Why is it important to you that Stack's crime is/is not defined as 'terrorism?'

I think it is dangerous to label Stack's crime terrorism. It's dangerous to give the government more leeway to define acts as terror, to enable them to use extralegal means to suppress 'terror'

Good description!

Both were attacks on the US by flying planes into buildings full of innocent people.

*I* very well know what terrorism is. It is, most briefly put, the use or threatened use of force to coerce compliance of the population or their government.

By any analysis of Stack's actions, that is EXACTLY what he did.

Did you vote in the poll?

And so that we don't merely flaunt the term when it's convenient to a given agenda.

And yes, I voted in the poll.

Or John Mohammed, the Beltway sniper? Was he a terrorist? Where is the line precisely drawn between isolated acts of violence and the systematic kind of violence that used to define terrorism? Or is it precisely drawn? Can it be precisely drawn?

where was their letter to the world?

What 'change' did they hope their murdering and suicide would bring about?

Who were they seeking to resonate with?

Is that what Stack was hoping to accomplish, some kind of change? Or was he expressing a kind of desperate powerlessness? Is there a line to draw between a political agenda and act of desperation?

It is using violence, threats of violence and fear to accomplish an agenda.

Otherwise it would just be senseless violence.

:shrug:

But I want to understand what the consequence of labeling a crime terrorism is. Does it give the government power it doesn't need? In this case, what is accomplished by calling Stack's crash terrorism beyond defining it? Does this have consequences for people who are vocal about problems they have with their tax bills?

taxes?
The government was incredibly patient with them- they were more than "vocal" about their problems with taxes-

I don't think this is about "being vocal" about paying taxes. I think this is about inciting violence against systems which you feel are unjust/unfair. Stack is a murderer- he had every right to be 'vocal' about his problems he had NO right to use a plane crashing into a building as a "voice".

If calling him a terrorist has negative consequences for people who are willing to use violence against others because they have problems with their tax bills- that would be a GOOD thing imo.

:shrug:

How can you defend what he did?? Are you willing to say what he did was terrorism because you are afraid you might be seen as being a follower of his?

It sounds like you think the main consequence of having an act called 'terrorism' should be shame. But I don't think the law works that way. The consequence of something being labeled terrorism is that it's investigated and prosecuted differently from other crimes.

I don't know if Stack was a terrorist. He sounded like a disgruntled tax payer to me. I'm only concerned that if the category of crimes labeled terrorism is expanded, we understand what that really means. Are we heading toward an America in which anyone the government labels a terrorist becomes an enemy of the state, can be reclassified as an enemy combatant, have their citizenship (and constitutional rights) denied, and be detained indefinitely without trial?

with tolerating the use of violence and threats of violence against innocent people to make a statement.
I have opinions and perspectives that aren't in concert with what our government sees as "correct"- I have a right to speak out about what I believe and why- I have a right to share my opinions with others and to encourage others to consider my perspective- I do NOT have the right to use- threaten- advocate- or encourage violence against others as a way of furthering my agenda- and were I do do that I SHOULD be investigated - monitored and stopped before my threats or plans could be put into action.
If you are afraid to call out terrorism when it happens because you fear that you might be seen as a potential terrorist... well, thats a sad statement.

from "WorldNet"-

Noun
S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

Mr.Stack wasn't simply 'desperate'.
He targeted the IRS building with his private plane, and a tank full of fuel, during business hours, leaving behind a missive detailing why he was making this choice, admitting to intending to harm others, and to encourage others to rise up and revolt against the government.

Alexander McQueen was a desperate man- I know desperation, I've lost several loved ones to desperation. This wasn't just an act of desperation, it was more than that. And pretending it wasn't IS dangerous. imo

Do you want to just call it that and leave it at that? Or do you have some specific consequence for terrorism in mind?

best answer would be to say that it puts what this man did in a catagory that makes it particularly wrong.

Like calling the murder of Matthew Shephard a "Hate crime". It was a murder- a murder that needs to be singled out for the particular- 'wrongness' that it was. To send a message to those who might be inclined to follow in the footsteps of the killers that they would not be doing something 'noble'.
There are far too many angry, frustrated people in this country who listen to the media and Palin/Limbaugh/Beck/Tancredo stoke their hatred and prejudice- Setting Stack's actions apart as MORE than a frustrated mans suicide (which it was- he murdered an innocent man simply because he was in an IRS building) and DE-ligitimizing 'stigmatizing' his action as particularly wrong, sends a message to those who are saying things like "Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with he blood of patriots and tyrants" and "real American Hero"- that it is neither "patriotic" or justifiable.

Does that help answer 'why'?

killing- or James Byrd, Jose Sucuzhañay,Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala, (all "hate crimes") or the deaths which occurred as a result of the actions of Tim McVeigh-Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, etc. etc.

Nothing can be done to 'punish' Mr.Stack- but defining his action as Domestic Terrorism would stigmatize any potential copy-cats, and marginalize those who call him "An American Hero"- (far too many people are openly saying this about Stack). Ignoring it- justifying it- and trying to simplify/minimize it is (in a way) a kind of enabling of future "Stack"s. imo

Terrorism has to be systematic? WTF? What about the 1975 bombing of the Sydney Hilton? It was an isolated act and wasn't part of any systematic pattern, but I don't think anyone would deny it was terrorism...

I'm asking these questions because I'm concerned about the consequences of labeling something "terrorism" as opposed to "not-terrorism." I think the main consequence of the distinction is how much more power goes to the government to contain it. Otherwise whether or not something is called "terrorism" really is nothing more than an academic exercise or parlor game.

