Is today's attack on the IRS "terrorism?"

[Renew Deal]

[Toucano]

1. Not sure.

Normally, I think true Terrorism is about a consistent pattern of attack that creates a climate of fear (terror) which forces the opposing force to recognize and act in some way that the practitioner desires.

I am not sure rogue attacks can really fit the classic definition.

What I am sure about is it only seems to matter to those who want to use to to make political hay, and that's unfortunate.

[Renew Deal]

9. Why does it have to be consistent?

That makes no sense. Can't a single act be enough to create a climate of fear? What about OKC or 9/11? Those were single acts.

[pnwmom]

9/11 wasn't a single act. Over the course of hours, several planes went down

and thousands of people in several locations were killed.

And if OKC wasn't part of an organized plot (as I recall, it was), then it wouldn't have been terrorism either. Terrorism is a systematic effort, not a random act of violence.

[Renew Deal]

26. It's time to re-read the definition of terrorism.

noun
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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

[Toucano]

36. Good.

So which of those three are you applying to todays incident?

1. Joe was not coercing or intimidating the IRS. He was exiting this life and seeking revenge on people he didn't like.
2. Not applicable.
3. Not applicable.

Looks like this incident was a murder-suicide, not terrorism.

[Toucano]

34. 9/11 is not an isolated incident

The attacks that day were "consistent" with al Qaeda's previous attacks (both on the U.S. and abroad). It was a tool used by the same group of people. In fact, the World Trade Center was attacked earlier by the same group. Osama bin Laden has specific grievances and demands. The U.S.S. Cole was also attacked earlier. It was not a single act.

OKC was a plot. More than one person was involved, so one could presume that someone would continue had the conspirators not been captured. It was only an inch deep however, though they still have sympathizers. It doesn't seem particularly organized.

The rogue suicide bomber cannot possibly expect his demands to be met or the opposing force to yield. Therefore, they (the Joe Stacks) are surrendering. They cannot realize the change they seek. It's just a terrible incident. As wacko as Joe may have been this morning, he had no serious ability to expect that the IRS would close up shop and stop doing their job because of his actions.

Contrasted with a Palestinian suicide bomber who is part of a movement. When he is gone, the fight goes on. He can sacrifice himself thinking that it is in the service of the cause. The death and violence are expected to provoke the opposition to change.

Shooting abortion doctors is terrorism because through the violence, the participants (even if acting alone) can reasonably hope that other abortion doctors will be afraid and that they will stop practicing abortions, thereby yielding to the terrorists demands.


Are people terrorized by todays actions? Are people afraid to go into a federal building because of a reasonable fear that it might be a target?

I don't know that's why I said I am not sure it qualifies.

But I do know that terrorism isn't simply doing something bad. There is more to it than that. Revenge doesn't qualify.

[pnwmom]

41. Excellent post, Toucano. I didn't have the energy to write something like this,

or I would have made the attempt myself! Probably wouldn't have been as good, though.

[Toucano]

51. Listen to you!

You're too kind.

Your response up thread was much more succinct.

:hi:

[mattvermont]

2. The purpose was not to terrorize

Anybody but those directly related to the building, at the most.
At the least, the building was a convenient vertical barrier for the man to hit.

[pnwmom]

5. The purpose was to vent a guy's anger. n/t

[Renew Deal]

10. Yes it was the purpose to terrorize

He was trying to terrorize the IRS.

[pnwmom]

14. If he had set off a series of bombs in different IRS locations, or been part of a larger group

that did so, then that WOULD have terrorised people, and this would have been terrorism.

But he didn't. And this wasn't.

Who's been terrorised?

[Renew Deal]

24. If he had set off a bunch of bombs, he probably would have been caught.

He did what he could get away with. The IRS has been terrorized. The people of Austin have been terrorized. The people of this country has been terrorized. They are told that if we don't change our policies, then we can expect this sort of thing to happen. It's terrorism by definition and to the core.

