Plane hits building in Austin

[TLynnHughes]

So I heard about the plane crash from a co-worker, called wife, asked her what was going on downtown (she by the capital) asked her if it was time to "bug out" she said, wait and see.
If it was Bug out time, I'm going to 'The Gun Store" and getting a Shotgun or a AR ASAP and a bunch of mags and ammo.
Then I'm stopping by the gas station and filling up all my Gas cans. then we are going to Possum Kingdom area where wife's family has cabin hid away.

I was worried it might be a Crop Duster.

So does this count as a terrorist act? Will the IRS agent get Terrorism money or just Job Accident money.

I wouldn't wait until bug out time to get the shotgun. You're probably not the only one with that idea.

T.

[03Lightningrocks]

So I heard about the plane crash from a co-worker, called wife, asked her what was going on downtown (she by the capital) asked her if it was time to "bug out" she said, wait and see.
If it was Bug out time, I'm going to 'The Gun Store" and getting a Shotgun or a AR ASAP and a bunch of mags and ammo.
Then I'm stopping by the gas station and filling up all my Gas cans. then we are going to Possum Kingdom area where wife's family has cabin hid away.

I was worried it might be a Crop Duster.

So does this count as a terrorist act? Will the IRS agent get Terrorism money or just Job Accident money.

I wouldn't wait until bug out time to get the shotgun. You're probably not the only one with that idea.

T.

I realize we are just talking hypothetically, but you just gave some very good advice...

[A-R]

Oh my...I am real sorry to hear that. I knew there were 2 injured but had not picked up on the second one killed. I have not been watching the news much today and yesterday. Thanks for letting me know. Was that the person who they were referring to as missing yesterday?

They haven't released a name that I aware of, but all indications are they found two bodies, one being the pilot, so I am assuming it is the one that was missing. I think I heard yesterday that the person missing was a male IRS auditor, but not sure.

Actually local Austin stations released the name today. But government officials haven't yet officially confirmed the body is his. But he's the only one missing and there are only two bodies, so the math on this is obvious.

Sad. Guy is a 67-year-old Vietnam vet

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... e_cra.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[A-R]

It all depends how you define terrorist. By some of the implied definitions here, Eric Holder is a terrorist.

Huh? Sorry, I know Eric Holder is no friend of RKBA, but how is he a terrorist by any stretch of a definition?

My definition is different. For me, a required element of terrorism is deliberately targeting uninvolved parties, especially noncombatants. In addition, a terrorist act is intended to advance a political, religious, social, or cultural cause.

According to my definition: ... Joe Stack doesn't seem to be a terrorist.

the plane crasher deliberately targeted uninvolved noncombatant parties:
1. Vernon Hunter, the "missing" IRS worker assumed dead, had nothing whatsoever to do with plane crasher's case
2. Shane Hill, who suffered third-degree burns over 25% of his body and is in the burn unit at BAMC in San Antonio worked for the state comptroller's office and certainly had nothing to do with plane crasher's case, nor did he even work for the IRS or the Federal Government in any capacity

The plane crasher's motives - as spelled out in his internet manifesto - were to advance the cause of ending the income tax and the IRS. He even met with like-minded anti-IRS types in California and tried a tax-evasion scheme that caused him to "lose $40,000 and 10 years and set his retirement back to 0"

[tacticool]

My definition is different. For me, a required element of terrorism is deliberately targeting uninvolved parties, especially noncombatants. In addition, a terrorist act is intended to advance a political, religious, social, or cultural cause.

According to my definition: ... Joe Stack doesn't seem to be a terrorist.

the plane crasher deliberately targeted uninvolved noncombatant parties:

Please back that up with something credible. Everything I read suggests he targeted an IRS building and hit that IRS building. Was there collateral damage? Yes, but that doesn't make him a terrorist according to the definition I gave.

Maybe that makes him a terrorist according to your definition. You have the right to your own opinion. You even have the right to post your own definition instead of misrepresenting mine.

I will warn you in advance. You're not going to convince me Paul Tibbets was a terrorist on 8/6/45. You're not going to convince me the Gaspée Affair was a terrorist act. You're not going to convince me George W Bush is a terrorist no matter how many stickers I see on Prius and Volvo bumpers.

[A-R]

My definition is different. For me, a required element of terrorism is deliberately targeting uninvolved parties, especially noncombatants. In addition, a terrorist act is intended to advance a political, religious, social, or cultural cause.

According to my definition: ... Joe Stack doesn't seem to be a terrorist.

the plane crasher deliberately targeted uninvolved noncombatant parties:

Please back that up with something credible. Everything I read suggests he targeted an IRS building and hit that IRS building. Was there collateral damage? Yes, but that doesn't make him a terrorist according to the definition I gave.

Maybe that makes him a terrorist according to your definition. You have the right to your own opinion. You even have the right to post your own definition instead of misrepresenting mine.

Oh man, that is a S-T-R-E-T-C-H. He was only targeting the BUILDING and not the people who work inside that building? You gotta be kidding me? Right? You want me to back that up with something credible? It was a huge office building at 10 am on a weekday. Any idiot - even this evil plane crasher - knows with 99.9% certainty there will be univolved noncombatant parties inside such a building at such a time.

