but also a terrorist himself.

Terrorism is simply an attack against civilians for a political purpose.

Joe Stack is very obviously a terrorist as well.

This is where your own definition fails.
He targeted a Government office and government employees. He targeted the Enemy( in his eyes)
Not "the public".
As to Mc McVeigh, there are questions as to his actual involvement. and who (in truth) pushed the button.
Even IF he did detonate the truck, he could not have set and detonated all the bombs that were placed in the building.

The analogy fails.

[angelatc]

Terrorism is simply an attack against civilians for a political purpose.

Joe Stack is very obviously a terrorist as well.

Absolutely. His manifesto clearly contained a call to arms.

[Petar]

This is where your own definition fails.
He targeted a Government office and government employees. He targeted the Enemy( in his eyes)
Not "the public".
As to Mc McVeigh, there are questions as to his actual involvement. and who (in truth) pushed the button.
Even IF he did detonate the truck, he could not have set and detonated all the bombs that were placed in the building.

The analogy fails.

Timothy McVey could have believed that he was targeting aliens from outer space for all I care, it does not change the fact that the Alfred P Murrah building was loaded with innocent civilians.

This is the realm that is commonly referred to as REALITY, you may want to familiarize yourself with it some time.

[jmdrake]

No, it isn't terrorism if it doesn't have an effect on people. The guy on the plane at Christmas? It changed things for people, and may change things further on down the line even more. Terrorism.

Like it or not, terrorism is not a classification of violence like "manslaughter" versus "murder," but is instead an evaluation of the psychological impact. Did the violence towards abortion clinics make women think twice about getting an abortion? Did they make doctors feel they should get security/protection? Did some people change careers?

Do the actions of the DEA, including the raids, the unjustified overuse of violence, the undue confiscation of property, the stigma the Government makes sure follows you if they decide you are a "drug dealer"... that which is above and beyond what's written down in the laws to begin with... do those things change how people behave? Oh yes.

It's the way the violence is processed by our society, by our habits, that makes it terrorism. The ultimate goal is to make people afraid, and to use that fear to an advantage.

The problem with that definition is that it leaves definition of terrorism to government and media manipulation. Also it's impossible to fully measure impact. I'm sure some doctors changed their security regime after the abortion bombings. And perhaps there will greater scrutiny of private airplanes after this attack. But that really doesn't matter. If someone is seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to change political discourse, that's terrorism. The underwear bomber shouldn't have caused the panic reaction that it did. After all, his dad told the FBI ahead of time to look out for his son. But the government hyped (elements) of the story for their own purposes. But maybe your argument is that the government and the media are the only terrorists because they are the only ones that can successfully manipulate the masses to a fear reaction from any particular event?

[pcosmar]

Timothy McVey could have believed that he was targeting aliens from outer space for all I care, it does not change the fact that the Alfred P Murrah building was loaded with innocent civilians.

This is the realm that is commonly referred to as REALITY, you may want to familiarize yourself with it some time.

I am acquainted with reality.
Fact is the Alfred P Murrah building was brought down by multiple bombs place inside the building prior to the truck pulling up front.
The truck bomb was the pyrotechnic show for the cameras and the public.
Tim McVeigh was the patsy. Not the terrorist.

That is beside the point.

Terrorism/Terrorist is a created term for propaganda purposes. It is used in certain situations when it suits the propagandist and the story they want to sell.

example;
An indigenous person sets an explosive device targeting foreign invaders= terrorist
Foreign military blows up women and children with a targeted atack= collateral damage, not terrorism.

It is propaganda.


Because if they label him as a "terrorist", millions of Americans that secretly sympathize with him and hate the IRS will rethink the term/label "terrorist".

The term would lose it's effect.

[jmdrake]

This is where your own definition fails.
He targeted a Government office and government employees. He targeted the Enemy( in his eyes)
Not "the public".
As to Mc McVeigh, there are questions as to his actual involvement. and who (in truth) pushed the button.
Even IF he did detonate the truck, he could not have set and detonated all the bombs that were placed in the building.

The analogy fails.

Ummm.....all terrorists target "the enemy" in their eyes. Are there problems in the OKC story? Most definitely. But even if it was "false flag" terrorism it was still terrorism.

[erowe1]

Stack and McVeigh were both terrorists as far as I'm concerned. But I can't conceive of any reason that should matter legally. There shouldn't be a special legal category of terrorism, just like there shouldn't be hate crimes laws. If you murder someone, your crime is murder regardless of your motivation. If you murder 100 people, your crime is murdering 100 people regardless of your motivation.