[pnwmom]

I don't know a single person who was terrorized, including

my relatives near Austin.

Is Amy Bishop a left-wing terrorist then? That's what the freepers are saying.

[Renew Deal]

39. Have you talked to them?

Do they work for the IRS? Have you read what Stack said?

Bishop went postal. What she did is apparently her personal madness with no personal goal to change the policies of the US. So no, she doesn't fall under terrorism.

[pnwmom]

43. Bishop went postal. So did Stack. He just found an excuse that he used

to try to justify his murderous rage.

And people here are falling for it.

[Renew Deal]

46. The DHS report disagrees with you.

[pnwmom]

49. The DHS report was written before he did this and doesn't apply to this situation. n/t

[W_HAMILTON]

58. I have.

I'm an accounting major, and have been accepted to the University of Texas at Austin this fall. I want to work for the IRS one day; if not them, then some other accounting role in the federal government. If this happened a couple of years in the future, one of the offices he flew into could have been mine.

[pnwmom]

3. No, it was just some loony tune who went around the bend. Why do DUers

want to lump this in with organized terrorism? I can see why freepers want to do that -- so they can say that this is terrorism and Obama should have prevented it.

But why are DUers buying into this? Just because the guy used a plane instead of a gun doesn't make it terrorism.

[Lyric]

8. Oh stop it.

Does EVERYTHING have to be about protecting Obama's image? This WAS terrorism, but it was the kind that nobody could have stopped--not Obama, not Bush, not a Republican OR a Democrat. Lone wolves are the most insidious and dangerous of terrorists because they are pretty much impossible to track--especially if they fall outside of the typical terrorist "profile."

One doesn't need to conspire with others and yell ALLAHU AKBAR! to be a terrorist.

[pnwmom]

12. Terrorism is used to intimidate or coerce. This guy was just acting out,

trying to hurt people with no method or plan involved. There is no intimidation or coercion from a single act, unorganized act of violence.

He was a common criminal, perhaps mentally disturbed, but not a terrorist.

[Renew Deal]

20. What do you think he was trying to do?

He was trying to intimidate the IRS and the american government. He said it himself. Your post is embarrassing.

[pnwmom]

31. He was trying to PUNISH, not intimidate. There's a difference.

Is Amy Bishop now a left-wing terrorist, as the freepers are saying? We're seeing terrorism everywhere. This is ridiculous.

[Renew Deal]

17. Who is lumping this in with organized terrorism?

I haven't seen anyone do that.

Funny how you mentioned a plane vs. a gun. When "Nidal Malik Hasan" shoots up an army base it's terrorism, but when "Joe Stack" crashes a plan into a government office building, he's just going postal. It's BULLSHIT! And if your goal is to just cover up for Obama, then you're doing a diservice to all of us.

[pnwmom]

25. What distinguishes terrorism from random criminal violence is, in part,

its systematic nature. This wasn't any systematic plan -- it was one angry guy lashing out.

I don't remember the details of the army base shooting, but if that was similar, then it wasn't terrorism either -- no matter what the freepers say.

[Renew Deal]

27. Where does it say that in this definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

[pnwmom]

37. Fine. It's not in the dictionary.com definition.

But the word "systematic" is in the definition in the other link in this thread. And that's the way the word has commonly been used for decades. Now, all of a sudden, people want to see terrorism everywhere. I'm not buying it.

And I don't buy that this guy had a real political argument either. He was a loony tune who was pushed to the wall financially, and he cracked. All his manifesto was was an attempt to justify his violent temper tantrum to HIMSELF.

[Renew Deal]

42. What about the DHS report from last year?

U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are
driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small
terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a
driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.

— (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing
extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction
reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment
conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a
Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the
economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors,
and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate
conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics
are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize
those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to
accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6283951

[pnwmom]

44. A lone wolf who acts repeatedly does have the capacity to inflict terror,

as those shooters did in the D.C. area several years ago.

