Joe Stack, terrorist

[Bgno64]

Run time: 03:08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiLnHRO2REU   Posted on YouTube: February 26, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 26, 2010 By DU Member: Bgno64 Views on DU: 1632

 
Gil Smart asserts that anyone who flies an airplane into a building to make a political point is a terrorist, no matter what color he is.

[sui generis]

1. well gil smart just ain't very.

why is this even a discussion? Are there a bunch of idiots running around who don't understand the definition of terrorism?

I'm guessing that if we have to redefine something because we don't like the current definition, we're pounding a square peg into a non-hole.

Language doesn't work like that.

[Renew Deal]

2. There are a bunch of idiots running around who don't understand the definition of terrorism.

And that plane crash was terrorism.

[sui generis]

4. well this idiot will just have to school you

1. The pilot was not part of an organized group that advocated violence against citizens as a means of controlling the government.
2. He acted alone.
3. It was a glorified murder-suicide by a nutjob, as all murder-suicides are.

Every time some fear-bunny mall-rat decides that they don't like something they call it terrorism and assume the crash position. Really all the redefinition in the world does not change the definition of terrorism.

And Gil Smart is an idiot for even trying. There really is a definition of terrorism used in political science that has NOTHING to do with talking-heads, concern trolls and opinionated fear addicts.

[ellenfl]

6. gee, your definition sounds llike 9/11 AND mcveigh to me.

[sui generis]

7. Did mcveigh act alone?

No he didn't. Here's your report card.

I gave you the answer and you still failed the test.

Now answer my question. What is your definition of terrorism? Somebody at the mall flip you off, that's terrorism too? Somebody burns a bag of poo on your porch and you're terrified therefore it equals terrorism?

Gee yourself.

[ellenfl]

8. acting alone is merely YOUR definition.

i consider eric rudolph a terrorist. the crotch bomber acted alone. is he not a terrorist?

if stack flew into the irs offices merely to kill himself, then he's not a terrorist. he was making a political point. imo, he was a terrorist. acting in concert with others does not, in and of itself, make an act one of terror. neither does acting alone preclude an act from being terrorism.

ellen fl

[sui generis]

9. no the crotch bomber worked with a group

making a political point with social violence is the definition of terrorism? You've been on DU too long :P

It's not MY definition. It's the US government's definition.

Anyway, what exactly is the point of re-characterizing a murder suicide as terrorism? what does it achieve? There are very real terrorists out there Ellen, and some whackadoodle who's pissed off that the IRS (or whatever feeble excuse) doesn't qualify as a DHL issue, and shouldn't.

If he had help, or coercion or belonged to a group that encouraged violence or even conducted violence against civilians with the intention of disrupting government by manipulating the public with fear, then it's closer to terrorism.

Blowing up the IRS when you have IRS problems and you're already feeling suicidal is not the same thing as McVeigh's highly organized and planned attack, even though both buildings housed federal employees, and both men were batshit.

[willhe]

25. so its us gov definition.... nice

you missed what he said. he said it's your definition that it has to be a group.

so did the bushies push torture or not

[sui generis]

27. now you've jumped topics

He said nothing factual. It's not MY definition, go do some light reading and stop the opining. And disrupting.

[ellenfl]

30. here are some individual terrorists as defined by the gummint.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

ellen fl

[sui generis]

32. really? Osama bin Laden?

Anyway, in case I haven't made myself clear, if we're defining crazy suicidal people as terrorists, or ANYONE defined as a terrorist by stretching the definition as the Bush administration did, and some of us seem to want to, it still doesn't change what terrorism IS. Stretching terrorism to include common criminals is a profoundly bad idea.

Seriously, anyone who gets your heart rate up is a terrorist if we take it to its logical conclusion.

[ellenfl]

31. i guess we'll just have to agree to have different definitions of

terrorism. if the act is meant to inspire terror, then it fits the definition for me. i would consider flying a plane into a building to be terrifying for those watching it come at them.

ellen fl

[sui generis]

33. if it's meant as murder-suicide

it's still just a fancy version of that criminal act. He doesn't leave an organization that will benefit from this "terror".

But agreed, we disagree - :P

Have a great weekend

[willhe]

12. Was the unabomber a terrorist?

[sui generis]

19. No.

He definitely wanted to be "part of" a larger organization or movement, for which he would provide the manifesto, but he was also living in a different mental world than the rest of us.

[willhe]

24. wow... i'm speechless

nm

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemperEadem]

3. Joe Stack is a terrorist. Period. End of story. Eff what you heard.

[sui generis]

5. define terrorism.

I mean, not YOU, because apparently terrorism has extremely wide parameters, but what is the "official" definition.

People who use Period. End of story. Do not like to be questioned in their omnipotent and all encompassing conclusions, but I'm guessing you have a rationale.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemperEadem]

37. dag.. I missed the deluge of deleted posts... LOL!

If you need an "offical definition", then go do some research. I'm not your teacher or your parent and I can say whatever I choose to say. You don't have to read what I post if your panties are in such a knot over something that is quite evident. I owe you nothing.

[sui generis]

39. it's not about panties being wadded

it's about consequence. If every person who commits a criminal act that terrifies you is called a terrorist, then ghetto pants is a terrorist act to some and the DHS is accountable for charging that person with terrorism.

Think about it - the republican administration did everything in their power to make sure every phone conversation, bank statement and email was subject to scrutiny under laws that define terrorists as "enemy combatants", extrajudicial "justice" like guantanamo and waterboarding and a set of laws that assumed guilt without proof.

It's crazy to try to take a real definition of real terrorists and stretch it to encompass every form of antisocial criminal behavior. You're right you owe me nothing, except perhaps common sense.