Why would you need to know more about it than what you read? There isn't really anything else to it....

I get the impression that many Americans have a very simple line in the sand when it comes to what is and isn't terrorism. If it's an attack by a Muslim or Arab, then it's terrorism. If it's home-grown, it's not...

The Weather Underground could be accused of being terrorists. The Operation Rescue snipers are terrorsits. These are people who used violence to advance a political agenda and cause terror in the public. The objective of terrorism is to shake people's confidence in their institutions to protect them from violence.

I don't know about Australia, but in the US, terrorism has become a supercharged word and concept. It's a word politicans like to throw around to make themselves look strong and their opponents weak. The Bush administration used it as a tool to expand the power of the Executive. It's a dangerous weapon in the hands of our politicians, and I don't think they should be trusted with it.

Columbine was one school. The shooters never had any intention of going beyond that. The DC snipers were shooting at random, so anybody inside the DC metro area was potentially a target. They literally terrorized the population.

Stack will obviously not have any other targets, but he's already inspiring other teabaggers to take up his cause. Just as Richard Reid or this other dumb son of a bitch with the flaming undies may have been inspired by "Al Qaeda" (they are not members of AQ, and fuck anyone who believes that lie) and the 9/11 attacks. Stack himself was inspired by the 9/11 operations, considering he copied the action itself, though on a smaller scale.

They were clearly carrying out their personal video game-ish fantasy of delivering a military style assault on their school. From everything I read about them, they did not have a political or ideological agenda meant to intimidate a public into fear and therefore force a change.

Stack had a problem with the IRS and thought he could strike a blow against them with his plane. He sought to add to a body count for the purpose of changing tax law. That's about as political/ideological as you can get. Terrorism in any sound person's mind.

And I'm a bit confused as to why any DUer would be labelling the Obama administration as 'a tyrannical government carrying out a war of terror'. I hope I'm reading what you said wrong and that's not what you meant at all?

btw - I hate to burst the bubble here, but only complete morons who have no understanding of what terrorism is try to argue that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism.

Hence no common ground to be found between us re this issue as I'm far more concerned with our empire's aims and tactics - which has severe global effects and slaughters scores of innocents - more so than fretting over how to label the actions of a lone person who commits this type of violent act.

I'm not interested in whatever tin-foil stuff yr peddling. That's why I don't go down to the 9/11 forum, so please refrain from inflicting it on me here, okay?

You were aiming that rubbish about being terrorists etc at Obama, weren't you?

Both events cause fear. Both events kill people, mostly innocent. And likely, both events may be intended to bring a change to some system (a drive-by could be about capturing territory through fear for trafficking drugs, or eliminating market competition).

Terrorism is such a worthless lousy label thats been over-applied and lost its meaning. Crimes are crimes. Some more hateful and harmful than others. I'm not sure what the benefit of a special label is

:sarcasm:

Saying something "is" this or "is" that doesn't change in any way the effects that it has or had on people, or on what kind of response would best serve people in the future.

Speak E-Prime, and become a more effective communicator!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

"Terrorism' should be reserved for systematic tactics by a group that is a self-identified enemy of a government or nation. Stack's case looks more like isolated lashing out."

All terrorism is criminal. Not all crime is terrorism.

I do wonder though about the IRS though - they should be labeled as terrorists against much of the U.S. I have had three people I know over the past twenty years commit suicide because of an impass with an IRS audit that would have left them in staggering debt for the rest of their lives - not wealthy people.

That guy in where who just bulldozed his house because of an IRS lien - this guy in Austin.

What exactly is it that the IRS is doing that is making them cause people to figuratively and literally suicide? Well murder suicide in the case of nutjob Stack. I wonder if there is a place on the intertubes to round up all of those stories. . . . cause it's kind of disturbing.

Silly poll.

And I agree with the sentiments in both. I'm sick of the subjective double-standard, but I also think we need not to go overboard in our response when responding to terrorism in general (regardless of what we call these hideous and violent actions).

For me, this is fairly cut and dry.

Read the definition of a Revenge Homicide, Homicide Code 125, on pp. 179-182 of the 2nd edition of the Crime Classification Manual by Douglas, Burgess, Ressler, et al.

Were he the member of a group, I would call him something like a "group cause" killer with an extremist political agenda(definition code 142.01) but he most likely doesn't qualify because in the final analysis, this was an act of brute rage, not something like a group of vegans targeting animal experimentation (to use an obvious but exaggerated example).

This crime is about a single individual with a grudge against a number of local individuals who symbolically represent an institution that he interprets as destroying his life.

Stack may have pretensions of being viewed by history as a martyr againsts paying taxes, but that is part of the delusion that led him to committ this act.

Have violence against the government as part of their
raison d'etra - you can't separate the violence out of them.

Right now in this country the make up can have
a racial make up -- in the future that make up can change.

But one thing you can count on is right wing and violent make
a marriage.

I believe its dangerous to give the government more leeway to classify people as "terrorists" for the reasons that you described, so I chose that option.

I just want the same idiots that lambasted Obama for not classifying the Fort Hood gunman as a terrorist to call him a terrorist.

The way that other people define this is of little significance to me.

Seems pretty clear to me.

But, I wanted to vote for the one above it, equally:

"'Terrorism' should be reserved for systematic tactics by a group that is a self-identified enemy of a government or nation. Stack's case looks more like isolated lashing out."

He shouldn't get let off that easy just because he's a white American citizen. Stack was a domestic terrorist.

Stacks.

"terrorist" is an often abused bogeymen term.