[Andrew-Austin]

Stack and McVeigh were both terrorists as far as I'm concerned. But I can't conceive of any reason that should matter legally. There shouldn't be a special legal category of terrorism, just like there shouldn't be hate crimes laws. If you murder someone, your crime is murder regardless of your motivation. If you murder 100 people, your crime is murdering 100 people regardless of your motivation.

Yeah that is the way I've always thought of it.

[Arklatex]

YouTube - Bob Marley - Judge Not (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1B55wEB030)

"Judge not! You're not ready for judgment!" - Bob Marley first song he ever recorded

[MelissaWV]

The problem with that definition is that it leaves definition of terrorism to government and media manipulation. Also it's impossible to fully measure impact. I'm sure some doctors changed their security regime after the abortion bombings. And perhaps there will greater scrutiny of private airplanes after this attack. But that really doesn't matter. If someone is seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to change political discourse, that's terrorism. The underwear bomber shouldn't have caused the panic reaction that it did. After all, his dad told the FBI ahead of time to look out for his son. But the government hyped (elements) of the story for their own purposes. But maybe your argument is that the government and the media are the only terrorists because they are the only ones that can successfully manipulate the masses to a fear reaction from any particular event?

The media's a big help to terrorists, yes, though they are not "the only ones that can successfully manipulate the masses." They're a tool through which people hear of events. Much smaller scale and a little funny... at the office there's someone who... let's just say that from what the guy's say, this man needs a doctor/exorcist/nutritionist, not to mention a little help with how to use a modern toilet. He's been dubbed the toilet terrorist. Most of the guys now walk two buildings over to use another toilet, it's gotten so bad. Everyone walks past the men's room door (it's between our offices and the exit) holding their breath, for fear that the smells-so-bad-we-can-taste-it stench will be there, even when it's not. We learned of our "terrorist" a totally different way.

Yep, the media decides who should be "feared" and that's a big factor in modern "terrorism." Real terrorists, of course, know this and try their damnedest to use the media to their advantage.

Government policy and stories of corruption for instance, in my DEA example, are not really spread around directly by the media. People in immigrant communities get pretty scared of la Migra based off of stories they hear of being dragged off (legal or no) in the middle of the night. There's an awful lot of overlap in the world on this, and I know the way I define it is problematic. It's just the way I see it.

[hopeforamerica]

The words terrorist and terrorism have been used so much in this thread, I feel like I'm watching Giuliani in the 2008 Presidential debates...lol!

[jmdrake]

Interesting anecdotes, but a few people here and a few people there aren't "the masses". I'd guarantee that across this entire nation some IRS agent is rethinking his job based on this attack. Based on the definition you gave that makes it "terrorism". But you want to a large scale disruption of life unless the government and/or media decides to hype this story. You mentioned the anthrax scare earlier. Did you notice how quickly it dropped off the radar after it was confirmed that the anthrax came from the U.S. military? And almost every violent crime that happens anywhere scares somebody. I'm sure the University of Alabama at Huntsville is rethinking its security protocols after the triple murder there. But was that the intent of the killer, or did she just have it out for those particular people and that was a convenient target? It just doesn't make sense to shift the definition of a crime from the intent of the perpetrator to the reaction of the victims.


The media's a big help to terrorists, yes, though they are not "the only ones that can successfully manipulate the masses." They're a tool through which people hear of events. Much smaller scale and a little funny... at the office there's someone who... let's just say that from what the guy's say, this man needs a doctor/exorcist/nutritionist, not to mention a little help with how to use a modern toilet. He's been dubbed the toilet terrorist. Most of the guys now walk two buildings over to use another toilet, it's gotten so bad. Everyone walks past the men's room door (it's between our offices and the exit) holding their breath, for fear that the smells-so-bad-we-can-taste-it stench will be there, even when it's not. We learned of our "terrorist" a totally different way.

Yep, the media decides who should be "feared" and that's a big factor in modern "terrorism." Real terrorists, of course, know this and try their damnedest to use the media to their advantage.

Government policy and stories of corruption for instance, in my DEA example, are not really spread around directly by the media. People in immigrant communities get pretty scared of la Migra based off of stories they hear of being dragged off (legal or no) in the middle of the night. There's an awful lot of overlap in the world on this, and I know the way I define it is problematic. It's just the way I see it.

[constituent]

I'm glad we have gotten word from one of our elected officials. The police are still saying it wasn't terrorism, perhaps with the intentions of just ensuring people don't freak out.

wonder if it could be a territory issue between APD and various frederal investigators?