TexasCHLforum.com

We office about 1/2 mile from where this happened and my partner saw it partially happen when while he was on a call. He told the conferecnce call that he thought a plane had crashed and everyone called bull. About 20 minutes later my admin came and informed me of what happened.

I did not see a post on the KLBJ phone call where the aunt of the wife called in about 20 minutes after it happened, but that was a wild call as well.

I hate to see this happen and give other folks ideas.

Pray for our country.

austinrealtor wrote:Hopefully we can head off the "ban private ownership of airplanes" movement before it starts.

They wouldn't do that. They'll just make them all fly through metal detectors before they're allowed to hit government buildings.

57Coastie wrote:I've been trying to figure out whether this is a right wing rant or a left wing rant, and I have decided it is either neutral or both of the above.

It can't be right wing or both, since if he'd had any connection whatsoever with any conservative candidate, even something like a single beg-letter that he hadn't gotten around to throwing out, it would be all over the news by now.

The IRS has struck more terror into everyday Americans than the Taliban ever has.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

austinrealtor wrote: 1. What happened today was terrorism. It was not "almost" terrorism or nearly terrorism. It was as much terrorism as an Arab/Muslim extremist strapping a bomb to themself and blowing up a pizza parlor in Israel. Joseph Andrew Stack will reside for the rest of eternity in the same growing corner of Purgatory occupied by the 9/11 hijackers, Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, the Virginia Tech killer, the Fort Hood shooter, and countless others. Regardless of how you feel about the IRS or anything else, what this man did was pure evil.

AMAN TO THAT!!!

austinrealtor wrote:wWat happened today was terrorism.

Can't be terrorism, Realtor.

He didn't have an Arabic/Islamic name.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:wWat happened today was terrorism.

Can't be terrorism, Realtor.

He didn't have an Arabic/Islamic name.

Jim

I know you meant that in jest, but let's face it, there have been more cases of domestic terrorism in the U.S. than from Islamic extremists. Oklahoma City (Tim McVey), The Uni-bomber (Ted Kazansky), Anthrax scares, PETA and ELF, and even gang groups like Aryan Brotherhood and MS13, that have been linked back to domestic terrorist plots and attacks.

Lets face it. This guys actions were that of revenge against the IRS, and will probably not be counted as terrorism. Instead it will likely be classified as a act of retaliation against one group (like those that target abortion clinics or the groups that go after whaling ships.) The more you hear it sounds like he had a lot of other issues since he burned his house, destroyed his plane. The guy had apparently grown more and more reclusive as of late. Bottom line, the guy was off his rocker.

Luckily his actions only claimed one life and injured to more. Someone else trying to do this could get it done, but it will be more likely to show the real terrorists that an attack like this would not accomplish their goals of putting fear into the general populace.

Keith B wrote:Lets face it. This guys actions were that of revenge against the IRS, and will probably not be counted as terrorism. Instead it will likely be classified as a act of retaliation against one group

Which would be the correct determination, based on what we currently know. Closer to Hatfield-McCoy or "going postal" than Al Qaeda. It seems, as you note, more an act of revenge against an entity rather than an act of violence against unrelated third parties intended to create fear among a general population.

His screed (manifesto, suicide note, whatever) was all over the place, as well. Consider his story of moving from California to Texas to try to find a software job, and his "It's a conspiracy!" rant that tech salaries in Texas were lower than California. (Never mind the lower housing costs - is that a conspiracy too?) Why didn't he move back? In any case, his screed was all over the map, and he burned his own house, reinforcing that his final acts were not for some "larger cause" but to end his own life and take some of "them" with him.

Keith B wrote: Luckily his actions only claimed one life and injured two more. Someone else trying to do this could get it done, but it will be more likely to show the real terrorists that an attack like this would not accomplish their goals of putting fear into the general populace.

Excellent point, Keith, and I do hope you are correct.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

Drewthetexan wrote:Generally, I'd agree. Breaking the law is wrong. And without a doubt, killing people and blowing things up is bankrupt. No issues there.

I suppose you disagree with Ghandi and Dr. King too? They were all about breaking the law.

I know this wasn't intended for me, Drew, but I never hesitate to speak, as I am sure many of you know, and of course I recognize that your very good question is rhetorical.

Gandhi and Dr King took no lives; they willingly gave their lives, they were martyrs for their cause, while engaging in nonviolent actions furthering the cause of freedom. Were their actions sometimes illegal in the eyes of discriminatory lawmakers and law enforcers? Of course, but very few of their actions are illegal now -- which, of course, was the point.

You have my greatest respect for drawing such a valid distinction.

Jim

Thank you, Jim.

austinrealtor wrote: 2. Non-violent breaking of laws like Gandhi and Dr. King espoused is one way of bringing difficult social change outside the "system". It's not the only way. And it's not the way our Founding Fathers finally brought about change. But you better have a following if you plan to break the law. Otherwise, you're just a common criminal.

I agree. Breaking the law, particularly with certain political or social goals in mind, is not to be taken lightly, not without serious justification, and not without large popular cooperation.



Apparently the guy's wife is going to talk to the media today.

Heard an interesting perspective this morning on the news. A psychiatrist attempted to differentiate between a terrorist act and what he called a crime of rebellion. His argument is that a terrorist's goal is to create widespread panic that changes the public's behavior, such as a bomb in a crowded market. Stacks purpose was to get on the news-a spectacle murder. Not to cause people to fear going into public buildings. While both are seen as random acts, the motiviation is different.

