Tweet
Continuing on the themes of the previous post, I see this was part of Austin attempted-murder-pilot Joseph Stack’s “manifesto”:
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. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.
Politically-motivated violence intended to spread fear, compel a governmental overreaction and accordingly radicalize the political behavior of his seemingly-unaware contemporaries. That is terrorism, pure and simple.
11 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Yep. And as greg mitchell is saying on twitter, will the press report it as such? so far, apparently not.
Fixed.
HA THANKS
If he’s an American citizen, it can’t be terrorism.
Put me in the undecided camp.
But….
If he was a terrorist… shouldn’t our reaction/ our governments reaction be to round up everyone who has ever had a tax problem as a suspected terrorist, ship them to a black sight prison with no lawyer or charge, and waterboard them till they admit it (whatever “it” is)?
It may be terrorism, but if so it’s not very good terrorism. In order to actually, you know, terrify people, you would have to plausibly threaten that more attacks similar to this were forthcoming. It makes no sense to be a Suicide-Bomber-of-One–you want some person or organization to survive your attack, claim responsibility, and threaten repetition. Otherwise, you’re just a one-off crazy guy, and the media will treat you as such–as it should.
I don’t see the need for terrorism to be a conspiracy, or movement sort of thing. I think lone actors, such as Stack, can be terrorists for just the reason attackerman lists above.
But regardless of definitions, I really see a tie between the anger, desparation, and futility this guy articulates, with international terrorists who are motivated by the Palestinian situation, or other contexts which they view as horrible injustices.
I think lone actors, such as Stack, can be terrorists for just the reason attackerman lists above.
Sure, like the Unabomber. But the concept of a Suicide Unabomber is idiotic–you can’t scare people with the past, you can only scare people with the future–and once you’re dead, you’ve got nothing more to say about the future.
Our main concern here should be preventing a repeat of this. If he’s part of some kind of terror-sympathetic anti-IRS movement, then by all means we need to label him and a terrorist and root out his sympathizers, like we did after Oklahoma City. But if he’s just a dead loner, then playing up the political aspect only makes it more likely that he might find sympathizers–especially if those sympathizers feel the rest of us are treating them like terrorists.
If we all just say “pfft, what a whacko” and quit talking about him, then his hoped for strategy of provoking a government overreaction utterly fails, right?
Now, now. Atheists can still be terrorists, right, even if they’re white?
Its pure terrorism, because he is doing it to set an example for others. Hes effectively daring all the others who feel like him to be just as tough. He makes a terrorattack as an example, much like the London bombers.
haha YES, this is terrorism.
There is a nonscientific (always interesting) CNN.com poll asking whether this was or was NOT an act of terrorism. 68% answered “No.” If you pen a manifesto and then fly a plane into a building…
This doesn’t seem completely unbelievable as the mob amnesia that took place by September 2001 regarding the Oklahoma City incident. But right, what Blue Texan said goes, I believe.
Rebirth of hardcore pride.