If we assume the crash position every time we enter turbulence we all look pretty stupid. My panties are fine, thank you.

[fascisthunter]

10. That's what he tried to do... make a statement with his act of violence

and we know his views are shared and even supported by many on the right. It was terrorism...

Terrorism/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/Show Spelled
–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.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raston]

14. I can't believe you guys are actually discussing this - he was NOT a terrorist

Your being afraid does not define terrorism,

Wikipedia is an acceptable source, and defines it as 'the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.'. It is the last resort of a people who, having no other means of having their perspectives heard, take their own lives to influence the thoughts and decision making processes of others.

Joe Stack wasn't trying to change your mind. He wasn't making a religious statement (ie, 'kill the infidels') nor was he under delusions that his god would surround him with virgins for his act.

He was a man who was at the end of his rope who spat his last breath at what is an untouchable organization, and he succeeded (he touched 'em alright).

Anybody who calls his act one of terrorism is buying into the political agenda we're all steamrolling towards. Haven't you seen Zeitgeist and V for Vendetta? Didn't you know that the feds tried to suppress his suicide note, but failed? And upon failure what do they do?

Minimalize the situation and brand him a terrorist. Now, look a couple years ahead. If you're in a non-violent demonstration against our government, what are you? Bingo - a terrorist, and with that label you will be held without trial or charges. No I'm not making it up, it's already happened! All we need now is a little more time and the 2012 election which the Republicans will stop at nothing to steal. You thought the patriot act was bad - just you wait.

The second amendment was designed to allow us to overthrow our own government when it gets out of control. Joe Stack used what he had to do all he could do, and now the very people he needed to wake up (you) label him a terrorist.

Way to buy the bullshit.

- Raston

"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention."

[fascisthunter]

15. sounds like you agree with his action

this moron was misinformed and his reasons were bullshit. He made himself out to be some martyr while owning a fucking business... boohoohoo for him and anyother asshole that doesn't want to pay their share of taxes. He killed people because he didn't want to pay taxes to his government anymore??? I'm asure his wife and kid will see him as a revolutionary... give me a break.

[Raston]

16. sounds like you have a perspective filter

Which 'helps' you interpret what other people are talking about, especially when you don't understand them.

I never told you how I felt about the matter, which is that I empathize entirely with his perspective but not his actions. I believe there are better ways to be heard. Did it occur to you to ask questions, or are you content to just slap a label on the situation and move on in your own little world?

- how many other people need psychological help?
- considering the insurance, health and mental health care problems we have, you'd better know it's a lot
- Did you read his suicide note? What did you agree with and disagree with, and why?
- why would an obviously intelligent man do this? You don't have to be a shrink to consider his motivations.
- why would an obviously intelligent man do this to his wife and family?! No, he doesn't deserve the automatic 'crazy' label - stop and think about it.
- why, having been sacrificed, would his family still revere him? How were they raised - what empathy do they have that you don't?
- etcetera

What Joe Stack did isn't about you nor is it about terrorism. It's about a man at the end of his rope.

The only part that has anything to do with you is what questions you ask yourself and what you learn from the event, which is apparently nothing at all. That is the biggest sadness - when something like this happens and you go back to the sports channel with not a thought in your head about the lives lost excepting to label them and move on in your own self-righteous opinion. The least you can do is learn what terrorism is - man, you're a spoiled American.. ask someone in another country what terrorism is and they'll tell you what they see every day, but YOU see this on the news associated with the word 'terrorist' and you think you know what's up... (shaking head)

- Raston


"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention."

[fascisthunter]

23. well then, I have my filter and you obviously have yours

[willhe]

20. dont be afraid to call it what it is...

you may think it's one nut job but he was just the first. when you have a news organization masking behind free speech constantly pushing an anti-government agenda what do you expect

[sui generis]

22. it's funny sometimes while unexpectedly finding ourselves

on pa-troll we find whole gaggle of 'em . . .

[SemperEadem]

38. not only was he a terrorist, but he was a tax dodging

rich guy who couldn't figure out how to run his businesses successfully. He could obviously afford a plane, but couldn't afford to pay his taxes on two failed businesses. He lived beyond his means and got caught up in the consequences of doing so.

Just because his nipples were pink doesn't mean that he can't be called a terrorist.

And I don't turn to movies for my rationale for justifying bullshit.

[CLANG]

18. He's a terrorist alright! Call a spade a spade.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

21. Exactly, it's important to call it out or it's just giving the crazies legitamacy.

[libodem]

28. Peculiar

How it isn't terrorism if you name is not Mohammad.

[sui generis]

35. that has NOTHING to do with the definition of terrorism

at all.

But since you had to go there if there are lights shining in the sky there must be a light switch. I mean, the logic in your statement is about as fundamental as the logic in shiny lights.

Terrorism is an act designed to engage a civilian population in the absence of a military objective. It's done to disrupt government and governance, and it is done to benefit a group of individuals or movement, using violence and fear as a political tool.

By definition a lone whacko can't engage in "terrorism" unless he's working with someone, and a lone whacko whose motivation for flying his plane into a building is disconsolate revenge for being misunderstood is just a whacko. It WAS impulsive. And it was crazy. Just like murder-suicide isn't terrorism either.

[scottban]

36. United States, terrorizing the Bill of Rights

"The USA Took My Freedom Away"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHCBmpfr0t4

[sui generis]

40. please note how many of the posters on DU are coming to defend this

just a few hard cases, relatively speaking. Most of them just rolled their eyes and moved on without comment. At least you've managed to gather a list of people on DU who bear further scrutiny.

[seraphicx]

41. K & R

[suede1]

42. K & R.