But a lone wolf who suicides and takes some people down with him -- and isn't part of a larger movement that will pick up where he left off -- has just committed a random act of violence. That isn't terror.

[Renew Deal]

47. He is part of a larger movement

He's a tea bagger through and through. He identifies with them perfectly, and they are raving about "revolts."

[pnwmom]

54. Oh yeah? Well the tea-baggers are saying he was a lefty. n/t

[Lyric]

4. Flying a plane into a building to achieve a stated political goal? Yep.

He said himself that he was doing it for the sake of a "body count" so that the government would do what he wants it to do. What exactly is the difference between that and what the 9-11 hijackers did, except for scale and particular motivation? Whether inspired by resentful greed or religious mania, the method and goal was the same. The hijackers targeted the finance world and the Pentagon; this guy targeted the IRS. Thankfully, the casualties were few--but not for lack of trying on the murderer's part!

Yes, it was terrorism. Just like 9-11, only on a smaller scale.

[pnwmom]

7. No, it wasn't. Terrorism has always been understood to be part of a larger plan,

not one guy going around the bend, who happens to have access to a weapon.

[Lyric]

11. Wrong.

Terrorism is, by definition, "a systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." This guy used terrorism to try and coerce the government into changing tax policies. That was his stated intention in his manifesto--he believed that the government would listen if the "body count" was large enough. Just because you don't WANT it to be terrorism doesn't mean that it's not.

[pnwmom]

13. Exactly. "A systematic use of terror." He wasn't part of any system, and he didn't

make any systematic effort either. He had a giant temper tantrum that killed people. He was a common criminal.

[Lyric]

22. Wrong. Again.

There are several different types of terrorism. This guy was a "domestic terrorist" who committed "limited political terrorism", defined as "acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Types

If this guy isn't a terrorist, then neither was the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh, by your logic.

[pnwmom]

38. The Unabomber committed multiple acts, which resulted in increasing terror.

Timothy McVeigh was part of an organized plot.

This guy committed a solitary act of violence -- not a series of acts -- and wasn't part of a plot, as far as anyone has determined. If they find out that he was, I'll change my mind.

[flvegan]

6. Of course not, don't be silly.

It wasn't done in the name of the environment or animal rights (that also cost a company money) and it wasn't committed by someone with darker skin with a funny sounding religion.

[Lyric]

15. If this had happened two years ago, I'd bet the farm

that everyone here would (rightly) be calling it terrorism. Probably as loudly as possible. But SHHH! It's not terrorism if it might be politically inconvenient for US.

:eyes:

[marmar]

16. Huh?

:wtf:

[Lyric]

23. Did you miss the rest of the thread?

Especially the parts where people are frantically trying to paint this as ANYTHING but terrorism because they're (ironically) terrified that Obama might be criticized in some vague way for it?

[ORDagnabbit]

18. what defines terrorism? was the boston tea party a terrorist act? or the Luddites in the early 1800s

is terrorism based on perception of the attacked?

[Renew Deal]

29. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

:shrug:

[coti]

19. Truly, there's no real question that it was. It was motivated to influence politics on a mass

scale.

Yes, the man sounds like he was at the end of his rope and there was a "going postal" element to what he did. But, ultimately, he was trying to make a political statement that would earn vast media exposure by killing innocent people. That's not just being crazy. That's terrorism.

[pnwmom]

28. He knew he wouldn't be influencing politics because he wasn't part of any ongoing,

systematic effort to coerce. Nothing would be accomplished by a single act like this except venting his anger.

[Renew Deal]

30. Did you read his screed?

You're just making it up at this point.

[pnwmom]

45. I read it. So what? He was trying to justify his murderous rage.

He knew that he wouldn't accomplish anything other than to vent his anger.

In fact, he'd have accomplished much more if he'd just sent a series of threatening letters to IRS offices, containing mysterious powders.

