Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So a person has to actually change something for him to be designated a terrorist. I thought you just said that a terrorist can be defined as one who seeks to cause change. Are you changing your definition now?
I stand by what I said - he had a personal vendetta and had no interest in change, regardless of his rant - He didn't want to instill fear, he just wanted personal revenge
You don't have to be religious to be terrorist. Terrorism can be motivated by other factors such as politics. Think about Baaden-Meinhof and Timothy McVeigh for example. They were atheists and purely political.
I just read a bood on Baaden-Meinhof in germany in the 70's and it was a very distrubing look at now politcal views can become deadly to so many. There were many groups like this in the 60s here in the 60's and it was the same ;people lookig for power. This guy and the professor really are just people in which their motive are about them and their revenge on people they blame for their failures;IMO. If he hadn't struck the IRS its clear he named alot of other oragniztions he might have because he failed to achieve what he wanted fianancially.
Too bad he destroyed a perfectly functioning airplane in the suicide. Apparently he didn't do the building and at least one occupant any good either. When will these guys do the suicide part before they get to the statement part?
Why isn't he referred to as a domestic terrorist. His intentions were clear. He was trying to kill IRS employees in his attempt to bombard an IRS building. I thought only Muslims commit acts of terrorism but I guess he doesn't count because he is White, non-Muslim and only targeted the IRS.
I'm still waiting for the liberal media to call the Fort Hood killer a Muslim terrorist. Liberals keep saying "let's wait for all the facts to come in." Are they in yet? Because the facts keep pointing to Islamic fundamentalism as the source of the problem.
So a person has to actually change something for him to be designated a terrorist. I thought you just said that a terrorist can be defined as one who seeks to cause change. Are you changing your definition now?
The FBI has a definition of terrorist. They try to change or influence change via their actions. This guy was just seeking personal revenge. He wasn't out to change the IRS..just get back at them for his personal problems.
That's not a terrorist.
If you read Stack's manifesto from beginning to end, you will see that his action was intended to be a call to war. That's borderline terrorism, not just an act of a disgruntled man. The primary reason it doesn't fit the definition of "terrorism" is because it wasn't intended to instill fear in the civilian population.
The Fort Hood shooter was enraged and his Islamic fundamentalist sympathies were a major factor but I don't think set out to commit a terrorist act. He snapped and his twisted Islamist beliefs justified his actions in his own mind.
Both cases are iffy with respect to the actual definition of terrorism. But does it matter? Their actions definitely fit the definition of "atrocity" and that's plenty to condemn what they did without getting political about it.
As for those who accuse liberals of being soft on terrorism... there's no point in arguing with those who get all their opinions spoon-fed to them by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Tea Party activists often claim that Obama is pro-terrorist. Debating with a loony tune who believes that line of BS is an exercise in futility. Expect to see teababbers committing acts of violence soon. Their rallies are filled with veiled incitement to acts of treason and assassination.
Ok, so your opinion is that he had a mental illness. I won't argue with your opinion but it's not in any of the MSM articles as fact.
This is an interesting line of reasoning ... attributing media reports or lack thereof as being proof of anything, rather than draw a personal, reasonable conclusion based on the matter at hand.
The guy obviously lost it. He wanted revenge for what he viewed as persecution (which may be true, but is not the normal or reasonable response to such). He contemplated it, carefully planned his actions with a particular outcome in mind, and executed his plan. So that shows that he was at least in charge of his faculties enough to take the actions he took. But, the act itself is so extreme and abnormal, no one of sound mind would do such a thing. His actions alone demonstrates a psychological breakdown.
Similarly, there are many examples of very disturbed individuals ... serial killers that are charming and disarming, while committing unimaginable violence in a methodical, well thought out manner. Although they may not present the "classic" image of a lunatic ... their actions sure do.
Sometimes we just over think things ... the guy went off the deep end, and his actions clearly show an extremely disturbed mind.
What is truly unfortunate, other than the victims, obviously, is that he will be used as a poster child to label anyone who believes in the constitution, or criticizes the IRS as being a potential terrorist, which is why that label should be avoided here.
It's now obvious that the authorities were monitoring this guy (though many may not be aware of this) ... the FBI had dispatched agents from the Dallas field office the day before this event, and were on location the moment the event took place.
Not that I want to defend the White House or anything but he did try to burn down his house with his family in it, too. If, instead of a plane, he tried to kill his family and then went to the office building in Austin, where the IRS had some offices, and tried to shoot everybody instead of using a plane, and then turned the gun on himself, would you still want to categorize him as a terrorist?
The thing is you don't want to dilute the word "terrorist" if the guy's behavior prior to the incident, doesn't match the description. But if I had to guess, if the guy is a registered Republican he'll be called a terrorist and if the guy is a registered Democrat, he'll be called "some nutjob."
Oops, I have to add to my post that the family apparently wasn't inside the house he tried to burn down.
No, if the guy was a registered Democrat they would say the tax protesters made him do it. Oh wait the insane demented left is already saying he was a tax protester
How do you know that his intention was to kill IRS employees? In his state of mind, he probably intended more to make a statement about the injustice of the IRS. Can't Americans sympathize with him even a little because we agree that american life can be very stressful on a man, espec when he has been harassed by the IRS. The muslims did it b/c of their religious belief and knew what they were doing intentionally. The austin guy was just tired of life, knew he wanted to end it all and go out with a bang. I feel sorry for the guy, but at least he fulfilled his last wish.
what??
what a daffy thing to say
good grief!!
I have no sympathy for this hack
out with a bang??
oh yeah, he fulfilled his deam all right by killing others
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