I don't know that anyone will truly be able to understand the why's and how's of acts of violence like these.

Tass

The real question would be, what is the definition of terrorist? To me a terrorist would usually be someone trying to affect change by instilling terror in the minds of those the terrorist is attempting to influence. So the next question for me would be, was this guy trying to affect change, or was this guy simply extracting revenge on those he believed had injured him? I am leaning towards the revenge explanation with this guy. He was probably so desperate that he was going to kill himself anyway, then he decided to take some of his perceived enemies with him. I dunno...I am thinking this guy wasn't a terrorist. I think he was just a guy who lost it when put under pressure.

tass and lightningrocks, those are both very valid and intriguing theories. Makes me think hard about my personal beliefs. My only retort at this point is to ask, if his aim was revenge or spectacle, then isn't it very possible that is also the aim of many of those we so easily call "terrorists"? It's easy for us to call the 9/11 hijackers terrorists. Those cretins fit our classic definition perfectly. And most of the Middle East killers (Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc) seem to fit this mold. But I must ask again, what makes what this guy did different than a Palestinian strapping a bomb to his/her chest and walking into a pizza parlor in Tel Aviv? I'm not condoning either act and find both despicable. But the supposed motives of revenge, spectacle, and retaliation could as easily fit the Palestinian bomber as they seem to fit the Austin plane crasher. Is the Palestinian truly trying to cause mass panic by bombing one pizza parlor? Or is he seeking revenge and spectacle to attract attention to his cause? And was the plane crasher only seeking isolated revenge? Or was he trying to cause a mass panic amongst all IRS employees, all Federal employees? The definition of terrorism does not specify that the intended targets you're trying to terrorize must be an entire population. It is possible within the definition and general understanding to terrorize only a small group.

All of this gets further muddied by our closeness to the plane crasher (and for some to a sense of agreement with some of his gripes against IRS or whatever) and our distance from Palestinian bombers, their motives, and their culture.

I still believe strongly that to deny that the plane crasher was any form of terrorism at all is intellectually dishonest and wrong. To differentiate between his possibles motives as revenge or spectacle vs. others' motives as purely evil terrorism is a bit like splitting hairs, but is still a valid and interesting argument. Hopefully we can agree that these are all evil, disgusting acts that have no place in a modern civilization. That's why I just save myself the intellectual and emotional inner struggle and just call them all terrorists.

I think it all boils down to intent. Is the nut job that get's fired by his employer and goes back later to shoot them all a terrorist? No...not really... he was just some dude who lost it over the desperation felt by losing his job.

I think we have to be real careful about throwing around the "T" word or we risk trivializing the meaning of the word. But then again, I associate a true terrorist with someone representing a group or organization. Tim McVeigh did represent a cause as did the 9/11 actors. The Christmas underwear guy was representing a group cause also. The IRS guy was simply seeking payback. He does not represent any group or cause, other than his own selfish motivations.

Let me put it another way. If Bullet Trap takes away my membership and kicks me out because I rapid fire at the range, so I fly an airplane into the place, am I a terrorist or am just a guy who flipped out because I felt like they did me wrong? That is how I perceive what this guy did with the IRS. It was an individual act carried out over selfish motivations. I don't think we want to define terrorism in a way that includes any attempt at mass murder. That would trivialize true terrorist groups to the point of not taking them seriously enough. Which I believe is the true goal of the pacifist regime our country is presently under. That is why this debate is happening. We knew darn good and well what a terrorist was and wasn't 1 and 1/2 years ago. The obamamaniacs are trying to persuade us all to hug a terrorist and understand them. But first they have to change our definition of terrorist. By blurring the lines, they create acceptance.

It just may be time for a reality check, or at least sitting back, taking a deep breath, and thinking a little differently.

I really think all this debate here, and literally all over the media, can be explained by our prior administration, and perpetuated by our present administration, justifying our venture in the middle east by calling it "The War on Terror," the basic coathook being 9/11.

Then along in the wake of The War on Terror came confusing issues like Abu Ghraib, "inhanced interrogation techniques," prisoners of war vs. detained ununiformed civilian fighters, Guantanamo Bay, trials by military commission vs. trial by court-martial vs. trial by a civilian court, does the Geneva Convention apply or does it not, is detention outside the US subject to our classical habeas corpus, are we really "at war" or are we not, how can we be at war if the Congress has not authorized a declaration of war, are these detainees/prisoners of war entitled to all or any of our Bill of Rights, and we could go on and on, ad infinitum.

That is, "What are the consequences of being a terrorist, as compared with the consequences of being "merely" a criminal?

The rub came when our invention of The War on Terror, rightly or wrongly, became a handy way to distinguish all these competing concepts and justify differing consequences. I would submit that the differing consequences have colored our efforts to define what a terrorist is.

And we have difficulty fitting the Austin case into the formula. Prior to 9/11 I suspect it would be clear -- this would have been considered a criminal act. The War on Terror muddies it up, and this debate, or dilemma, if you will, about "what is a terrorist" is not a question which we can answer standing alone as an independent interesting, but in reality useless, question.

This is not a political statement. I was very careful to mention two very different administrations above. It is just an effort to perhaps change the way we are thinking about this.

To drive my point home I would suggest that we pretend that the pilot survived the crash, and that it happened before 9/11. Would this debate even be taking place?

I think not.

With respect,

Jim