[coti]

50. Your position is contrary to the evidence presented. nt

[pnwmom]

55. What evidence? The guy's dead, a few people were killed, he's not part of a larger plot --

so no one's worried that he's going to do more. Consequently, there is no terror.

[upi402]

21. no, lone wolf fool n/t

[laughingliberal]

32. I know there was the mention of the 'lone wolves' in the annual terrorism assessment

this past year. I don't think there has to be a group involved in order for it to be considered terrorism. In fact, individuals are often charged with making 'terrorist threats' and these are usually domestic cases involving one individual threatening another.

[Therellas]

33. well he most certainly IS a "Martyr".

you know im pretty sure the right answer is yes he is.
personally i think anyone who hurts threatens or tries to hurt is.
i also think the general consensus in america is that unless its a lefty attacking a republican
its not terrorism.
thats fucked.
then again .....
im white .
and could possibly be labeled a "terrorist"
due to my ideas about cannabis(among others)....
at the very least "anti-american "
so i dont want to jump into whipping that word around.
but in my heart i feel violence = terrorism.
you can have all the same ideas and revelations as this guy..... but never leave your bed.
thinking isnt a crime.

dog, i hate republicans.

[AsahinaKimi]

35. Would you call The Columbine Shooting an act of Terrorism?

I am just asking.. :shrug:

[Therellas]

40. as defined by the bush admin ?

no.
in "life".
yes.

[pnwmom]

48. Personally, no. That was a disturbed kid. Amy Bishop was another disturbed person.

So apparently was Stack. And I don't know the details of the recent Army base case, but if he was acting alone, then the same may have been true for that person.

[MSchreader]

52. Yes, it was terrorism

By any sensible definition, Joe Stack's act was terrorism: violent, concerted, committed for ideological or political motives.

On another point, Stack's death was a picture of his life: crash and burn. I have no sympathy for a man whose last words in life were a diatribe against the thought of being hurled into the working class by capitalist society. This guy basically said he'd rather be dead than become a worker -- than be like me or millions of other workers.

Personally, I don't care what kind of critique of corporatist capitalism he resorted to at the end of his life; it means nothing, given the class context. As far as I'm concerned, the little yuppie terrorist can rot in hell.

[pnwmom]

53. One isolated act of this size does not produce terror.

It produces grief and anger. But after it is established that it was an isolated act, there is no terror.

Terrorism relates to the fear that the act may be repeated -- and that YOU or someone you care about could be next. When the damage is limited and the single perpetrator is dead -- and no one fears he is part of a larger movement who will continue to carry out his "mission" -- then there is no terror.

[laughingliberal]

56. I do believe there are lone wolves and they are a problem as laid out in the annual terrorism report

The terror arises from not knowing how many more lone wolves may be out there planning their next attack. And they are the most difficult to detect before they act.

[pnwmom]

delete (dupe)

[pnwmom]

57. Who's terrorized? Do you really think that Americans are terrorized by the

thought that some other lone wolf might strike again? Bad stuff happens. Criminals kill people every day, and we're not terrorized by the thought.

[laughingliberal]

59. I'm not terrorized but, then, I was not terrorized by 9/11, either.

These types of things scare me not as I don't really see much I can do about it other than the normal precautions I take in life to avoid harm, anyway. Life is a risk and death does not scare me. So, the whole idea of terrorism evades me, anyway.

I am not the one who included the 'lone wolves' idea in the official report on terrorism this past year. Perhaps you could ask them how this constitutes terrorism.

[pnwmom]

60. That report obviously did not address this specific case.

Lone wolves all apparently motivated by the same cause might make repeated attacks that would result in terror.

But this guy was a lone wolf with a thousand causes -- he was angry at life in general -- did you read his diatribe? His actions couldn't fit in any pattern, couldn't make anyone feel that they were at any particular risk. The thing happened, it's over, another mentally ill person commits suicide and takes a few others down with him.