I didn't misrepresent your definition one bit. I used the exacty same wording. You just don't agree that the wording fits the act that was taken by this madman. But again, that is an unbelievable stretch to say he was only targeting a building.

I also think it is highly insulting to call the innocent man killed and the other man who was seriously injured "collateral damage". Were the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 just "collateral damage"? Were the al Qaeda madmen just aiming for the BUILDINGS and not the people inside?

Personally, when you start calling the victims "collateral damage" I think you are DANGEROUSLY close to condoning the actions of this <use your imagination, I can't type any word I'd use to describe him because of the 9-year-old child rule>.

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to strongly disagree on this one.

[frazzled]

the plane crasher deliberately targeted uninvolved noncombatant parties:

Please back that up with something credible. Everything I read suggests he targeted an IRS building and hit that IRS building. Was there collateral damage? Yes, but that doesn't make him a terrorist according to the definition I gave.

[/quote]
Did you just equate dead and injured IRS workers and other persons in the office as "collateral damage?"

[SwimFan85]

the plane crasher deliberately targeted uninvolved noncombatant parties:

As deliberately as NATO and yesterday NATO killed 10 times as many unarmed civilians as the IRS kamikaze.

According to your definition, NATO = TERRORIST

Nato said it hit a suspected insurgent convoy, but ground forces later found "a number of individuals killed and wounded", including women and children.

It's not the first time they killed civilians. It's not even the first time this month.
Our correspondent says the strike was not linked to the Nato-led Operation Moshtarak, which is continuing in Helmand province, to the south of Uruzgan.

Last week, 12 civilians died in that offensive - whose name means "together" in Dari - when ground-launched rockets hit a home.

It's nothing new. If that man in Austin is a terrorist than NATO is a terrorist organization like Alqida.

[pbwalker]

If it was Bug out time, I'm going to 'The Gun Store" and getting a Shotgun or a AR ASAP and a bunch of mags and ammo.
Then I'm stopping by the gas station and filling up all my Gas cans.

As is everyone else. The key is to be prepared prior to the events and the need to bug out.

[TLynnHughes]

the plane crasher deliberately targeted uninvolved noncombatant parties:

As deliberately as NATO and yesterday NATO killed 10 times as many unarmed civilians as the IRS kamikaze.

According to your definition, NATO = TERRORIST

Nato said it hit a suspected insurgent convoy, but ground forces later found "a number of individuals killed and wounded", including women and children.

It's not the first time they killed civilians. It's not even the first time this month.
Our correspondent says the strike was not linked to the Nato-led Operation Moshtarak, which is continuing in Helmand province, to the south of Uruzgan.

Last week, 12 civilians died in that offensive - whose name means "together" in Dari - when ground-launched rockets hit a home.

It's nothing new. If that man in Austin is a terrorist than NATO is a terrorist organization like Alqida.

Where is that "biting my tongue" emoticon when I need it????

[Keith B]

OK folks, let's keep this thread civil or it WILL be locked.

[A-R]

Swimfan, did you overlook the word "deliberately" in my post? Surely you're not saying that NATO troops target noncombatants deliberately?

[SwimFan85]

Swimfan, did you overlook the word "deliberately" in my post? Surely you're not saying that NATO troops target noncombatants deliberately?

Let's paraphrase your own words from two days ago to answer your question.

Oh man, that is a S-T-R-E-T-C-H. They were only targeting the VEHICLES and not the people who were inside the vehicles? You gotta be kidding me? Right? You want me to back that up with something credible? It was a group of vehicles on a road on a Sunday. Any idiot - even your evil plane flyers - knows with 99.9% certainty there will be univolved noncombatant parties inside such a vehicle at such a time.

[A-R]

OK, I'm done with this. One more clarification then let's just agree to disagree.

1. I believe that a person not under the direction of any government military or clandestine operation who purposely flies a plane into an office buiding in an American city at 10 am on a weekday knows full well that innocent non-combatants will be inside and likely will be injured or killed. I believe this person has no legitimate military target interest in this building and is only taking this action to make a political statement and scare the people in the building, the general population, or both and thus is a terrorist. What this person's reasons are, his nationality, and whether or not I agree with anything he's ever said or done in his life is irrelevant. By taking this action, he is a terrorist.

2. I believe that a member of a national military or clandestine service who targets enemy combatants and tries to the best of his/her ability to avoid striking non-combatants is doing his/her duty for his/her country and is NOT a terrorist. In this scenario only, non-combatant casualties are rightfully (though callously) called collateral damage. As long as the military service member targets what he/she is told is a military target, then it is not possible to call this person a "terrorist" by any generally accepted definition.

The intent of the person(s) doing the attacking makes all the difference in how their actions are defined.

That is all. Twist my words however you see fit. I stand by every last word I've written. If you choose to compare the man who flew the plane into the building in Austin last week to NATO soldiers instead of terrorists, then you have to live with that. I will not be a part of it. But please don't consider my refusal to waste my time further countering your statements as some tacit approval of your statements. I am agreeing to disagree.

And, as my schoolteacher wife tells her students (some of whom thought Abraham Lincoln was a black man), "you're entitled to your own wrong opinion."

The last word is yours if you choose to take it.

[SwimFan85]

If he was a terrorist and willing to die, why didn't he target Tomothy Geithner or Douglas Shulman instead of Vernon Hunter?